"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a559dc1a95a74a59b650d1aa44d3145e\u0022\u003ENOVEMBER\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002285aa27236ffe4b01a59f0e2963439ea1\u0022\u003ENOVEMBER\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000002\u0022\u003ETUESDAY, 4  2003\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000004\u0022\u003EMr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000005\u0022\u003EPrayers.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226a61904a99f84082800e6fd06dcc9cfe\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u2019S\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e77cae2f9b484540b7487f2eb3f15f51\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u2019S\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000007\u0022\u003E STATEMENTS\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bbbacc1e0fe8431aafafbe1535c1cc06\u0022\u003EDonna Awatere Huata\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000010\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: I have received the following letter from the Director of the Serious Fraud Office: \u201CDear Mr Speaker, In accordance with the conventions applied to the application of the criminal justice system to members of Parliament, I must advise you that I have laid a number of charges under the Crimes Act 1961 against Donna Awatere Huata, a list member of Parliament with the ACT party. Ms Huata was arrested this morning and appeared in the District Court at Napier, where she was remanded on bail. The court did not make any orders suppressing any of the details of the court appearance. Twelve charges have been brought against Donna Awatere Huata. Eleven of these allege the use of a document to defraud\u2014namely, the use of cheques to defraud the Pipi Foundation. The remaining charge alleges that Donna Awatere Huata perverted the course of justice in relation to investigations being undertaken into the affairs of the Pipi Foundation. D J Bradshaw, Director.\u201D\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000011\u0022\u003EPOINTS OF ORDER\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002200da1e546aa146b9a840f69e82362879\u0022\u003ENational Party Leadership\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000013\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave that, at the end of this day\u2019s question time, there be a debate for 1\u00BD hours on the issue of the National Party\u2019s change of leadership.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f471f128251444da8118dad5534bb62\u0022\u003ESPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member has properly sought leave. Is there any objection?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EThere is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As Leader of the House, I just wish to make it clear that we do not have enough time to do that every time the National Party changes its leader.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: As is so often the case, that was not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a long tradition in this House that when a political party does elect a new leader that is acknowledged in the House. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr Brash. I am sure he will prove to be a very worthy leader of a very worthy party, and wish him every best wish in his new role. I would also like to acknowledge Bill English in the role that he played in leading the National Party also.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: That may well be the member\u2019s view, but that is the first time I have heard that particularly done in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: I want to move on to questions. I do not want any more frivolous points of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275c0415df9864aeca752fe563b39a931\u0022\u003EWINSTON\u003C/span\u003E PETERS: It is not a frivolous point of order. I therefore now seek leave for an urgent debate to take place on the issue of the National Party\u2019s leadership after question time tomorrow\u2014in which case, he will be more permanent in his job.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that to occur. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ea8031b25e1e480daaefae30d8cc50ae\u0022\u003EQUESTIONS\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c792d336ea714b69b0086121e167ea36\u0022\u003EQUESTIONS\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000025\u0022\u003E FOR ORAL ANSWER\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000027\u0022\u003EQUESTIONS TO MINISTERS\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002217f1a9219b08466fbe07e3791639ee09\u0022\u003ETaxation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000029\u0022\u003E\u2014Policy\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ECLAYTON \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d2200caa74f46789a81b6f131d57071\u0022\u003ECOSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E (Labour\u2014Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government\u0027s priorities for changes to the tax system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd81a190cac74617925fef15f1e27e3e\u0022\u003ECULLEN\u003C/span\u003E (Minister of Finance): The Government is engaged in a comprehensive programme of tax simplification and compliance cost reduction. We also plan to introduce a package in the 2004 Budget to deliver income increases, including through the tax system, to low and middle income families.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287483638bc23474c9b50d44428b0d802\u0022\u003EClayton\u003C/span\u003E Cosgrove: Has the Minister received any reports on other possibilities for tax changes? [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Dr \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022048cfc69fb6c4780a2a9d84526dedd0c\u0022\u003EMICHAEL\u003C/span\u003E CULLEN: And can I add my welcome to Dr Brash. I have seen a report advocating a reduction in the top income tax rate and the corporate tax rate to 30c in the dollar. This would deliver nothing to anybody earning under $38,000 a year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EJohn Key: Earning less under you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I notice the spy has not come in from the cold just yet! This would not deliver anything to anybody earning under $38,000 a year, and would place considerable pressure on both the fiscal position and the economy, where the domestic sector is moving very strongly. It is no wonder that National post-coup is described as a bunch of deranged haemophiliacs arguing over which is the best band- aid.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: That last phrase was out of order, and I ask that it be withdrawn.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I withdraw it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash: Given that the Minister\u2019s own preferred measure of the Budget balance shows the surplus in the year ended June 2003 was $5.6 billion, is he determined to continue overtaxing hard-working New Zealanders; if so, is this related to his need to fund his planned election year give-aways?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is a bit rich, as we might say on this side of the House, to describe a programme designed to deliver better incomes to low and middle income people as a give-away, but tax cuts for people on many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year as, presumably, good economics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDail Jones: Why does the Government give greater priority in its changes to the tax system to giving tax incentives for foreigners in the film industry, while failing to support New Zealanders in export businesses with tax incentives such as the New Zealand First proposal for a 20 percent tax rate, especially bearing in mind this country\u2019s seriously deteriorating balance of payments situation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The film industry offers the opportunity for substantial development of employment and wealth creation within New Zealand. But I think if the member actually looked seriously at his proposal on tax rates, which involves differentiating between an exporting business or a non-exporting business and which part of it is exporting and which part of it is not, he would find that huge compliance costs would be created in trying to operate differential tax rates in that regard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERod Donald: Why does the Minister continue to refuse to give middle and low income workers in this country the same 6 percent tax concession that those earning over $60,000 currently enjoy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The roughly $79 million a year cost of that would be far better spent if there were other mechanisms designed to address and assist savings. The Government expects to make announcements on that within the next few months.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDavid Benson-Pope: What is the estimated cost of reducing the top personal tax rate and the corporate rate to 30c?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The reduction would cost approximately $1.7 billion. It should be noted that if that was applied to increases for low and middle income families via such mechanisms as family support, it could lead to increases of about $150 a week or more for a two-child low-income family. Under the proposals I have seen, that family would not get a single cent extra.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMinisterial Confidence\u2014Police, Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Police; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister\u2019s idea of a police force sufficiently resourced to deal with all facets of crime in this country the new multilingual handbook that now enables police to arrest people in 40 different languages, and how is a police officer expected to hold a baton, handcuffs, and a handbook at the same time whilst trying to find the correct language of 40 languages to shout: \u201CStop, you\u2019re under arrest!\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think it is admirable that the police are being responsive to a range of communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ESimon Power: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Police when under his watch, violent crime has risen 3.6 percent in the 2002-03 year, while he has done nothing except bluster in this House?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: My confidence in the Minister is well founded, particularly when I see that for the 2002-03 year there was the highest police resolution rate for recorded crime for 20 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EKeith Locke: Does the Prime Minister have confidence that the Minister of Police is adequately monitoring how the police apply the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions on free speech when launching prosecutions under the Telecommunications Act with regard to the content of emails, and are there any recent instances that give her cause for concern in this regard?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: I assume the member is referring to a matter that appeared on television news last night in respect of an email sent by an Aucklander to the American Embassy. I assume the American Embassy exercised its rights, as anyone can, to lay a complaint. The matter is before the courts and it would not be appropriate to comment further.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: How does she expect the country to believe her on the issue of the resourcing of police, when in a recent boy-racer riot in Tauranga the police arrested no one at all, nor did they confiscate any cars, because they said that they simply did not have the resources?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have not seen that report, but I do know that at the initiative of a member of this House, Clayton Cosgrove, the law was tightened on boy racers, and the police will enforce that law.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ELand Transport Management Bill\u2014Auckland Issues\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E3. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that \u201Cthe Government is preparing a major land transport package which will help address Auckland\u0027s congestion\u201D; if so, will the Government accept amendments to the Land Transport Management Bill to address the criticisms by Auckland business and local government interests that in its current form the bill will fail to deliver adequate solutions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, and no, for good reason. I do note that the Mayor of Auckland has said that the bill now scores an eight out of 10 in achieving faster progress to equip Auckland with a modern, integrated transport network.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash: Is the Prime Minister aware that the bill has been described as \u201Cstill not enough tools to urgently fix Auckland\u2019s incomplete transport network\u201D by the same mayor, John Banks; \u201Ca red light to road users\u201D by Business New Zealand; \u201Calmost hopeless\u201D by the Employers and Manufacturers Association; and \u201Cbad news for the majority of New Zealanders\u201D by the Automobile Association; if so, will she consider amendments to address the concerns of those organisations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: I consider an 80 percent tick rate by the Mayor of Auckland to be very good, and we are happy to keep talking with him about the other 20 percent. I also know that under this Government, Auckland has at last got its fair share of transport funding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Mark Gosche: What other reports has the Prime Minister seen on the Government\u2019s work on Auckland transport issues?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: Overall, local government in Auckland has been very positive. The Mayor of Auckland has said that not only is very good progress being made on Auckland transport issues, but that for the first time in 25 years we have a Government of a mind to engage with Auckland so that Auckland can address its problems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: If any of that is remotely true, why is the Government collecting $2.2 billion in all sorts of road taxes with the intention of repairing or constructing new roads, yet giving Transfund almost less than half of that\u2014$1.2 billion; why is she robbing the New Zealand motorist and road user in the way she is?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: Every Government, for a very long time, including the one the member served in, has taken more money off various road users in petrol and fuel levies than it has spent on roading. Not to do so would lead us to radically increase other forms of taxes, which we are not prepared to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington: Given that earlier this year she described herself as \u201Ca straight shooter\u201D, who \u201Ctells it like it is\u201D, and who \u201Cleaves people in no doubt where she stands\u201D, were those answers to Dr Brash\u2019s questions as straight shooting as she can manage, or is it not true that she prefers to remove herself as far as possible from Auckland\u2019s transport problems?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: As someone who, with the exception of 1 year, has lived in Auckland for the last 40 years, I am very familiar with Auckland issues\u2014more, I might say, than some in this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EJeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister agree that the 21st century transport legislation negotiated between the Government and the Greens will do more for Auckland\u2019s transport through proper funding of public transport, alternatives to roading, and demand reduction\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: Mr Heatley will leave the Chamber. I said no interjecting during question time. Please repeat the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why do you pick on our side for interjections when there have been numerous interjections around the House, including one from the Minister immediately to your left that was clearly audible to everyone here? Surely, he should be going as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: I will not have the member questioning my decision. I had given the one warning that I always give. That was not the first interjection; it was about the third. I ignored the other two, but the third was made loudly. The member will leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EPhil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EJeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister agree that the 21st century transport legislation negotiated between the Government and the Greens will do more for Auckland\u2019s transport congestion through proper public transport, demand management, and alternatives to roading, than the mindless pouring of concrete recommended by some other parties?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do want to acknowledge the considerable assistance given by both the Greens and United Future on this legislation. I believe that it is good legislation, because it goes beyond just narrowly looking at road, to looking at all modes of transport, including alternatives to transport. The fact that under this Government, money for public transport has doubled, I think is a triumph.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock: What is her reaction to the group of major Auckland transport operators, including the Auckland chamber of commerce, that yesterday urged the Government to implement the Land Transport Management Bill with urgency so that further steps can be taken to achieve faster road network completion in Auckland?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand that the Minister of Transport had a very constructive meeting with that group yesterday. It is hoped to make great progress on this bill this week so that it can be got on with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash: In light of the strong chorus of criticism of this bill, will the Prime Minister take the advice of Mr Simon Carlaw, chief executive of Business New Zealand, to \u201Ctake this legislation back off the Greens and put it right\u201D, or will she continue to ignore the advice of Auckland business and local body leaders about the shortcomings of this bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: I believe it is very good legislation. It is not the policy of this Government to put things \u201Cright\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: What is honest about a system that bleeds the motorist of over a billion dollars a year for her weirdo pet projects, and is Mr Swain, the Minister of Transport, saying that whilst Auckland will not have tolls on its bridge, Tauranga will?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is up to Tauranga to decide for itself. But can I say that the Government\u2019s policy on funding transport is just as honest as the sentiment contained in the minority report from New Zealand First that advocated another 5c levy on petrol.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table that report so that the country might know the truth, apart from what it has just heard from the Prime Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington: Does she support comments made by the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, the Hon Judith Tizard, who opposes the eastern highway because it will give \u201Cthe people in Howick an extra half-hour in bed\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: The Minister will leave the Chamber. Members were warned about interjections. Please start again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington: Does she support comments made by the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, the Hon Judith Tizard, who opposes the eastern highway because\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Judith Tizard withdrew from the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: I will deal with the member when she returns to the Chamber. Please start again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington: Does she support comments made by the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, the Hon Judith Tizard, who opposes Auckland\u2019s eastern highway because it will give \u201Cthe people in Howick an extra half-hour in bed\u201D, or will it be left to Dr Brash and this party to solve Auckland\u2019s transport problems?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member for Auckland Central is an honourable member and she said she did not say that she opposed it. What I can say is that this Government takes a well-rounded view of land transport issues. Motorways are not the only solution. Demand management, as the leader of the Green Party mentioned recently, is an important ingredient. Frankly, if the country had waited for the last National Government to solve Auckland\u2019s transport problems, it would still be waiting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr Don Brash: Can I seek the Prime Minister\u2019s confirmation that she will not put Auckland\u2019s traffic problems right, but that they will be left as they are?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: I note it took the member several minutes to drop to that particular pun. I have every intention of this Government fixing Auckland\u2019s transport problems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Herald article by Bernard Orsman quoting the Hon Judith Tizard as stating the eastern highway was not the right solution \u201Cjust so all the people in Howick can have an extra half-hour in bed\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ESolomon Islands\u2014Police and Defence Deployment\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E4. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour\u2014Mana) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: To what extent has New Zealand achieved its objective in deploying police and Defence Force personnel to the Solomon Islands?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): In less than 100 days the deployment has made enormous progress towards its first objective\u2014that is, helping to restore law and order and a new sense of security. Over 3,700 weapons have been collected, 200 arrests have been made for major crimes, including Harold Keke and Jimmy Rasta, 25 allegedly corrupt and criminal police officers have been arrested, and a further 50 dismissed. This has all helped to provide a positive environment to restore Government services, to restore the economy, and to reform the public sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ELuamanuvao Winnie Laban: How long will police and Defence Force personnel continue to be deployed?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF: This month\u2014probably towards the end of the month\u2014the infantry company will be withdrawn and replaced by an enhanced platoon of 40 Defence Force personnel. The helicopter support will be phased out by May of next year, and, as foreshadowed, the 35 police personnel will continue on a rotational basis for up to 2 years. Their continued presence after this time will be considered in the light of events.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Was a New Zealand Army infantry company part of the original request from Australia for forces to assist in the Solomon Islands; if so, why, precisely, did the Government, on 14 July, not agree to that request from the Australians?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF: The member is quite wrong. The Government did agree to the request. We said that there would be a company on stand-by, if required. Some time after that the Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, rang me to ask for New Zealand to deploy that company. Within 48 hours a decision had been made, and the troops were on the ground at the time they were originally expected. They have stayed there for the full duration of the deployment we foreshadowed at the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EChild, Youth and Family Services, Department\u2014Baseline Review\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E5. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): What responsibility does the Government accept for problems in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services that the First Principles Baseline Review finds to be \u201Cdeep and systemic\u201D and that \u201Care about more than just levels of resourcing\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): The Government does believe that the department must have the resources and systems in place to fulfil its functions. That is why we agreed to the whole-of-organisation review of the department, after it had been in operation for 2 financial years. That was a long enough time to give us a good knowledge of the real issues facing the department.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EKatherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question. It is quite simple: after 4 years in office, does the Government see itself being responsible for the failings at the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services\u2014yes or no?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: No, the member cannot insist on a \u201Cyes\u201D or \u201Cno\u201D answer. The Minister addressed the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EKatherine Rich: In a week when the damning house report will be released, and when the chief executive was scheduled to be before the Social Services Committee for the department\u2019s financial review, is it not just too much of a coincidence for Jackie Pivac to up and resign and swan off for a holiday, when she and the Government have more pressing issues to attend to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EGeorgina Beyer: What does the Minister believe is the underlying cause of the problems identified in the baseline review?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services was set up as a stand-alone department in 1999 by the National-led Government, with neither sufficient resources nor systems, and without an adequate infrastructure. That followed a history of underfunding by the National Government. For example\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is an extremely serious issue. Children die in this country because of the failure of this department. To start saying that it is the problem of a previous Government, after this Government has been in office for 4 years and through four Budgets, breaches every aspect of the Standing Order and should be stopped.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: And that stops, too, because it is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: Point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: It had better be a point of order this time, because that previous point was not; it was a point of debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to Standing Order 372, which talks about the use of arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets or ironical expressions. That is all we have had from this Minister on an extremely serious issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: It is up to the Minister how she constructs her answer\u2014as long as she addresses the question. She had not finished.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: That followed a history of underfunding by the National Government. For example, the former agency\u2019s budget was slashed by $30 million in the 3 years between 1990 and 1993\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: I accept interjection during answers; I do not accept a rabble-like noise. There is too much interjection; I must be able to hear the Minister. Some interjection is fair enough, but I must be able to hear the answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EBarbara Stewart: What proposals are planned in the current Budget round to solve the fundamental problems that cause the overwhelming demand for the services of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services; or is the Minister\u2019s Government prepared merely to sacrifice the careers of senior public servants on a regular basis?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: The member asking the question may have overlooked the fact that about 10 days ago we released the baseline review of the department, which had a comprehensive package of recommendations and the funding agreed to in order to implement those recommendations.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr Muriel Newman: On what day did the Minister first find out that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services did not know how many children were in its care, and can she tell the House what she did about it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: I regret I am unable to provide that information, but I will provide it to the member as soon as possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ESue Bradford: What level of expertise and practice management will Treasury and the State Services Commission bring to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services on the new advisory group set up as a result of the baseline review, and will the Minister consider adding someone with credibility in this area, such as the Commissioner for Children, to the advisory group?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: I do believe that that proposal is worthy of consideration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMarc Alexander: What responsibility does the Government and the Associate Minister accept for the alarming fact that about half of the notifications to the department have to be revisited because they were not dealt with effectively, when what that means in real terms is that in 32,000 cases children have suffered from further abuse and neglect unnecessarily; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: That specific point was identified in the baseline review: that the trade-off between quality and quantity had been made to the detriment of the performance that was acceptable. That is responded to by the recommendations of the baseline review.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EKatherine Rich: When the Minister offers the lame excuse that, after 4 years, it is still the National Government\u2019s fault for underfunding, how does she reconcile that comment in light of the Prime Minister\u2019s statement regarding the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services that: \u201CIt\u2019s no longer about money. There\u2019s been a lot of money going in, so there must be something about systems, processes, and the ways of operating which isn\u2019t working.\u201D; does her Government accept responsibility for the failure of those systems and processes over the last 4 years; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: That was exactly the point that was made in the baseline review: that it was about more than just money. Since we were elected in 1999, we have significantly increased the money, and, as the baseline review recommendations pointed out, it did not make a marked difference. That is why the previous Minister agreed to have a baseline review.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EGeorgina Beyer: Is the Minister able to expand upon what the Government is doing to address the problems facing the department?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: We have already increased funding to the department by more than 50 percent. We have improved the professionalism of social workers, strengthened the relationship with the community sector, and agreed to the baseline review recommendations. The review has a comprehensive range of recommendations, which will be implemented.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr Muriel Newman: Does the Minister believe that the former Minister Steve Maharey\u2019s $216 million \u201Ccircuit-breaker\u201D programme to rebuild the image of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services delivered on its promise; if so, in light of the damning review of the department, exactly what did the $216 million circuit-breaker programme achieve?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: The member misrepresents the purpose of that funding increase, and, in my view, that is irresponsible when we are talking about the functions of such an important department.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider that answer. The Minister said that the question was misleading and, therefore, somehow out of order. The phrase was \u201Ccircuit-breaker\u201D, and that is what the Minister said it was. I suggest that if the Minister is going to accuse members on this side of misleading, then she should at least elaborate on what she is saying.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: The Minister never used the term \u201Cmisleading\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Peter Dunne: Following on from the baseline review and the resignation of the chief executive, what assurances can the Minister give the parents, caregivers, and families of the children who are now clients of the service that their cases will be dealt with in a professional, stable, and beneficial way for those children?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: The baseline review did acknowledge that there were deep and systemic problems with the operations of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, some of which will cause public concern. That is why the Government made it a priority to consider and support the implementation and full funding of the recommendations\u2014for exactly the reason the member raised in his question: so that the public can have confidence in the department\u2019s functions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EKatherine Rich: Does she agree with the Hon Tariana Turia\u2019s statement regarding the resignation of the chief executive of the Child, Youth and Family that: \u201CThis situation was not of her making, and is a reflection of Jackie\u2019s integrity and character that she has offered to resign.\u201D; and does she think that her failure to express confidence in Jackie Pivac, plus the placement of three other Government organisations to babysit the department, played some part in the decision of Jackie Pivac to resign?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: Yes and no.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ETe Whare Whakapikiora o te Rangimarie Trust\u2014Funding\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E6. HEATHER ROY (ACT) to the Minister of Health: Why did the Ministry of Health make a final payment of $90,665.33 including GST to the Te Whare Whakapikiora o te Rangimarie Trust when there was no contractual obligation to do so, and why did the ministry pay $74,146.96 excluding GST of this payment directly to the Inland Revenue Department to cover the trust\u0027s outstanding tax liability?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): The Ministry of Health did not make a final payment of $90,665.33 GST inclusive to the trust. The trust received $5,625 GST inclusive in recognition of services provided without payment from July 2001 to January 2002 while the ministry carried out a second review. A tax liability of $74,146.96 GST exclusive had been identified by the Inland Revenue Department, prior to the second review commencing, relating to koha payments made to voluntary staff dating back to 1995. The ministry decided to pay the Inland Revenue Department directly for the outstanding tax, as the trust would not have the ability to clear the debt because its contract had not been renewed and the debt did go back 6 years, when the trust was contracted to operate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHeather Roy: Of the $688,000 received by the trust, does the ministry know how much was used to provide M\u0101ori patients with treatment by Mr Apera Clark, traditional M\u0101ori healer and clairvoyant, and how much was spent by him and his wife on personal rent, power, petrol, groceries, dog food, digital television, spa pools, and cases of muttonbirds; or does she and her ministry not care how this money was spent?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING: Certainly the Ministry of Health and this Government do care how money is spent. In fact, the first review on this trust took place under the old Health Funding Authority, starting back in 1999. It then came to the Ministry of Health in December 2000. That is when a second review was carried out. It was not happy with the services provided by Mr Huata and the trust, and decided to terminate the contract. It was terminated. They received no more money after they were given\u2014[Interruption] They received no more money for services\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EStephen Franks: You know that\u2019s not true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment. He knows it is out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EStephen Franks: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING: They received no more money for the contract other than the $5,600 that was paid out after July 2002.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott: Does she or her ministry know whether any patients were treated at Mr Apera Clark\u2019s M\u0101ori cultural and spiritual healing clinic after the Ministry of Health contracts expired; if so, how many patients and what health outcomes were achieved?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING: My understanding is that, yes, patients continued to be treated by the trust after the contract expired at the end of June 2001. I do not know how many people received services, but the trust has been providing those same services\u2014 traditional M\u0101ori healing services\u2014from 1995. That is what it was contracted to provide\u2014first of all as a pilot in 1995, then in 1998 it was given a year-on-year contract.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHeather Roy: How come the ministry continued paying Mr Apera Clark $2,076 a week for 10 months, after a ministry audit revealed that patients were being treated by untrained staff, patient safety was at risk, there was no sterilising equipment, patients\u2019 records contained no medicine dosages, and one consultation was counted as three for payment because consultations involved prayer, counselling, and medicine dispensing; and how can she deny that she has two standards\u2014one for politically correct healing and one for medicine that works, because any proper medical practitioner would be struck off?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING: I am certainly not defending anybody who provides a shonky service. However, let us get this into perspective. Traditional M\u0101ori healing was provided funding in this particular trust, going back 6 years. It was done not just by this Government; it was funded over a number of years, and the Ministry of Health continued to fund the trust while it was reviewing it. However, prior to the conclusion of that review, the ministry had given notice that the contract would not be renewed, and it did not renew the contract.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister telling us that because this trust was established in 1995, one could probably conclude that the ACT party, the National Party, and the Labour Party, on these matters to do with one standard position for all, have the same policy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: The Minister has no responsibility for other parties; she has responsibility for her own party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING: What I can conclude is that this Government and previous Governments before us have decided that we can, and should, fund traditional M\u0101ori healing, following the development of proper guidelines for traditional M\u0101ori healing under the National Health Committee, under a National Government. Interestingly enough, we also provided funding for traditional M\u0101ori healing when that member was Treasurer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHeather Roy: Is it her policy to fund M\u0101ori spiritual and cultural healing, and is there any clinical evidence that such healing is effective; or is this funding just political correctness gone mad?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING: It obviously is not considered to be political correctness gone mad. As I said, in the mid-1990s guidelines were developed by the National Health Committee, which were then used for contracting by the previous Government and this Government\u2014[Interruption]\u2014and I can tell the member who is screeching over there that it is our Government\u2019s policy also to fund traditional M\u0101ori healing, so long as it meets the guidelines established by the National Health Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHeather Roy: I seek leave of the House to table a letter from the Ministry of Health to Mr Apera Clark, asking him to send an invoice for the final payment of $90,665.33 for services undertaken.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EAustralia\u2014New Zealand Relationship\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E7. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Does he believe that New Zealand\u0027s relationship with Australia is a close and positive relationship; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): From our perspective, it improved after the last league test but deteriorated somewhat after the first two 1-day matches. Politically, however, I think the relationship is good.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Did the Government agree in late August to send an infantry company to the Solomon Islands\u2014after refusing and only putting one on stand- by in July\u2014because of a second letter from the Australians with what a Cabinet paper suggests were \u201Cmore worthwhile military tasks\u201D or because of serious Australian frustration with New Zealand, reflected in the speech made by the Australian High Commissioner, Dr Allan Hawke, on 15 August, just before the decision, where he said: \u201CThe ANZAC relationship is finely poised on the fulcrum. It can go one way or the other ...\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF: Once again, the member is absolutely wrong. This Government, right at the start, said it would provide a company; that a company was on stand-by; it would be sent if needed and requested. When it was needed and requested it was sent immediately. To draw a line with the high commissioner\u2019s speech, which had nothing to do with the connection the member is trying to draw, is quite bizarre.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDavid Benson-Pope: Could the Minister detail other positive comments that he may have seen reflecting New Zealand\u2019s relationship with Australia?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF: There have been many such comments. For example, in March this year, Prime Minister John Howard said that the opportunities he had to talk with Helen Clark \u201Cabout developing further an already very close and intimate relationship are quite without parallel\u201D. Another quote that relates to Dr Smith\u2019s question came from Foreign Minister Alexander Downer who last week paid tribute to New Zealand last week, saying that restoring life to normality in the Solomon Islands could not have been achieved without the major contribution that New Zealand had made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley: If High Commissioner Hawke\u2019s comment: \u201CThe ANZAC relationship is finely poised on the fulcrum.\u201D was not referring to the situation in the Solomon Islands, what was it referring to; and is the Minister concerned about that statement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF: I am happy to table the speech, and the report of the speech, for the member. The high commissioner was saying he was concerned that the next generation would be a further generation removed from the ANZAC tradition, and he was concerned about what might happen in the future. He also said, in answer to a question about the defence relationship: \u201CI don\u2019t see any fracturing or downgrading of the defence relationship, in any shape or form.\u201D How much clearer could he have been?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Minister consider it to be a close and positive relationship, when his Cabinet, on request from Australia to contribute troops to the Solomons, looks at the proposal\u2014and the Cabinet paper itself refers to thankless tasks\u2014and declines to send troops; and then on a second request, where the Cabinet paper then speaks of more worthwhile tasks, the Government decides to send troops; and does he consider that is a positive relationship when New Zealand contributes troops so long as they get a better job from the Australians?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF: One would hardly send a company of infantry to do a job that did not exist. The Labour-led Government made it absolutely clear that the company was there if required; it would continue training in New Zealand until such time as it was required. When it was required, it was sent immediately. I have already quoted to the member the high praise given by the Australian Foreign Minister about New Zealand\u2019s contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I seek leave to table the Cabinet papers that show the Government made those decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDocuments, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EChild, Youth and Family Services, Department\u2014Election Promises\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E8. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she stand by Labour\u0027s 2002 election promise that it will \u201CInvest more funding in community-based services meeting the needs of children and families and improve social work practice at Child, Youth and Family.\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMarc Alexander: In the light of the Government\u2019s election commitment, when will she action the call, made in the report provided by Mick Brown 3 years ago, that the department should contract out all tasks\u2014other than those relating to the immediate safety and security of children\u2014to community agencies, allowing the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services the time it needs to carry out those functions that are best and most appropriately carried out by a Government agency?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: Of the 53 recommendations that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is responsible for implementing\u2014in the report by Judge Mick Brown, which the member referred to\u2014over 40 have already been completed, and the rest are partially completed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMoana Mackey: How has the Government met its 2002 election promise?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: More than 900 community service organisations will receive funding totalling nearly $90 million in this financial year. The latest Budget included an additional $25.6 million over the next 4 years for these services. We have also improved social work practice by setting up registration of social workers and investing significantly more in training.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EKatherine Rich: When Labour\u2019s 1999 child, youth, and family election promise was to ensure that all State agencies keep accurate statistics relating to their services for families, how does she reconcile that election promise with the fact that today the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is unsure how many children are in its care and whether they are enrolled in a school?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: I would agree that that particular manifesto commitment has not been completely delivered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Peter Dunne: In light of the Government\u2019s 2002 election commitment, has the Government given consideration to abolishing the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services as a Government agency altogether and better resourcing the community and voluntary agencies that currently work with at-risk children and young people to ensure that a better range of services are provided to those needy young people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: No, the Government has not considered that proposal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMarc Alexander: In light of Labour\u2019s commitment to increase funding to community-based services, does the Minister agree that the proposal for a family support services operational group within the Ministry of Social Development is merely another concession to the empire building of her colleague, when this is exactly the kind of work that could be carried out by the community groups that the Government pledged to fund last year\u2014and do it better?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: No, I do not agree with either of the assertions made by the member in his question. It is almost impossible to comprehend how the member could envisage an individual community organisation having both the mandate and the ability to provide an overarching family service policy in the way that is envisaged through the recommendation of the baseline review to be instigated within the Ministry of Social Development.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMinisterial Confidence\u2014Health, Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: If she is such a hard-working and conscientious Minister, why is she a Minister who says that the efficacy of Alzheimer\u2019s drugs has not been proven, when Canada, UK, Australia, USA, Latin America, and Western Europe all make those drugs publicly available; or is this just another example of inexcusable, inexplicable, heartless cost-cutting?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, none of the above. This country has very careful mechanisms for assessing what drugs it is appropriate to fund, and I am not aware that those mechanisms and procedures have changed substantially in recent years, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Prime Minister not inform herself of the facts before she rises and makes a statement like that, when Canada, UK, Australia, USA, Latin America, and Western Europe\u2014nearly all the First World\u2014recognise that those drugs do work, and make them publicly available, whilst her Minister is demanding that Pharmac do a trial to find out what everybody else in the world knows and is prepared to spend money on, excepting her heartless Government and Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can only repeat that getting value for money is very important, and that does not mean paying any price for any drug that a pharmaceutical company wants.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDr Lynda Scott: Is the Prime Minister aware that these drugs are the only treatment available to patients with Alzheimer\u2019s, and why will they not be funded?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: I suggest the member put down a question on notice with specific reference to the question of Alzheimer\u2019s drugs. It is this Government\u2019s determination to provide proper treatment for people across the range of conditions. It is also a fact that we consider health sufficiently important to have it as a front-bench portfolio.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister might think that health is important enough to have it has a front-bench portfolio, but being informed about it is not what she is demonstrating today. She should not\u2014having attempted to answer two questions already\u2014then pretend that she has adequately answered this House by suggesting that the member \u201Cput down a written question\u201D. She has been asked why the only drug proven worldwide is being denied to the thousands of sufferers in this country, and\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon HELEN CLARK: Speaking to the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: No, I have not finished yet. Sit down! I am on my feet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. He does not have to be rude. He had not finished; I was going to allow him to continue. Would he please continue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: No, the member is within a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: No. My point of order is that the rudeness commenced with the Prime Minister thinking she could rise to her feet when a point of order was being properly made. If you want to point to rudeness, then you should point to her.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: I will make the decision on that. The Prime Minister rose thinking that the member had finished. The member had not finished, and I was going to let him carry on. Would the member please carry on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You can make any defence for her you like, but the reality is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: This is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: The reality is that I was making a point of order. I had not finished, and you have accused me of rudeness when that accusation lies properly with the Prime Minister. I want to continue on when you properly\u2014what you should have done\u2014call her to question and accuse her of rudeness, not me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: The member is wrong. He will carry on with his point of order or he will leave. Would the member please carry on with the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the way I am treated, I am not interested in carrying on with the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ECorrections, Department\u2014Supervision of Paedophile\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E10. RICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom), on behalf of Hon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay of Plenty): to the Minister of Corrections: Will there be an independent investigation into the actions of the Department of Corrections with regard to the supervision of paedophile, Lloyd Alexander McIntosh; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections): No. The offender was being supervised 24 hours a day by a private provider contracted by the Department of Corrections. It is entirely appropriate that the Department of Corrections investigate the actions of the contractor and review its own procedures in relation to such contracts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERichard Worth: Does the Minister agree with the comments made by his colleague the Hon Philip Goff: \u201CWe\u2019re fortunate that it was not at the most serious end of offending.\u201D; if so, is he prepared to explain those comments to Mr McIntosh\u2019s female victim and her family, who are coping with the reality that the State literally stood by while she was being assaulted?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN: On most occasions I agree with the comments made by Philip Goff. I think it is really important to say that the department did all that it could. It made sure that McIntosh stayed in jail for as long as possible, it had conditions applied to the release, it negotiated a 24/7 supervision with McIntosh, it contracted two agencies to carry them out, and it took action when the conditions were breached. The department did all that it could.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ERon Mark: Given that the Minister only yesterday finally conceded that despite his earlier protestations that there was no need for a fully independent inquiry into the Department of Corrections emergency response unit, why will he not now accept that there is quite clearly a need for an independent inquiry into the department\u2019s close supervision programme of Mr Lloyd Alexander McIntosh; or do we just have to sit here and wait until he gets another kick in the butt from the Prime Minister and finally does what we all know he needs to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: The first part of the question can be answered.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN: For a start, as I indicated to the member, I was always relaxed about some form of inquiry, but not political grandstanding. That is why we have taken this course of action, which the member supports. The difference between the two is that this one is about contracting arrangements with third parties. That is why it should be done by the department.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EStudents\u2014Achievement Levels\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E11. JILL PETTIS (Labour\u2014Whanganui) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to lift the educational achievements of school children in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): Our Government is investing heavily in numeracy initiatives, because we see it as a top priority for lifting educational achievement. Initiatives include a nationwide numeracy project involving more than 10,000 teachers and the hugely popular numeracy assessment tool, known as \u201CasTTle\u201D. This award-winning tool allows teachers to test students\u2019 skills, accurately identify their weaknesses, and adapt and target their teaching accordingly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EJill Pettis: What are the benefits of lifting numeracy skills?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD: Good numeracy skills are essential to everyday life and to success. It is important that 5-year-olds can count from one to 10, and it is important for adults to do more complicated calculations\u2014such as starting with a base of 27 and learning to count to 14 from amongst those numbers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Bill English: Can the Minister explain how an increase of 40 percent in spending on Ministry of Education bureaucrats is lifting the educational achievement of children?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD: I will brief the member later, but in the last Budget\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EOpposition Member: Answer the question!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: The Minister has the opportunity to answer the question before any comment like that can be made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD: In the last Budget the former Crown entity, the Specialist Education Services, came into the Ministry of Education, thereby boosting the budget substantially.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon Brian Donnelly: How will shutting down 300 schools help lift educational achievement of New Zealand schoolchildren?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon TREVOR MALLARD: No decision has been taken to close 300 schools, but I should say that spending money on numeracy initiatives rather than on building contractors for empty classrooms would be considerable progress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EEnvironmental Risk Management Authority\u2014Policy\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E12. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her comments about the Environmental Risk Management Authority that \u201CWe have established a system that allows people to have their say on those applications, and I encourage those wishing to do so to use the system\u201D; if so, what is she doing to encourage people to have their say?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Yes, and we have increased the Environmental Risk Management Authority\u2019s funding, giving it the resources to run robust public hearings, but not exhaustive ones, and to build its relationships with the public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley: In its consideration of the GE-onion application currently before it, why did the Environmental Risk Management Authority refuse to hold hearings anywhere but in Christchurch and refuse to allow teleconference facilities to be available so that the many submitters who could not travel to Christchurch could make submissions; and how do those policies encourage those wishing to do so to have their say on the authority\u2019s applications, as the Minister promised would happen?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS: The submissions were heard in Christchurch because the application involves a 15 square metre plot of onions located only in Canterbury and because it is a field trial rather than a release, meaning that most, if not all, genetic material, or heritable material, will be destroyed at the end of the trial. I would also like to point out that it is for the panel to regulate its own hearing practices. However, I understand that a New Zealand resident overseas is being heard by videoconferencing, even though for a very small and concentrated trial.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock: How many submissions have been received by the Environmental Risk Management Authority regarding the application by Crop and Food Research to begin field trials on genetically modified onions, and does that number suggest to her that people are still confused about the difference between commercial release, which was covered by the moratorium, and field trials, which have been taking place for years and were not covered by the moratorium?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS: I am advised that around 1,900 written submissions were received. Although about half of those are form submissions, the number still indicates to me that people want to have a say in these matters. I believe that the system we have set up gives them that opportunity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EDavid Parker: Is the application concerning onions to the Environmental Risk Management Authority from Crop and Food Research the first of its kind in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS: No, it is not. We have had 13 other field tests of genetically modified organisms in New Zealand already. Those have been for a variety of organisms, including potatoes, cattle, and petunias. In other words, the authority has had plenty of experience with these kinds of applications.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley: Why did the Environmental Risk Management Authority offer teleconference facilities to an overseas submitter but not to any submitters in New Zealand, and, when parliamentary select committees are able to advise submitters when they should turn up to make a submission, why is the authority unable even to advise some submitters which day they can be expected to be heard by the authority; and is not all this just part of an ongoing authority strategy to make it as difficult as possible for ordinary New Zealanders to make submissions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS: I understand that one of the other submitters who applied for a videoconference was Jon Carapiet of GE-Free New Zealand, knowing also that four other members of GE Food New Zealand are appearing and being heard by the authority. Jon Carapiet, I think, was on the Green Party list at the last election. Mr Carapiet asked to appear on the videoconference link only at 5 p.m. last Friday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EJeanette Fitzsimons: When she decided recently that our taxes would fund 87 percent of the cost of the Environmental Risk Management Authority\u2019s regulatory hearings in order to shield applicants from paying the full costs of their business activities, did she ensure that the authority received enough funds to conduct hearings in main centres and provide teleconference facilities, as is routine for select committees; if not, will she provide this funding?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS: I remind the questioner that when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was passed in 1996, it was decided by the then Government that there would be a 100 percent cost recovery by 1999. Because of a delay in the hazardous substances part of the Act, that did not come into place until 2001. It was decided at that time that the 100 percent cost recovery was too large a barrier for people working in hazardous substances, such as plastics manufacturers, as well as for people involved in research on new organisms. I would remind the questioner again that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is a statutory authority; it is not under ministerial direction. Certainly, it gets funding from the Minister, and, as a statutory authority, it determines the details of how it conducts its hearings.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley: In light of her claim that \u201CERMA makes its decisions in an open and transparent manner\u201D, why did the authority go into a secret session yesterday so that details of Crop and Food Research\u2019s collaborator in the onion field trial could remain secret; and what exactly is commercially sensitive about the name of a company that a Crown research entity is collaborating with?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS: As I was not at the authority hearing yesterday, I am not totally sure which information is being referred to. When information is defined as commercially sensitive, it is not publicly available for all the applicant\u2019s competitors to see. This is in keeping with New Zealand\u2019s international obligations. It is, of course, made available to the authority, which scrutinises the application in light of all the information it has.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EQuestion No. 8 to Minister\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): During an answer to a supplementary question in relation to question No. 8, I gave an incorrect figure. I would like to correct it now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON: In relation to the recommendations completed on the Judge Brown report, the correct number is 34.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003EPOINTS OF ORDER\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022694d21048f5b4cada34ef17043f46308\u0022\u003EWithdrawal from Chamber\u2014Hon Judith Tizard\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000248\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (National\u2014Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is some interest in the issue of the Hon Judith Tizard. You said that at the conclusion of question time you would deal with the matter.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000249\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: I said I would do so when she returned to the House.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000250\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE: OK. That is all right.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000251\u0022\u003EURGENT DEBATES\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002251326ed2699e49c292dae065e8360ec0\u0022\u003EDepartment of Child, Youth and Family Services\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000253\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: I have received applications under Standing Order 376 from Katherine Rich and Dr Muriel Newman to debate the release of the Government\u2019s baseline review of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, and I consider that it does require the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the applications. As Katherine Rich was the first member to lodge an application with me, I call upon her to move accordingly.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000254\u0022\u003EKATHERINE RICH (National): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. After 4 years of a Labour Government, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is in crisis mode. That is something that the National Party has been saying for the last 2 years. After years of denying Opposition concerns the Government has accepted that, and it has recently been confirmed in the Treasury baseline review. It is quite clear that social workers are overworked, morale is at an all- time low, caseloads are growing at an alarming rate, notifications are rising well above predicted levels, and a waiting list of children has not been cleared. The unallocated case list, which, 2 years ago, Judge Mick Brown said should be reduced to zero within 6 months, has been\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000255\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, and this will not come off her time. I know that select committees are meeting. Members will leave the Chamber quietly if they have to go to those meetings. I want to hear the member concerned.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000256\u0022\u003EKATHERINE RICH: During the last 4 years we have seen review after report, after blueprint, after review, after task force, and basically, all the reports state the same thing. They state that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is underfunded, that there is low morale, and that social workers find it difficult to undertake quality social work in what are extremely difficult situations.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000257\u0022\u003EI say God help the children of New Zealand, because at the moment we cannot guarantee that the department can do so. I had believed that when a notification was made to the department, every notification and every call would be logged. What we have seen in the last couple of weeks is that a 21-minute call from Ron Burrows somehow or another could slip through the cracks. When a distraught father rang to talk about things that would concern most New Zealand parents\u2014things like safety concerns for a 6-year-old girl, who was soiling herself and wetting her pants because she was distraught about the situation she was in\u2014I would have thought that those sorts of things would be important enough to warrant an official notification. We saw that one fall through the cracks, and we look forward to seeing the review of that. When Phil Goff appeared before a select committee and said that there could be a situation whereby a child was kicked out of a whole range of schools, but his or her behaviour was not deemed significant enough for the intervention of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, something is wrong. Obviously, the threshold for intervention is far too high.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000258\u0022\u003ESome incredibly alarming comments have been made in that review, of a sort that I have not read in reviews previously. They were comments like \u201Cthe entire CYF system is unbalanced and unstable\u201D. The children of New Zealand deserve a department that can predictably look after them in times of need. It is clear that the Government\u2019s handling of Child, Youth, and Family Services has been incompetent at best. Let us remember that 2 years ago a report from Judge Mick Brown stated exactly the same things that were included in the baseline review. I tell that Minister that there were 57 recommendations in his report, not 53 as she told the House today. The last time I checked, only a mere handful had been implemented, so it is quite obvious the Government is in a bit of a panic to get through the others.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000259\u0022\u003EJudge Mick Brown\u2019s report, too, highlighted problems with regard to the overwork of social workers, and problems with the risk assessment processes and the unallocated case list. One of his key recommendations was that the unallocated case list, which is basically a list of children waiting to see a social worker, be reduced within 6 months to zero. That does not mean that all incidents would be dealt with immediately. It just means that once the risk is assessed they would be dealt with within 1 day, 3 days, 1 month, etc. The Government has not done that. Sure, at the time, the Government signed up to the recommendation as being one that it would implement, but the recommendation was diluted down, was put into the blueprint, and the specific nature of that particular recommendation was suddenly and conveniently forgotten. The last time I checked, 1,780 children were waiting to have their case assessed by a social worker.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000260\u0022\u003EOne of the things Judge Mick Brown said was that when a case was on the books things could escalate over time, and we have certainly seen that prove to be correct. Members should just remember the names Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson. Those girls were known to the department. In fact, one of the girls had written in her textbook that she was concerned that her stepfather could potentially do her harm. What did the department do? It sent out a letter that, we believe, was intercepted by Bruce Howse. Again and again the names change, but the facts are basically the same. They are facts of incompetence, and of a department that is struggling and under-resourced.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000261\u0022\u003EIt is quite clear that some of the things that have been brought up about Child, Youth and Family Services would not be tolerated if we were talking about individual parents. Let us imagine that an individual parent did not know how many kids were in his or her care. Let us think about a situation where we asked an individual parent whether his or her child was enrolled in a school, and that parent said that he or she was not sure. Basically, that is the situation Child, Youth and Family Services is in. I am absolutely gobsmacked to read that the department does not know how many kids are in its care, how many kids are on its books, and whether those kids are enrolled in a school. I say that school enrolments should be fundamental. They should be one of the basics that are ticked off by every single social worker. The department should know basics like that.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000262\u0022\u003EI look back at Labour\u2019s 1999 election policy concerning Child, Youth, and Family Services. I see it stated Labour was going to \u201Censure that all State agencies kept accurate statistics relating to their services for families, and that this information would be publicly available\u201D. Well, there is something pretty fundamental about whether children are in school. There is something pretty fundamental about knowing how many kids are in one\u2019s care. The failure to know that is simply not good enough. But Labour has tried a number of tricks. What it does is to change the Minister and, conveniently, it gets the chief executive to resign, during the week that a damning report is expected on Child, Youth and Family Services\u2019 handling of the Bruce Howse case. Yes, the Government has given Jackie Pivac the sandbag treatment and it has left no bruises, but the situation she was put in is quite clear. A chief executive cannot work in a situation where the Minister fails to express confidence in her work, where credibility is at risk, and where she has three other Government departments babysitting her work. It is no wonder Jackie Pivac decided that the writing was on the wall, and it was better for her to resign. But what a week it was to resign in. I wonder how useful our financial review process at the Social Services Committee is going to be, when we look down to the end of the table and see not one person whom we can hold accountable for what has been going on in Child, Youth and Family Services over the last year. Everybody will be able to pass the buck and say he or she is sorry, but he or she is not able to answer that question. It is just all too convenient that Jackie Pivac takes off for a holiday in what is quite an important week for Child, Youth and Family Services.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000263\u0022\u003EIn terms of denying Opposition protestations, it is interesting how quiet members are on the Government side of the Chamber. I think they know that we are bringing up a lot of pertinent points, and they have no answer to them. After 4 long years, Child, Youth and Family Services is actually in a worse position than it was 4 years ago; 4 years ago the unallocated case list was not as bad as it is now. It is interesting to hear the Minister blame National\u2019s underfunding of 4 years ago for that. I think that is just a lame excuse, at best, after that period of time, particularly when the Prime Minister has said that the issue is not about money but is about leadership and about running a department. I say to members on the Government side of the House that they can try to distract attention, and can call together new reviews, new blueprints, and new committees. Let us remind them of the child abuse committee that Steve Maharey drew together. It was supposed to be a high-profile committee. I cannot find any evidence that it actually met to discuss a very important issue. All the written questions that I asked about it were delightfully fudged.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000264\u0022\u003EIt will be interesting to see the results from the reviews as they come out this week, particularly in the case of Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson. The member over there on the Government benches can yawn. I say that all the yawning in the world will not bring back those two girls to this world. They were betrayed by Child, Youth and Family Services. I think they deserve greater respect, given that we are talking about issues of such great importance, than just a casual yawn and a quick retort from members on the Government side of the Chamber. There are a whole lot of names tattooed on the brains of many members here\u2014Craig Manukau, Delcelia Witika, \u201CLillybing\u201D, James Whakaruru\u2014and no amount of yap from the Government side of the Chamber will bring back any of those children.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000265\u0022\u003EIt is important to talk about some solutions. Quite clearly, we need to see better leadership from that department. It can commission all the reports it likes, but if they are not implemented all that they will do is to gather dust on a shelf somewhere and postpone what really are some important decisions to be made in that department. No amount of funding and no amount of postponing the inevitable will make things any different for children in this country. They deserve better than that. Children cannot vote, so perhaps that is why members on the Government side of the House are not quite so interested in them. But if children are in need, are vulnerable, and are being abused, they deserve a department they can rely on. Parents also deserve to have a department that, when they ring up, they know will take their views and their concerns seriously. When a 21-minute call can go unheard, unlogged, and not acted upon, it makes all parents in New Zealand feel concerned about Child, Youth and Family Services. It makes all people\u2014all parents, neighbours, grandparents, and citizens of New Zealand\u2014worry about the service that is there to protect our nation\u2019s most vulnerable.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000266\u0022\u003EI suspect we will hear a whole raft of excuses. The Minister had better not dare to say that it is National\u2019s fault, because after 4 long years that does not wash any more. Nobody believes that. Nobody outside this House believes that. When people get into Government and aim to change some of the processes and operations, after a certain amount of time blaming the faults on someone else just does not work any more. We look forward to hearing the excuses from members on the Government side of the Chamber. I have to say, though, that I think the financial review process will probably be a waste of time, because the Government has conveniently put a whole range of people down at the bottom end of the table who will be totally unable to answer our select committee\u2019s questions. The Government tries to change the faces and tries to change the Ministers, but ultimately the problem is the fault of the Government. It should come out and explain its 4 years of inaction.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000267\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): It is a bit rich for that member to come into this House and say that the National Party has no responsibility for the situation in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. In talking about neglect and abuse, I tell the House that in October 1999 when the Labour-led Government took over responsibility for the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Agency, that organisation had been through seven restructurings and five changes of name. It was described by one of their outgoing chief executives, Griff Page, as the most demoralised organisation he had ever seen. So for that member to come into the House and say: \u201CWe care so much about children; it would never have happened in our days.\u201D is frankly gobsmacking, and beggars belief. It is just incomprehensible.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000268\u0022\u003ENational when in Government totally starved services for children and young persons of resources. Its funding in the 1990s completely failed to accommodate growing workloads. It underfunded the agency continually, slashed over $30 million of its budget for the 1990 to 1993 term, and then wondered why it was so dysfunctional in the way it delivered its services. In 1999 the agency became a stand-alone department\u2014just prior to the change of Government. It was a rush job by Roger Sowry and his colleagues to create a stand-alone department with the community funding organisation, and with less funding and infrastructural support than it had had in the past. We knew that the department was fragile at that time, but until we became the Government we did not know that not only had National underfunded, thrown two departments together with less money, and said: \u201CHope you make it, buddies; we are out of here.\u201D\u2014which is what it did\u2014it also had a significant amount of child, youth, and family funding as time- limited funding.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000269\u0022\u003EWhat did Roger Sowry, as Minister, think would happen to the needs of children, young people, and their families in New Zealand? Did he think they would all magically disappear and there would be no future needs? Why was there time-limited funding for a department that had a statutory responsibility for the care and protection of our young people and families? What has Roger Sowry got to say to this House in response to that question? Absolutely nothing! There is no response at all from the former Minister, who should come to this House and explain why he did that to a department with the statutory responsibility that, in my view, is more important than any other\u2014that is, the care and protection of our children.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000270\u0022\u003EWe were left with an organisation that was underfunded, that did not have the infrastructural support or management systems it needed, and that had been operating for only a few months. That is why significantly more resourcing was put into that department. It got the money that our Government considered was needed to do the job that we as Government, and the public, expected it to be able to do. In Budget after Budget the department has had significant amounts of more money. In fact, it had the most significant increase in funding it had ever received in the entire history of that department\u2014whether as an agency or an entity within the Department of Social Welfare\u2014but it kept having to come back for more.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000271\u0022\u003EWhen Steve Maharey was Minister, he asked Judge Mick Brown to undertake a review of the care and protection system, which is a critical part of the work. It is very appropriate that that review was called for, and then the recommendations were put into place. That made a significant difference in the way the department was able to operate in the most critical area of care and protection.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000272\u0022\u003EFor example, Mick Brown\u2019s recommendations improved the relationship with the community\u2019s social services sector. The department does not perform the functions it is required to, on its own. It is vital that it has a strong relationship with the community\u2019s social services sector, and that improved immeasurably because of the actions taken as a result of the Mick Brown report. That report stressed how important it was to improve the front-line capacity of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. That information informed bids to fund record increases in front-line numbers\u2014record increases in the number of people actually doing the work within the department\u2014and to ensure that quality social workers were both recruited and then retained.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000273\u0022\u003EThe unallocated case numbers were a focus of that report, were a focus of the previous Minister, and were significantly reduced. I retain my commitment to that ongoing work. Children received faster service, and community liaison social workers were funded, thus improving the network with foster carers and others who work in our communities to support the care and protection of our children.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000274\u0022\u003EIn anyone\u2019s language and informed view of the department, the quality of its work significantly improved in the time from when the Labour-led Government took over at the end of 1999 to now, when those recommendations from the Mick Brown report have been put into place. Social worker numbers were increased to their highest level ever, and social workers received a pay increase as part of a major recruitment and retention package. They finally got an entirely new computer system based on casework needs and realities rather than the antiquated rubbish that had been passed on to them by Roger Sowry and the National Government of the time.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000275\u0022\u003EThat Government had expected social workers with increasing caseloads to operate with reduced numbers of workers, no infrastructural support, fewer resources than they had ever had, and not even a computer system that responded by looking at their casework needs. That was what the party opposite, when it was in Government, expected of that department. The baseline reviews, and events since, have made some obvious recommendations. That is where we, as members of a responsible party, have to look.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000276\u0022\u003EThe Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has acted on the themes from Mick Brown\u2019s report, such as the fact that the department has to work with communities and not be apart from them. Initiatives like the Stronger Community Action Funds in everyday communities have enabled the department and communities to work together to build stronger families where children are kept safe. That is a critical message that this House and the public of New Zealand need to hear. The best place for children to be kept safe is with their families. In order to ensure that that can happen, we have to work constructively together to build strong families who can give our children safe lives.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000277\u0022\u003EThe department\u2019s chief executive, who announced her resignation from that position yesterday, has led a number of those significant improvements, particularly that of relationship-building with the sector. More funding was provided for programmes like Social Workers in Schools, which has been a resounding success around the country. The call for so long has been that teachers are able to observe children in a way that very few others of us have the opportunity to do. They understand when children are unhappy, distressed, angry, or not functioning to the best of their abilities, and they know when something is wrong with either the children or their relationships with their families. But teachers are not trained, nor do they have time, to make the interventions that are necessary in order to help those children. The Social Workers in Schools programme has filled that gap\u2014a gap that was known but ignored for over 9 years by the National-led Government, but that this Government moved very rapidly to address.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000278\u0022\u003EThat is why I am very happy to look at the investment and achievement of the department in the last 4 years under a Labour-led Government, compared with 9 years of literal abuse and neglect under that Opposition party when it was in Government. The baseline review was called for, and agreed to, by Steve Maharey when he was Minister, and supported by Michael Cullen as Minister of Finance, because it was clear that the department had had 3 years to settle as a stand-alone department, that it had had time to get itself organised, and that anything we discovered from the review would not be mistaken for teething problems, which are inevitable in a new organisation. So after 2 full financial years and at the start of the third year, they said that it was the right time to have a baseline, first-principles review.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000279\u0022\u003EAre we confident that the department understands its functions and responsibilities, and does it have the structure and resources to be able to deliver those responsibilities in a way that is satisfactory to this Government? The response from that baseline review team, whom I want to commend for the highly professional, collaborative, and supportive way that they worked, made it clear to us that urgent action needed to be taken, and that is exactly what we took. I also commend the way my colleagues Michael Cullen, Steve Maharey, and Trevor Mallard have worked with me in a collaborative and supportive way, because we all agree that the work of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is too important for us to underfund and treat with the same neglect as has been the case under the previous administration.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000280\u0022\u003ESo, we took the decision not only to have the baseline review, but also to give it the consideration that it needed, and then to act on its recommendations. The department has enjoyed the collaboration of the other three ministries\u2014the State Services Commission, Treasury, and the Ministry of Social Development. Frankly, I find it offensive to have the sort of criticism aimed at that review team as has been made by the current spokesperson on social welfare for the National Party, Katherine Rich. It is totally unfair to undermine, in the way she did, the quality and the huge amount of energy and effort that went into the review.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000281\u0022\u003EThe Opposition should think about the comments that Mick Brown used in his report. In fact, members opposite might want to think about the title. Mick Brown called his report Care and Protection is About Adult Behaviour, because he knew better than anyone that no matter how good the department\u2019s social workers are, they cannot be in every New Zealand home 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Ultimately, for every New Zealand child to be safe, every New Zealand family has to make that its top priority. In fact, it should be its only priority\u2014for its children, for its neighbours\u2019 children, for its community\u2019s children. For all New Zealand children to be safe, they have to have strong and safe families. So, instead of suggesting, as I have heard Dr Newman suggest, that the department should be ripped to pieces, restructured, and privatised, we should all support social workers in what will always be a very challenging job.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000282\u0022\u003EI want to support every staff person within the department in the work that those staff do. It is one of the most emotionally demanding and challenging jobs, but it is the most important work. Ensuring that our children and young people are safe is the most important responsibility we can give to every public servant, and I know that those public servants put more effort and energy into it than any member opposite ever values. It is about time we started appreciating high-quality public service, instead of calling for it to be privatised, or attacking it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000283\u0022\u003ECalling for the department to be restructured yet again would be a total disaster. It is time for us\u2014and I hope that this Government has shown the sort of leadership that finally can get a positive response from Opposition parties\u2014to get alongside and behind the department, and back it in its work, rather than attacking it. We must stop blaming social workers for every ill in New Zealand society. For many children, the tireless efforts of social workers are the only real hope they have for peace and security in their lives. In other words, I ask the Opposition spokespeople to stop playing petty politics with the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Its job, and the energy and effort of its staff, are too important for that.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000284\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Barbara Stewart.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000285\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek a point of clarification. I know the member rose to her feet, but she did not actually call\u2014 but I did. Are you not meant to call the member who called?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000286\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thought that she had. I would ask the member to call.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000287\u0022\u003EBARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I would like to say that the children of New Zealand need a better deal. They need to be kept safe. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services appears to have been in a constant state of flux in the time that I have been in Parliament. The department is in a state of crisis. We continually hear of mistakes. This is the second review that has now been held and, hopefully, we may get a bit further than we have in the past.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000288\u0022\u003EA picture has long been emerging of this service as one that totally lacks direction, that struggles under the weight of public expectations, that suffers serious systemic failures, and that cannot retain its workforce. The bottom line is that it does not have the systems in place to meet the increasing demand for its services. The Labour Government cannot blame previous administrations for the department\u2019s performance over the past 4 years, as I have heard. After 4 years in Government, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Steve Maharey, and the multitude of other Ministers who are also associated with this department with varying degrees of responsibility, have not demonstrated the political will to address the steadily increasing demand for its services and the department\u2019s ability to meet this demand. There is now a review that clearly illustrates where the department needs to improve its service delivery and a strategy to enable this to occur.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000289\u0022\u003EWe know that State intervention has become increasingly necessary in the lives of an increasing number of children, and we really need to look at the bottom line. What will the Government\u2014the Labour Government\u2014do to ensure that this does happen? It is a dedicated department staffed by people who are struggling with the resources they have. The recent review points out that there are deep and systemic failures within the department. We hear that constantly, and there is no action. The department does need to be efficient in the operational areas, and it can be efficient and effective only when it has the resources. It is absolutely appalling to hear that the department, which looks after a whole range of children in New Zealand, does not know how many of those children attend school on a regular basis.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000290\u0022\u003ENow, I know as a parent that one of the first things I make sure my child does is attend school. I would have believed that while a child was under the care of the department, that would be one of the key things it focused on as well. When I look at the unallocated caseload\u2014and I hear the number of 1,780 unallocated cases\u2014I am very aware that people are now waiting longer and longer for help. I am very concerned now that I hear that telephone logs take so long to come to light, and the department cannot even find out whereabouts the telephone call has been made. It is no wonder that the public of New Zealand has completely lost confidence in this department. I feel very sorry for this department, as it struggles against the huge expectations of the public, and it cannot deliver. Many, many parents and grandparents have come to me, worried and concerned about their children in the department\u2019s care.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000291\u0022\u003EWe know that the department is short on resources. I hope that the new resources that have been allocated to this department do help, but I also know that the buck stops with the Government. I am really concerned about what is happening, because it is dealing with our future citizens here in New Zealand. It is a fact that staff members are stressed. Staff turnover is high; the numbers are constantly turning over. What that means is that nobody within the department ever has any experience to call upon. How can a new social worker give the same degree of service that an experienced social worker can give? I know that our newer people have heaps and heaps of enthusiasm but sometimes the experience that they need to call on is not there.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000292\u0022\u003EI was very disappointed to see that Jackie Pivac has resigned, and I hope she is not being made the scapegoat after this last damning review. I feel very concerned about the lack of social workers who are actually going into training. It is extremely concerning that nobody in New Zealand really wants to pick up on this line of work. So, obviously, something needs to be done about this. What can we see being done about it? Very, very little! I would have expected, at the very least, that there would have been some concerted advertising campaign, or something that we could see that tried to ensure that we have the social workers available.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000293\u0022\u003EIt is all fine and good to say that our social workers need to be registered. That will improve the level, but the bottom line is that we actually need the social workers to be available to be registered. So it is going to be very interesting to follow up on the financial reviews on this particular aspect. The financial reviews themselves will be very interesting. Because of the huge turnover, it will be most interesting to see who comes before our select committee at this point in time.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000294\u0022\u003EWe know, too, that closer cooperation is needed between all the Government departments involved in the care and protection of young people. The link between truancy and crime is very obvious, and the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services does not appear to be the only agency that is working on this. We know that the police youth service agencies are also working on this. So surely the departments could get together to come up with a concerted programme that would work across all people there.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000295\u0022\u003ESo all in all, New Zealand First members believe that the review is very welcome. We would like to see it actually work, because we know that the people of New Zealand have no faith in the department, and some of the children they are dealing with are scarred for the rest of their lives with the type of treatment they get and the time they have spent waiting.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000296\u0022\u003EOne of the areas that the department will have to focus in on is the number of young P users that are coming into this area. It is important, too, that when the department gets back on track and is looking at the total review, it takes the widest possible view, and implements the report. This time around I will be following very closely what happens as a result of the report, ensuring that the young children of New Zealand and the department actually provide a far greater degree of accountability for the outcomes that have been identified as being essential in this particular area. New Zealand First believes that the review was damning, but it gave the department some really good signposts to work towards, and we will be monitoring very closely how they are working towards ensuring that that review is implemented.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000297\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT): On radio this morning Judge Mick Brown was talking about the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and he said quite clearly that there have been no changes in the 3 years since he did his report on the department\u2014no changes. The Labour Government is responsible for the deepening crisis in child welfare. It cannot blame anyone else because it is responsible. The baseline review is the most damning review in parliamentary history, as I understand it. It highlights Labour\u2019s failure to run a child welfare agency that can adequately deal with New Zealand\u2019s most vulnerable children. The report is an absolute disgrace.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000298\u0022\u003EI want to put on record what the findings were. The department was unstable. There was deep and systemic failure. There was a lack of sound data. The department did not even know how many children were in its care. There was a failure to follow court orders. Children were in care far longer than they needed to be. Their time in care had gone up from 163 days in 1999 to 433 days on average now\u2014over 1 year and 2 months in care.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000299\u0022\u003EThen the review went on to ask the social workers what they thought, and they said they were stretched too thinly to do quality work. They could not do effective interventions, and that was why there were higher notification rates, with 50 percent of the children coming before the department being children it had already dealt with. In other words, its interventions were not working. The social workers said the Government had an obsession with risk aversion to the extent where they could not carry out professional social work practice. So here is a Government more concerned about keeping the department out of the headlines than about what really mattered to the children in its care. As a result, there has been an exceptionally high turnover of social workers. We understand that some 75 percent, probably more like 90 percent, of front- line social workers have very little experience, and that morale is at an all-time low.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000300\u0022\u003EI say to members who have heard what I have just said about the report\u2019s findings: who would have thought this would be happening under a Labour Government? It is an absolute disgrace. I want to talk about what happened during the process of the report. Steve Maharey, the Minister who was in charge of the department, was very vocal when in Opposition about the department, and he promised to build a strong, fully funded service when he was the Minister. But he failed totally. He failed the people of New Zealand, he failed the families at risk, he failed the staff, and he failed the chief executive, because he failed to provide a service that could adequately cope with the child abuse problems that New Zealand faces. He failed to deliver to this country an agency that could adequately deal with our most vulnerable children.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000301\u0022\u003ESo what happened? Well, after the election, when Labour realised through its polling that it was failing in the area of child welfare, it decided it was time to have a review. A review bought it time. It took the heat off the Government. In May of this year, when the findings of the review were finally made known to the Prime Minister, she suddenly realised she needed to get rid of her Minister out of the hot seat, because otherwise we would be calling today for his resignation. So she asked that Minister, Steve Maharey, to step aside. She said he was too overloaded. The new Minister, Ruth Dyson, said: \u201CHe wasn\u2019t able to devote the time needed to the department, which is why he decided to move on.\u201D Can members imagine that! The Minister of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services did not have the time to devote to the department. What sort of failure is that? He should resign all his welfare portfolios. He has performed disgracefully for this department and for New Zealand.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000302\u0022\u003EBut what then happened, of course, was a really cunning strategy. A new Minister was put in, and when the report finally came out, last month, the chief executive had to stand there on her own, unsupported by her new Minister, and take the blame. I say that is a disgrace. At the end of the day, when one is in Parliament one has to take the blame; the Ministers and the Government have to take the blame, not the people who work in the departments, not the bureaucracy. It was really gerrymandering to get rid of the chief executive. We have heard that before. The last time Maharey was involved he actually changed the whole public service\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000303\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot use a single name. It is almost like a nickname. She must use the full name, portfolio, or title.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000304\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN: The last time Mr Maharey was involved he manipulated the whole Government service to get rid of Christine Rankin, so this is just par for the course.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000305\u0022\u003EWe go further and look at the process of this review being presented to the public. I was approached a few weeks ago and asked whether I, as deputy chair of the Social Services Committee, would agree to delaying the financial review of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and to having it at the same time as the baseline review was released. I refused because all the financial reviews are on a timetable. As a result, instead of coming out next month the baseline review came out last month, ahead of the financial review, because the Government clearly did not want the select committee to be able to investigate and review the work of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services as it stood. It needed to be able to say: \u201CHang on. We\u2019ve done a review. Here are all the changes.\u201D It was a cunning plan by the Labour Government to avoid accountability. Further, it knew that the chief executive would be pressured into resigning, which would give the Government an ideal opportunity to say: \u201CWell, we can\u2019t hold anyone to blame. There\u2019s no chief executive. We haven\u2019t even got an experienced Minister. Therefore, we\u2019re blameless.\u201D That is appalling. The Labour Government should be responsible for the failure of this department. The workers there do their best, undoubtedly, but they are without proper leadership and without proper support. In that difficult, difficult area they are bound to fail, and that is precisely what has happened.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000306\u0022\u003EWe now have the bizarre situation where, instead of having one Minister responsible for the department, the Government has put four Ministers in charge. I am expecting that when we ask a question in the House relating to the department, the Treasurer will stand up and answer it, or the Minister of State Services, Mr Mallard. The Government has now spread all accountability amongst four Ministers. When one looks at the future operation of the department, one finds, in fact, that there now is a family support service to wrap around those same families who need help, but it is not run by the department; it is run by the Ministry of Social Development. That means that whenever we ask about practice issues, the department will be able to say: \u201CIt wasn\u2019t us. It was them.\u201D So from now on all lines of accountability will be blurred, and this is from a Government that was elected to power on the promise of being open, transparent, and accountable. Well, I say this Labour Government has delivered exactly the opposite.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000307\u0022\u003EIn looking forward, one has to say that the Labour Government is absolutely devoid of ideas on how to address the crisis in terms of child abuse. All it is concerned about is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It should be looking at putting a fence at the top of the cliff. I ask the Government why it has not followed on with the model of the Starship Children\u2019s Hospital in Auckland, which has a one-stop-shop, community-based agency, with the police, social workers, and education workers working together. That is the model of the future for New Zealand\u2014a regional and community - based agency that is built up from the bottom.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000308\u0022\u003ESecondly, why does the Government not look at opening up the Family Court? If that had been done, so many cases where court orders were not followed by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services would have been out in the public arena a long time ago. The department\u2019s dysfunction in terms of following court orders would have been recognised widely by the public. Something would have been done years ago about this department, had the court been open. I call on the Government to open up the Family Court. It has a bill before Parliament that could do it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000309\u0022\u003EWe also need to address long-term welfare dependency, because most of those families are involved in long-term welfare dependency. Labour is making the situation worse. Finally, for those families who have children but who do not actually want children, we should be encouraging open adoption, because maybe that would be better for those children.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000310\u0022\u003ESUE BRADFORD (Green): The debate we are having today is very timely, and I would like to thank the National Party and ACT members who called for it; also Mr Speaker for allowing it. Review after review has been done of this department, and, of course, yesterday Jackie Pivac resigned.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000311\u0022\u003EFirst of all, I would like to acknowledge the starting point of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. It was in late 1999 under the National Government, not under the current Government. The genesis of the department was very much characteristic of what I think of as the Rankin era under the National Government. For example, as soon as the new department was set up, a new logo was developed at the cost of $18,000. The department had a change of name, and even to this day I find that people still do not know its correct name; it is referred to by many different names. On top of that, the person who was appointed to lead it appeared, as far as I can tell, not to have a particularly social work practice background. Ms Brown, as she was then, had started work in the benefits and pensions section of the Department of Social Welfare, and went on to become a senior manager in the Income Support office at Takapuna. She did not really have a substantial background in social work practice. One of the first activities of the new department\u2019s boss in October 1999 was to spend $13,000 on sending two managers to a 5-day course in Gulf Harbour\u2014a residential leadership course that cost $6,500 a head. It was very similar, as some members will recall, to the courses at Wairakei that Work and Income staff were sent to. It epitomises the excesses and the lack of focus on what really matters, in that late period of the 1990s.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000312\u0022\u003EBut, of course, it is 4\u00BD years since then, and the problems have continued after that rather unfortunate start. In March 2001 we had the results of the Brown review. Judge Mick Brown did an excellent job of reviewing the functions and operations of the department. I gather from colleagues today that Judge Brown himself is quite disappointed that so many of his recommendations have not been followed through, despite the efforts of many within the department. In some 57 recommendations he pointed out huge deficiencies and gaps, not only in the systems of the department but also in social work practice. He said that it was absolutely imperative that the performance and capability of the department be improved to tackle the waiting-list problem, and to tackle the issue of children being placed in inappropriate care. He said there was a desperate need for organisational change, including better monitoring and better information systems, and a need for a lot more focus on staff training and development. For anyone who knew anything about the department, that report was not a surprise. It was a much-needed summary of what needed to be changed, and Labour said that, yes, it would do it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000313\u0022\u003EBut the next thing we know is we suddenly discover earlier this year that there is to be a baseline review of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. The result of that has been even more shocking. As one person has said, the report indicates that the \u201Centire CYF system is unbalanced and unstable\u201D. I shall mention some of the conclusions of the baseline review. The review team could not even find out what the department\u2019s sustainable financial baseline should be, which is quite a stunning indictment on a large and critical Government department. The department\u2019s problems are deep and systemic. It is very unsure about its priorities. There is mismatched effort\u2014too much time is taken trying to meet quotas, rather than there being a focus on the quality of what it is doing. There is a large variation in the quality of service delivery, critical gaps in information, and large problems with basic information and management systems. The report is really building on what happened with the Brown ministerial review. It is time for a change.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000314\u0022\u003EThe cases have continued. Other members have talked about some of them. I think everyone in the country knows about some of the cases. The most recent tragedy, of course, was that of Coral Burrows, and we have had the shocking information that Coral\u2019s father did make a 21-minute call to the department\u2019s call centre. For some reason, the person who took the call did not identify that there was a real problem behind the call. As far as we can tell, prior to any investigation by the Government, the call was left to one side without even any record being made of it. Once again, I question the quality of the social workers, the kind of experience and background of the people who take these calls. I think there are about 17 social workers working at the call centre. What is their background? As a mother, I cannot imagine what it would be like to be on the receiving end of a call like that. All I know is what has been in the media\u2014 and most of us are in that position. How would we feel if someone made such a call about a child? Could we imagine not taking action on it? What age are the social workers? Do they have any life experience? Do they have any experience in social work practice itself? Who supervises and supports those social workers? What are the management systems behind them that enable them just to miss a 21-minute call and not think it meant anything? I think we all mourn the loss that that call represented.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000315\u0022\u003EThe resignation of Jackie Pivac was an honourable move. I congratulate her on taking this stand yesterday. It is obviously a sad day, and after 31 years in the public service Jackie Pivac does deserve our thanks for the effort she has made. But I do think it has been the honourable thing to do, and that it clears the way for a new chief executive officer to really take charge and change this department in the dramatic way that it must be changed, following the baseline review.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000316\u0022\u003EThere is a babysitting body now in charge of the department, made up of people from Treasury, the State Services Commission, and the Ministry of Social Development. I say that is all well and good in terms of things like finances and management systems, but what about the need for expertise in social work practice, which is actually at the heart of the statutory function of the department? I would very much like to see someone like the Commissioner for Children, Cindy Kiro, added to that oversight body, because without someone with experience as a mother and as a social work practitioner who understands front-line social work, I do not think we will really get the rigour that is needed given the state of this department. We need oversight from people who actually understand the situation faced by front-line social workers and the need they have for adequate support and supervision behind them.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000317\u0022\u003EThe solutions to the problems lie in implementing both the Brown and the baseline reviews. All the answers are there, I think, in terms of the department itself, including the fact that the social workers who work for the department need to be trained properly, to be looked after properly, and, above all, to be treated with respect. The staff themselves need to treat callers and the people they are dealing with with respect. They also need to take more care with the families\u2014take a more holistic approach\u2014and understand that the families of children also need a little more care and attention.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000318\u0022\u003EOther members have mentioned, and I agree too, that we also need to look at the broader picture. We need to look at how we deal with things like child poverty. This Government should do a lot more to address child poverty, through things like reforming family support and family assistance. It should support my member\u2019s bill for a universal child benefit. Poverty and unemployment themselves are exacerbating factors in many of the problems for these families. We also need an immediate repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. That in itself\u2014the fact we accept a law that allows people before the court to get away with having beaten their children with bits of wood or hosepipes\u2014actually exacerbates the whole culture of abuse of children that we have in this country. I think that both in law and in practice we have to do everything we can as legislators to end that culture of abuse. Above all, it is up to all of us to have more respect for children. As Judge Mick Brown, Dr Hassall, and others have said in these debates, what underpins this situation in the end is the fact that it is not up to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services on its own to solve these problems. It is true that the department needs a huge makeover and extensive changes in management and in practice, but, above all, it is up to each of us in this country to learn to understand and respect all our children in a much better way than we do now. It is that culture of abuse that actually leads to so many of these sad situations. It is not just up to the social workers themselves; it is up to us.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000319\u0022\u003EMARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to talk about this rather sad issue, and what I have been seeing is a lot of finger-pointing and point-scoring. What seems to be lost in all of this is that we are actually talking about people, and we are talking about victims. Just 2\u00BD years ago the chief social worker, Shannon Pakura, when asked how she would judge her reign at the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, suggested that there would be no more child deaths. Clearly, that has not happened. We have had the case of sisters Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson, who were stabbed to death by their stepfather Bruce Howse when he found out that the department was investigating allegations that he was abusing Olympia. We have had the case of foster-father Michael Waterhouse, who beat 3-year- old Tamati Pokaia, and is pleading manslaughter as a defence against charges that he murdered Tamati. He was entrusted with the care of the 3-year-old by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and he was quoted as saying, in reference to the child: \u201CHe was making a groaning sound and I could see he was in a tonne of pain. You could see the veins on either side of his neck bulging out.\u201D We had the case of Coral Burrows, and, as has already been stated, her father Ron called the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services months before she was killed. We all know what happened.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000320\u0022\u003EThe department has a history of not doing what it should be doing. The answer, from what I gather, seems to be to throw more money at it. Is that really going to solve the problem? I doubt it. Let us look at the size of the department and the resources it sucks up. It is the Government\u2019s fourth-largest department with a full-time staff of 2,149; with 989 in the field doing social work, 412 in other core functions such as adoptions and residences, contracting, and coordinating, and 748 in management and professional support\u2014such as it is\u2014and psychologists and lawyers. Its current budget is $435.3 million. That is a sizable chunk of change, yet let me recount the story of Sade. She was 2 in July 2000 when the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services took her from her parents and placed her in the care of her grandmother, Patricia Bissett\u2014despite knowing she had a history of violence and was an alcoholic. Bissett beat Sade about the head and body, stubbed cigarettes out on her, and finally took the little girl to hospital, after she had collapsed into a coma. Sade nearly died and has been left physically and intellectually disabled. Bissett was jailed. The departmental office that dealt with Sade was grossly understaffed at the time, and the social worker concerned\u2014get this\u2014had just 9 days\u2019 experience.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000321\u0022\u003EWith those kinds of resources, and with four Ministers who are supposedly in charge and responsible for the department, it does a very poor job. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. If the Government agrees that the problems with this department are deep and systemic and partly attitudinal, why would it not agree with Mick Brown\u2019s comments on radio this morning that some of the staff are drongos and need to go? How will this be reconciled with one of the major problems of the department\u2014that is, recruiting and retaining experienced social workers? I suggest that one of the most important aspects is to allow those social workers to get on with the job, and not burden them with onerous paperwork, duties, and outcomes that are actually meaningless.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000322\u0022\u003EIn the light of the Labour Government\u2019s commitment to increase funding to community-based services, how can it be confident that the department will improve its coordination with these agencies, as required by the care and protection blueprint, given that the strategies and systems for coordination and collaboration will not be established until June 2004? That is 4 years after Mick Brown highlighted this deficiency. With that kind of resourcing, and with the number of Ministers associated with it, one would think that we could get things moving a little quicker.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000323\u0022\u003EA lot of these children are dying, and the sad thing is that families do not trust the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. Time and time again we hear of stories where families are coming under strain and pressure. They want to hold up their hands and say \u201CHelp!\u201D, but they are scared that if they do, they will be punished: their children will be removed from them and their families destroyed. Time and time again that has happened, and what benefit is that to the children? In quite a few cases they go to homes that are worse than the homes they were taken from. With four Ministers responsible and so much money embedded in this organisation, that is the outcome! Is it the social workers\u2019 fault? No, it is not. It is not the social workers we should be attacking, but the onerous bureaucracy that the Government imposes upon them, because that is what Governments do. They kill the passion of the people who run those sorts of programmes.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000324\u0022\u003EJackie Pivac, we note, is leaving without a golden handshake and, quite frankly, she\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000325\u0022\u003Eshould not get one\u2014not with the track record she leaves behind. Despite a more than 50 percent increase in funding from 1999, the problems remain. In fact, the problems have probably grown by 50 percent, and probably 50 percent more taxpayer money is now being wasted. It is not a matter of throwing more money at the problem, because the problems are deep and systemic. There is an overly broad set of strategic directions that are impossibly unclear, with outcome priorities. That has set up the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services to fail from the beginning.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000326\u0022\u003EThere has been a vicious circle of problems, such as increased notifications, and due to resourcing constraints, not enough early interventions. The department is able to handle only the most urgent cases, so other less critical ones are not dealt with, which gradually become even more critical. Staff morale is low, and with high stress levels and caseloads, they cannot do the job they are tasked to do. As a result of negative publicity, social workers are defensive in practice. That hardly sets them up to produce the best possible outcomes for the children and families they are supposed to work for and with.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000327\u0022\u003EThe notification system is obviously in trouble, and the Burrows case highlights that. There are the findings that 75 percent of physical and sexual abuse cases are classed in less urgent categories, and that should be a crime. There is a disturbing lack of information and critical information gaps\u2014for example, key aspects of the department\u2019s operations, the number of children in care, and a trend in financial information. They are just a few examples. Put simply, social workers do not see the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services as an employer of choice. The department must then recruit new graduates who lack experience. I highlighted that, somewhat earlier.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000328\u0022\u003EWhat is the answer to some of these problems? Clearly, we need to re-evaluate where the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services can be of the greatest possible benefit. Why do we not ask the harder questions? Why do we have the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services at all? Clearly, we need a 24-hour emergency service, but what more than that? There are organisations, trusts, and charities out there, staffed with passionate people who do give a damn, and can do the job entrusted to them. They are under-resourced. Look at the Family Help Trust in Christchurch, which is doing a fantastic job for the citizens of Christchurch, but continually has its hand out asking for more resources. Its staff do not sit behind desks, day in, day out, answering telephone calls\u2014they are out there doing the work that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services should already be doing. There are the Presbyterian Support Services, the Salvation Army, and Parentline. There are plenty of organisations staffed with people who can and are willing to do the job, but do not have the resources. Most of them are staffed with disgruntled social workers from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, who find that the culture of that department is just not conducive to doing the job they were trained to do, and want to do.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000329\u0022\u003ELocal solutions for local problems seem to be a sensible approach. Why do we have to have a head office in Auckland, Wellington, or wherever, when the problems are far more regionalised? Break it up, and let us staff it with people who care about what they do, and do not have to bow and scrape to a Government bureaucracy that inhibits them from being as constructive as they possibly can be. The money being asked to increase resources for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is ridiculous. If we throw money at it, we are throwing more down the gurgler. Taxpayer money should be given to the charities and trusts that already do the job\u2014they can do the job better, and that is where the resources should go. Let us cut back on the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services\u2014it screws up.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000330\u0022\u003EJUDITH COLLINS (National\u2014Clevedon): It is a tragedy in this country that we even have a Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, because it is a tragedy when the Government feels that it has to step in and take over the role of a family. No Government wants to have to do that, but it is done because families are failing at the moment, and they are failing a lot worse than they were back in October 1999, when the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services was first set up. Labour took over in November 1999, and today we have had the disgraceful sight of the new Minister in charge of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services trying to blame National, which had 1 month in power after the Department of Child, Youth, and Family Services was set up, for the running of that department. She is blaming us for the 4 years of neglect and lack of responsibility that Labour and its cohorts have wrought on this country. That is absolutely a shame and a tragedy to the people of this country.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000331\u0022\u003EToday the Prime Minister has told us that Labour does not set out to put things right. No, it does not; it sets out to put things wrong! Absolutely! I would like to know why, when Jackie Pivac has resigned and is going off without a golden handshake, that Minister, Steve Maharey, is still on the front bench. He is getting paid the same money for doing a quarter of the job. That is what he is doing. Where has responsibility for the department gone? This particular department has gone from the Minister, who refers to himself as having had a life of blameless excellence, to poor old Minister Ruth Dyson, who has never claimed she has had a life of blameless excellence\u2014and I say good on her for never claiming that. What has happened is that the buck has not been able to stop with Steve Maharey; it has been able to stop with poor old Ruth Dyson. She has yet another unsuspected situation on her hands, where she will be able to fluff around, make all sorts of comments, and try to blame National\u2014when actually National was not in power when all of this was happening\u2014and nothing will happen. Today I would like to talk about the work of social workers. I have met many social workers, both in my life as a lawyer and in my time in Parliament. Most social workers give a tremendous amount, a huge amount, to the children, in particular, of this country. They are people who consistently have to work in an environment where there is a culture of blame on them. It is not their fault when families fail. That is the fault of a Government that sets about destroying the family unit, so that people will become more and more dependent on the Government. That is a shame and a tragedy. How many social workers will this country need by the next election? It will probably need another couple of thousand. The reason is that this Government is all about taking responsibility away from parents, paying parents to have children that they cannot afford, having children shift from home to home, depending on how much money will come in the door with them, and having solo mothers attract predators who want to get an income from living with them\u2014using children to feather their own nest. That is a disgrace.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000332\u0022\u003EI spoke to Mr Ron Burrows about 6 weeks ago. He rang me to tell me about his phone call with the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in Tauranga. He told me what he had said to the department, and he told me that it had said there was nothing that it could do. We have now found out, after investigation, that the staff member did not even bother to log that 21-minute phone call. He or she denied Mr Burrows had rung the department. Fortunately, Mr Burrows\u2019 telephone records showed that he had, so that verified him. First, the department did not do anything about his call, secondly, it called the man a liar, and then it turned around later and said it was sorry, and the chief executive would be sacked. Of course, the Minister was sacked too, but we are not supposed to say that, because he is still on the front bench. Responsibility for the department has been given to another Minister who will, at least, try to do her best.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000333\u0022\u003EI sat on the Social Services Committee for some months earlier this year and last year, and I am pleased to say I will be back there this week, as well. I have seen a Minister, Mr Steve Maharey, come along to that committee and act in a way that I can only say is arrogant. He has a way of dismissing any comment from the committee and any questions that do not fit his spin that everything is just fine with the department. Well, everything was just not fine with the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000334\u0022\u003EI have had a look at the baseline review. That baseline review states some very interesting things. It states it has come to the conclusion that the particular situation in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services has not improved. It has not improved since back in October 1999. It has not improved after 4 years of that Minister, who still sits there collecting his ministerial salary and all the perks that go with it, being responsible for the department. Not one thing has improved in 4 years.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000335\u0022\u003EMore taxpayers\u2019 money has been poured into the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. I do not think there is a person in this House who would object to money being well directed in order to help the children and families of this country. I do not believe there is one person in this House who would object to that. I think we would all like to see money being used for the benefit of the children of this country who do not have the sorts of families that many of us had\u2014very good families. We would like to see that money do some good, but has it done any good? No, it has not. The situation has actually become worse. It is an absolute tragedy that, no matter how much money is poured into the department, we have a culture where we do not take responsibility for our actions and where children are used as a mechanism to get income. That is a disgrace, and it is something that this Labour-led Government has encouraged and fostered, and will keep on doing.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000336\u0022\u003EOne of the things that the Government has stated in this review is: \u201C... we are not able to say what a sustainable baseline for CYF should be.\u201D That is because the Government cannot tell what the data regarding the department are, because the department is not very sure about its data. We already know that it does not bother to log phone calls that are 21 minutes long from distraught fathers who are worried about their children\u2014and particularly not at Christmas time, because maybe someone needed to go out to see that child.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000337\u0022\u003EOne of the things that have happened over the last 4 years is that this Government has been so intent on trying to get the numbers of unallocated cases dealt with that it has actually had a certain quantity of work going on, but there is not the concern for quality that there needed to be. We have heard today about the number of people who, with their new qualifications to be social workers\u2014straight out of learning to be social workers\u2014have had the buck stop with them. They are the people who have to live with the fact that their actions have not been able to save children, and that is not right. They should not be resigning. They are the people who suffer\u2014those social workers, and the children and their families\u2014while this Government sits by and does yet another review. When will this Government learn that review after review will not change a thing, if it keeps up the attitude that families are not important? In my time in this Parliament I have been shocked by the way that this Government thinks it will replace families. It will not replace them while there is breath in our bodies. The family is the central unit of any society. The traditional family is the best unit for children. We see that time and time again. Sure, there are some families that are dysfunctional, but the dysfunctional ones that we consistently see do not represent the traditional family unit. In fact, they are something that has been made up because of the money that comes from the funding of children, whether or not they are wanted. That is a disgrace.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000338\u0022\u003EIn summary, this Minister, Mr Steve Maharey, needs to go. He needs to go right back to the back bench, and to start to learn again. Ruth Dyson, who has been given yet another responsibility, is sitting there on the back bench. She is in the Labour Cabinet, and she is getting all the tough jobs. I am sure she is not necessarily the right person to do them, but at least she will have a go.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000339\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I welcome this debate today, because this Government has been in the driving seat on the Treasury benches for 4 years, and during those 4 years I cannot remember\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000340\u0022\u003ESimon Power: Four long years!\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000341\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY: I say to Mr Power that they do feel like long years. He should get used to long years, because in his young years he will get used to more long years. In 4 years of being in Government, I cannot remember the National Party raising this debate once. National Party members say nothing about these issues, and I have often wondered why that is, but today I think I know the reason for that. If I were in the National Party it would take me at least 4 years to get over the sheer embarrassment of what it did to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in its various forms during the 1990s. I would be embarrassed about that; I would keep my mouth shut and say nothing. Finally, I might creep out of my shell, and try to start to debate the issues once again.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000342\u0022\u003EI know a lot about the running down of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. I used to lecture half the social work students who are currently in the department. Mrs Shipley started the decline of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services; it can be traced to when she became the Minister. She cut the department\u2019s funding, attacked its training, attacked that organisation, and began the process of seven restructurings in 9 years, and five changes of name in 9 years. She began that process. She was the person who ensured the department lost money year after year, and she began the process of bringing that organisation to its knees. In 1999 the organisation, then called the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Agency, went through a ridiculous process whereby the Government of the day, the then National Government, tried to call it, I think, at the time the Department of Child, Youth and Wh\u0101nau Services. The then National Government backed off from that after a large argument\u2014as if it mattered\u2014before it set up its last incarnation of that organisation, which it had destroyed. That National Government gave us that organisation in October 1999, and we got our warrants on 10 December. That is when the organisation was formed. We were delivered an essentially abused and neglected department that had been run into the ground.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000343\u0022\u003ENational members sit on the other side of the House and say we should fix the department. Let me tell the House about the first thing that we found. The department had been left in such bad shape that, when we looked at its first budget, we found that 65 social workers would have to be fired in order to meet the cuts that the previous Government had built in to the baseline of the organisation. It had built in sending 65 social workers down the road. National members get up in the House today and say how shocking that is. Let me say to them that social worker numbers in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services today are higher than they have ever been in the history of the organisation, and the workforce has stabilised in its turnover so it is no different from any other public service organisation. The previous National Government did not do that; we did it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000344\u0022\u003EWe are confronted with a department that, over the last 4 years, has had a great number of improvements. Let me just run through some of them. We were the people who asked Mick Brown to review the department. No one else did that. I asked him to give us an independent review. We were the people who set up the non-governmental organisations to be a reference group for the department. We were the ones who restored its baseline in our first Budget, so that it did not have to fire 65 social workers. We were the ones who gave more money to community groups. We were the ones who saw to a change in its contracting. We were the ones who raised the salaries of social workers, hired more social workers, and registered social workers. I know that Mrs Rich on the Opposition side of the House hates to listen to this, because she likes to think that nothing has happened for 4 years. After the embarrassment of her Government driving this organisation into the ground, cutting its funding, and driving social workers away, she loves to think that nothing has happened.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000345\u0022\u003EBut a lot has happened. There have been changes in salaries, a lifting in the number of people, and a drop in the number of unallocated cases. The National Party did not even have a system of identifying how many unallocated cases there were. It did not have a system, at all. When I was formerly in Opposition I used to ask how many young people were waiting to be looked at, and the then National Government could never tell me that. Can we tell National Party members now? Yes, we can. Why can we tell them? We can tell them because we record unallocated cases. We insisted that we know what the situation is, for the benefit of people here in the House. We introduced the new computer system and a new call centre.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000346\u0022\u003EThe Opposition member is completely and utterly ignorant of how the call centre system works. She said that the people who are on the end of a phone call at the call centre do not want to record something\u2014that those professional, senior social workers just choose not to record something. They do not choose not to record something; they receive 27,000 notifications every year. They receive hundreds of thousands of phone calls every year. Many of those phone calls take 21 minutes, because when people ring in to complain about their partner\u2019s treatment of their children, they take some time to do it. I know that Mrs Rich knows nothing about social work. She is the agricultural spokesperson on the Opposition side of the House, and knows more about pig farming than children in the social work situation. But she does not even know how the call centre works, or how a professional social worker deals with those calls. It is embarrassing to have someone on the front bench of the National Party who does not even know the most basic ways that a professional social worker goes about recording a notification. That is embarrassing\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000347\u0022\u003EMembers on the Opposition side of the House talk about the social work area and baseline reviews, as if we are not the ones who asked for the review. When we came into Government the department was brand new, and it said it thought it did not get enough money. The department said the previous Government had treated it so badly that it had ended up with no money. I told the department that we could not do a baseline review when the department had been in place for only 5 minutes. I said we would run the organisation for 2 or 3 years, and then do a baseline review. We did that. The lines in the paper were written by our officials. We know what is in the paper. We do not need people like Katherine Rich to get up and read out what she almost seems to believe are secrets about the department. We know what is in the paper. We asked for it, we worked with the officials, and they gave us what we wanted. We know what is recommended in the review: $127 million worth of new funding and a range of improvements, yet again, to the department.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000348\u0022\u003EThe only argument that Katherine Rich came up with today was to come in here to the House and say that seared on to the minds of National people were dead children. She raised, sickeningly, the case of James Whakaruru. I say to Katherine Rich that if she reads the front cover of the report on James Whakaruru\u2019s death from the Commissioner for Children, she will find out when he died. He died in 1999. Who was the Government in 1999? The National Party was in Government. The only argument National makes today is to dig up the case of that poor child and say, on the basis of that, that this Government is not performing. James Whakaruru died on National\u2019s watch, not on ours. National members should not come in here and try to use him to attack this Government, which has for 4 years worked assiduously to improve the circumstances of children, of families, and of social workers.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000349\u0022\u003EI want to go back to what I said at the beginning. I know that National Party members are embarrassed about 9 years of doing nothing. I know they feel bad about that. But I think they should acknowledge that under this Government there has been more money, more social workers, more work with community organisations, and more change, all of which has been designed to put right an organisation that they destroyed. Yes, they did that. We are the Government that will put the organisation right. They know that. We are the ones who can be trusted to do so.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000350\u0022\u003EThe debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000351\u0022\u003EPOINTS OF ORDER\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002287204b7ef3d2453d8e86f2b13761b736\u0022\u003EWithdrawal from Chamber\u2014Hon Judith Tizard\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000353\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: I would like Judith Tizard to withdraw and apologise for the remarks she made when she was leaving the Chamber during question time.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000354\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 343 I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation about my views on the eastern corridor.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000355\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make that explanation. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000356\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (National\u2014Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In order to maintain good order in the House, I want to make it clear why we objected to that, and perhaps give the member an opportunity to reconsider the type of leave that she seeks. The Minister is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, and it is her responsibility to assist the Prime Minister on matters relating to Auckland. The eastern corridor is a matter that is of great importance to Auckland. It is part of a programme of roading that the Government puts a great deal of store in. I am quite unclear as to whether a Minister should use the personal explanation process when she has been quoted while talking about a Government policy. It would be quite improper for the House to grant leave for a personal statement on that basis. Personal statements are usually very personal to the member. There is nothing personal to this member about the eastern corridor.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000357\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): The only question I have, which might lead people to think I was in opposition to this proposal, is as the MP for Auckland Central.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000358\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: That is not a point of order.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000359\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH TIZARD: I am speaking to the point of order. I am happy to seek leave to table the letter I wrote to the newspaper, which had grossly misquoted me.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000360\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER: The member has made the point. That was not really a point of order from the member who spoke previously, but he got the point over that he wanted to make. The member has sought leave to table the letter. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000361\u0022\u003ELAND TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT BILL\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220daf046f759740ac8cfc9eab0c2ef555\u0022\u003EInstruction to Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000363\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport Management Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00229e5497f1a36a412da84dad1d43140923\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223c1d579c297c4ed387b752801e369d58\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000365\u0022\u003EClause 1 Title\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000366\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to speak on the Land Transport Management Bill, so-called, and I want to make the point that the title of this bill is a travesty of the truth. Far from dealing with the serious land transport problems we have in this country, it dumps massive roadblocks in the path of progress for our motorists, for our communities, and, indeed, for the economy generally. It is a bill that does nothing at all to deal with the serious congestion problems we have on our roads. It is more than a year since the Prime Minister herself suggested that road transport congestion in Auckland was costing the economy in excess of $1 billion a year. Well, last week the estimate was increased. It is no longer $1 billion a year. The estimate of the cost of congestion in Auckland alone is $1.4 billion a year, equivalent\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000367\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. When I was a third- former in this House, I was instructed by many Speakers and Chairs that the title debate was a very, very narrow debate. There is plenty of opportunity in the debate on the rest of the bill to have a formal discussion about what should or should not be in the bill. This is a narrow debate, and I would appreciate some instruction from you around this matter.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000368\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I remind members that the bill has been considered by a select committee. In such circumstances the debate on the title clause is limited strictly to the elements of the clause and any amendments proposed thereto. The debate on the clause is a very narrow one. Members must address whether the title in the form in which it is expressed properly represents, describes, or reflects the purpose and contents of the bill as agreed at the second reading. I would certainly say that Dr Brash addressed the issues of the title in his introduction, but he went on to move away from that. I would draw the member\u2019s attention to the fact he is speaking to the title.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000369\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000370\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on this matter.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000371\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: Yes, you have, but I have a point of order.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000372\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on this matter. It is a new point of order\u2014is that correct?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000373\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: Yes, it is. There is no question that your ruling is right. A member must contain himself or herself strictly to the title. Therefore, I would ask you, Madam Chairperson, to explain to the Committee the parameters of the word \u201CManagement\u201D when it relates to a bill, and whether it is impossible for a member to tease out the issue of why \u201CManagement\u201D is an inappropriate word in the title of a bill. Frankly, no word in any title of a bill could ever be discussed, if a word like \u201CManagement\u201D cannot be extrapolated, explained, and extended, as Dr Brash was doing. We know that the Labour Party is absolutely petrified that the National Party has a new leader in Don Brash, and that Helen Clark is counting the days until her premiership ends. His elevation to the leadership of the National Party was the beginning of the end for the current Labour Government, and it will fall because of it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000374\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000375\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. There was far too much noise going on. I will give members one warning that there will be silence during points of order. That is the final warning to all members. Mr Brownlee was speaking to the point of order quite correctly. I will now rule on Mr Brownlee\u2019s point of order. In the point that I made I covered the title; it was covered in that. I do not intend to debate the Land Transport Management Bill title. It was covered in the ruling I gave.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000376\u0022\u003EDr DON BRASH: I was pointing out that the title of the bill, the \u201CLand Transport Management Bill\u201D, is totally inappropriate because the bill does not deal with what it purports to do. The title is so far off the rails that it must be amended to reflect what the bill really does. I suggest that the bill should be called the \u201CLand Transport Mismanagement Bill\u201D. As currently drafted, its purpose fails to address economic efficiency in any shape or form. An outdated, dilapidated roading system is costing New Zealand billions of dollars, yet what does Labour do? It throws economic efficiency on the scrap heap, because it thinks it knows best. Well, it does not, and just about everyone who wants to fix transport problems knows that. Perhaps the bill should be called the \u201CRed Light to Road Users Bill\u201D. That is how Business New Zealand describes the bill. That title might be more appropriate, because the bill is steeped in old- fashioned dogma, and is backed with so much opportunity for ministerial meddling that it guarantees no private sector involvement in new roads. Labour knows best? Yeah, right!\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000377\u0022\u003EBut maybe Aucklanders have the best idea for the title. Perhaps the bill would be best named the \u201CTool-box Without the Tools Bill\u201D, reflecting Auckland Mayor John Banks\u2019 comment that \u201CWe have the tool-box, but still not enough tools to urgently fix Auckland\u2019s incomplete transport network.\u201D Thousands of Aucklanders are despairing that, after 4 years of a Government with a Prime Minister from Auckland, Labour cannot do the job that is needed. If Aucklanders want a Prime Minister from Auckland who will do the job, then I will make it a priority for the next National Government to fix things and to fix them properly.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000378\u0022\u003EPart of the reason the title is wrong lies, of course, with the Greens. We could call the bill the \u201CGreens Before Growth Bill\u201D, because the Greens have done a deal to put the priority on skateboarders not motorists, in favour of a \u201CNandor corridor\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000379\u0022\u003EI am surprised that Michael Cullen, the \u201Cstealth tax bomber\u201D, has not sought to change the title to the \u201CPetrol Tax Diversion Bill\u201D. That is because the bill allows the Land Transport Fund to be used for any approved activity. Indeed, there is no cap on the amount of money that can be siphoned off to non-roading purposes, at all. It could cover just about anything. Indeed, the bill opens the floodgates of a disaster. The title includes the words \u201CLand Transport\u201D, but that definition includes coastal shipping\u2014water transport in a Land Transport Management Bill! The only ships I know that run on the land are those that have foundered on the rocks, and that is precisely what this bill will do for land transport solutions. So we could call the bill the \u201CShip, Bike, Train, Cycleway, Footpath, and Skateboard Bill\u201D, to reflect the Mickey Mouse coalition that put it together.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000380\u0022\u003EHon MARK GOSCHE (Labour\u2014Maungakiekie): I am happy to take part in this debate on the title. I shall read clause 1 in its entirety: \u201CThis Act is the Land Transport Management Act 2002.\u201D How could anybody be confused about that? How could anybody advise a new Leader of the Opposition showing off his wares in Parliament to make that speech? Mr Brownlee, the new National spokesperson on transport, is sitting next to Mr Brash. Mr McCully is advising him on how to behave in the House, and he gets him to do a filibuster on the title clause. Oh my goodness! Dr Brash should get a new adviser quickly. He needs to know that it is not very statesmanlike, when showing his wares as a future Prime Minister, to make a filibuster speech on the title of a bill. Oh dear, that is not a very good start on his first day. Clause 1, \u201CTitle\u201D, states: \u201CThis Act is the Land Transport Management Act 2002.\u201D Who could have advised him to do a filibuster on that?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000381\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I deliberately waited until the member had gone past 2 minutes of his speaking time. The time he has spent straying from a discussion on the title is greater than that spent by Dr Brash, even though in my opinion Dr Brash was speaking to the title\u2014he was pulled up by the Chair and the Committee for supposedly straying from the title. Mr Gosche has simply used the word \u201Ctitle\u201D on a number of occasions throughout his speech, but he has not at all addressed the failings of the title, nor has he been able to mention one single thing that justifies it. We know that this debate is very, very tight\u2014we do not doubt that at all\u2014 but if Government members take the call, they should defend the title. It is just not defensible for them to say that members on the other side have not been advised properly, or some other thing like that. We know that it is all rubbish. We know how terrified they are of the huge, overwhelming public acceptance of Don Brash\u2019s elevation in the National Party. We know that Judith Tizard is living in fear that her seat is now likely to disappear from under her.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000382\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will come to the point of order tersely.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000383\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: I am coming to my point. I am saying that the Standing Orders are being abused by members like Mark Peck, who is in trouble in his seat, and David Benson-Pope, the member for Dunedin South\u2014in fact, most people in Dunedin do not know he is a member.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000384\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000385\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: You get my point, though, Madam Chair.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000386\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will just remind members again about silence during points of order. It is usual to allow members to respond to the previous speaker. They should be brief; it is not a licence to stray. The member did mention the title. I remind members again that this is the title debate.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000387\u0022\u003EHon MARK GOSCHE: That is why I read it out twice. I could find nothing in the title about skateboards, nothing about ships, nothing about any of the things the previous speaker mentioned. That is why this bill is aptly titled. It is about the management of land transport in this country\u2014something that this Government and this Minister of Transport know about, and something that this bill actually delivers on.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000388\u0022\u003EI would be terribly embarrassed, if I were a new Leader of the Opposition, to get up and filibuster on a title. The Leader of the Opposition said last week that he would not engage in that sort of silly behaviour. That is promise No. 4 that he has broken already. How embarrassing is that? I tell Mr McCully to look after his new man. He should have let Mr Brownlee make that stupid speech, because he is good at it. Mr Brownlee will make a fine speech on the title in the next couple of minutes. He will raise all that stupid stuff, too. The members on that side of the Chamber do not have any good ideas about land transport management. Over here we know all about it. Land transport management is what this bill is all about, and that is why the title is a very good one.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000389\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First): I was interested to hear that member\u2019s speech but he did not mention the title once, in terms of what it is about. I suggest that if we are going to carry on like this, let us have a wide-ranging debate and talk about the facts in the bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000390\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member can seek leave for a wide- ranging debate.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000391\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: I seek leave to have a wide-ranging debate on the title.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000392\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000393\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): Madam Chair, in terms of your ruling, we are allowed to respond to the previous speaker, so I make the comment that the whole point of Dr Brash\u2019s initial speech was that this bill is called the \u201CLand Transport Management Bill\u201D but does not deal just with land transport. I ask the Minister of Transport to take a call and defend his title of the bill, because how can we have a Land Transport Management Bill that deals with water transport? It would be more appropriate to call this bill the \u201CLand and Water Transport Bill\u201D, because it includes barges, ferries, lake ferries, and the like. This Government might think it can walk on water, but I have news for it: it cannot drive on water. A more appropriate title might be the \u201CAnti-Motorists Bill\u201D, because this legislation will suck even more money out of motorists, in terms of road-user charges, and spend it on water transport, on propping up wharfies, and on satisfying the trade union pressure. \u201CStifle Economic Growth Bill\u201D would be a better title than \u201CLand Transport Management Bill\u2019. There is nothing purely \u201CLand\u201D about this bill, in terms of what the title says.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000394\u0022\u003EThere is nothing \u201CManagement\u2019 about this bill, either. There is no management in this bill. This bill will not give New Zealand one more kilometre of motorway or roads. This bill is not about management. It is, as Dr Brash said, about mismanagement. When Dr Brash is the Prime Minister of New Zealand, in 2005, we will see some legislation that deals with progressing the management of roads and road transport, and getting this country up into the top half of the OECD. That is what this so-called Land Transport Management Bill is meant to be all about.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000395\u0022\u003EWhy do we not just call it the \u201CWasting Your Life in Traffic Bill\u201D, or the \u201COn Yer Bike Bill\u201D? It was drafted by the Greens. It was written by a researcher in the Greens\u2019 office, and it panders to the Greens. A better title, as Dr Brash said, would be the \u201CGreens Before Growth Bill\u201D, or, as I said, the \u201COn Yer Bike Bill\u201D, or the \u201CSocial Engineering Bill\u201D. It is social engineering because money taken from motorists in road- user charges is to be spent on environmental issues\u2014on cycleways. How about the \u201CRoad, Cycleways, and Walkways Sustainable Development\u201D\u2014whatever that means\u2014 \u201CBill\u201D? But, as I said, the title \u201CLand Transport Management Bill\u201D is a total misnomer.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000396\u0022\u003EAlso, just while I am on the point of the title, what about calling it the \u201CLand Transport (Mismanagement of How to Draw Up Legislation) Bill\u201D? We have seen today the Minister dump a whole raft of changes in a Supplementary Order Paper on to the Table. If he is so proud of this legislation, I ask him to take a call and tell us exactly why he thinks it should be called the \u201CLand Transport Management Bill\u201D. There is nothing in this bill but mismanagement by socking cars and by socking motorists, and it will do nothing at all to increase the building of roads, the efficiency of road-user charges, and the efficiency of spending money on roads in New Zealand, and getting New Zealand up into the top half of the OECD.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000397\u0022\u003EIt is a totally wasted piece of legislation. It is a waste of submitters\u2019 time. We have been through the whole process. We have taken the legislation right through the select committee and we have brought it back to the House. We have taken out things like coastal barging and lake ferries, and we have reduced the water transport aspect down to coastal shipping, but what happens when we come back today? The Minister has put all of that back in again. Talk about ministerial directive! We took that out of the bill, too. I see that it is creeping back in, as well, under the Supplementary Order Paper.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000398\u0022\u003EI say to the Minister that if he is so proud of this bill being termed the \u201CLand Transport Management Bill\u201D, why does he not take a call and explain exactly to us what there is about it that is management, and not mismanagement? What is there about it that makes it just a land transport bill? Or is he just trying to sneak through the fact that road-user charges will be spent on water transport, on cycleways, on walkways? If he were honest about it, he would put that in the title.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000399\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green): I am very happy to speak to the title of the Land Transport Management Bill. This bill moves us from a 1950s approach to transport, into the 21st century, like most other modern OECD nations. The things in this bill are absolutely mainstream in modern transport planning. The title makes it very clear why this is so.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000400\u0022\u003EFirst of all, this bill is not what some members of the Committee would like to see. This is not a \u201CBuild More Roads Anywhere and Everywhere Bill\u201D; this is a Land Transport Management Bill, because it recognises that only when we take a holistic approach to all forms of land transport will we solve the serious congestion problems in Auckland, our serious dependence on fossil fuels, which are not going to be there for ever, and the serious air pollution, time wasting, and crashes that go with our particular brand of transport at the moment. It is a Land Transport Management Bill because it is multimodal.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000401\u0022\u003EIn fact, Infrastructure Auckland has shown that if we were to follow the wishes of some people in this Chamber and try to solve Auckland\u2019s problems by just building roads, not providing land transport, we would end up at the end of 10 years, after building all the roads on anybody in Auckland\u2019s wish list, with congestion 50 percent worse in the isthmus and 10 to 20 percent worse on the other motorways. Only an intermodal approach that says we have to match the mode to the purpose will solve the problems, and that is why we are talking about transport management. It is about managing the demand; it is about managing the way we match supply to demand. Heavy freight that goes long distances, from Auckland to Wellington, should travel by road. People who commute the same distance to work every day should have adequate public transport so that they can use that means of transport. People who do very short trips and who are fit enough should have facilities available so that they have the options of walking or cycling. And we need to find alternatives to transport, like teleworking, so that people have choices. It is about managing those things.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000402\u0022\u003EIt may seem illogical to include water transport in a land transport bill, but that is also sensible. The title underlines that funding goes to water transport only when that water transport takes traffic off roads and makes the roading dollar go further. That is the logic behind coastal shipping and ferries being in this bill. They can ease up road congestion, because the funding can more efficiently be spent on an alternative route for freight.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000403\u0022\u003EI commend this bill to the Committee and look forward to taking part in the debate that will ensue.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000404\u0022\u003EPAUL ADAMS (United Future): I rise to take a quick call in the title debate, because being an Aucklander and hearing some of the things that have been said, I sometimes wonder whether the National Party\u2019s Auckland MPs have actually looked out of their windows when travelling on our Auckland roads, and seen the work that has already begun. Maybe we should have called it the \u201CI Only Travel in Taxis Bill\u201D, because they have been asleep in the back seat, not looking at the progress already starting on Auckland roads. Perhaps we could call it the \u201CAuckland is Thankful for the United Future MPs Bill\u201D, because at least we have become involved and begun to start something that is beginning to make progress in Auckland.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000405\u0022\u003EWe are concerned with roads in Auckland, so we are not going to be a party that will stand back solely to criticise, because criticism never gets anything done. Maybe we should call it the \u201CDon\u2019t Criticise All the Time but Get Constructive Bill\u201D for Auckland. Auckland is an important part of the country, but we also understand that it is not the only part of the country. United Future is pleased to support this bill because progress is happening.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000406\u0022\u003EHow does one eat an elephant? One eats it one bite at a time. So we could perhaps call it the \u201COne Bite at a Time Bill\u201D, because we have got together with parties that are prepared to take one bite at a time in order to get on with the roads in Auckland. The people listening to this debate will know that business communities in Auckland are very pleased to see this bill come about. They are rejoicing about it, as is United Future, because we like to move ahead. We could call it the \u201CEverybody Likes it Done Today Bill\u201D, if members like, because everybody would like the roads done today. Of course, that is not possible, because it does take one day at a time. But there are some parties in this House\u2014United Future is one of them\u2014that will stick up for, and stand and move ahead with, progress. I am glad I am not in a senseless party. United Future is making a difference in this great nation of ours. People out there can be thankful that some parties in this House are making progress so that our road problems will get fixed\u2014and United Future is one of them.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000407\u0022\u003EHon ROGER SOWRY (National): The title of this bill deserves debate because it misnames a large piece of legislation. The bill is not just about managing the land transport system; it includes allowing taxpayer money to be spent subsidising barging operations. Perhaps this bill should have reference to that in the title. If somebody thinks that coastal shipping comes under the Land Transport Management Bill, that would be stretching the English language in the definition somewhat\u2014but it does, and coastal shipping will be entitled to subsidies under this new legislation. That is why this title is so wrong.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000408\u0022\u003EIt is also wrong because everybody who has read the bill knows that it will do nothing to advance the management of land transport in this country. In fact, this bill\u2019s purpose\u2014and therefore it\u2019s title\u2014is best summed up by a comment from a Green member at the select committee: Mike Ward, who said he hoped that the passing of the bill would ensure there would be no extra traffic growth on our roads. So if this bill is about zero growth in traffic, then we should say\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000409\u0022\u003ESandra Goudie: Does he even own a car?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000410\u0022\u003EHon ROGER SOWRY: He does not. He does not have his licence\u2014and is quite proud of it\u2014and that is why he is the expert on land transport in the Green Party! We would be better off calling this bill by the title the Greens had\u2014the \u201CRoad Traffic Reduction Bill\u201D. At least that title reflected exactly what the bill is all about, which is reducing the amount of traffic on the roads. This bill says that it is about managing traffic on land, when in fact it includes subsidisation of coastal shipping, subsidisation of barging, the enabling of regional councils to own a whole new raft of infrastructural assets, and the subsidisation of the construction of those assets. None of that is reflected in the present title.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000411\u0022\u003EIf that is not enough, I want to agree with colleagues who have raised the issue of the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put on the Table today. It does not change the title but includes, in relation to debating the title, a whole new definition of transport. Transport now includes harbour ferries, and ferries or barges on rivers or lakes. The title should reflect exactly what people want. If people are out there looking to set up a barging operation, or some sort of boating operation with transportation across a lake, they would not go to the Land Transport Management Bill to see what the regulations were that covered their operations. They would go to maritime legislation to look at those regulations.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000412\u0022\u003EThe least the Government can do is be honest with the title, because this title is simply not honest in terms of what the bill does\u2014and, more important, what the bill does not do. This bill will not deliver the solutions that Labour has promised Auckland for so long. The land transport problems in Auckland will not be solved by this bill, which is titled the Land Transport Management Bill, because nothing in its clauses goes any way at all to solving those problems.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000413\u0022\u003EI hope members take the opportunity to vote against the title clause of the bill, because it is so out of touch with the bill\u2019s contents, and I hope members also take the opportunity to chuck the bill out in its entirety, as we move through its Committee stage.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000414\u0022\u003EMARK PECK (Labour\u2014Invercargill): I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d9d5b2d3002548c08bc86ca6143dc035\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000415\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000416\u0022\u003EPart 1 Preliminary provisions\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000417\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I want to make a couple of brief comments about Part 1 as we start to get into the guts of the bill. I am extremely proud of this landmark legislation, which suddenly now transforms the way in which we deal with and manage transport across New Zealand. I also want to pay a quick tribute to my former transport Minister colleague, Mark Gosche, who did a lot of the work on the bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000418\u0022\u003EI think there will be a lot of talk in this part and other parts about what the bill does or does not do. I do not like to be uncharitable, but I want to remind the Committee just how many bills the National Government introduced in its 9 years in Government to try to improve land transport in New Zealand. It was zero, zippo, zilch, not a sausage, and not a single bill. It is important therefore, as we work our way through the bill, to realise that during that time not one single piece of land transport legislation came forward from the National Government.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000419\u0022\u003EOf course, the National Government started to think a little bit about land transport. Do members remember the Better Transport, Better Roads strategy, whereby National was going to corporatise and then privatise all the roads? There were howls of derisive laughter from local authorities, which was one of the reasons why National got chucked out.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000420\u0022\u003EI do not like to be uncharitable, so I want to move on and note that this part includes the purpose clause. As my colleague the co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons said, it is about a multimodal approach to transport. There are not many people in New Zealand\u2014in fact, only a very few, narrow-minded people\u2014who want to go back to the tired old days of the benefit-cost ratio. That thing was pilloried up and down the country by territorial local authorities that said nothing could be built in New Zealand unless there was a benefit-cost ratio of around four or so. It was heavily predicated on road accidents and fatalities, which meant very little could be done anywhere\u2014for example, in Auckland. We have been able to make some progress in Auckland only because of the multimodal, broader approach taken in the legislation.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000421\u0022\u003EI also want to point out Supplementary Order Paper 165 in my name, which, in the immortal words of the Hon Stan Rodger, contains \u201Cmainly minor technical amendments\u201D. There are a couple of things in there. I am particularly pleased now about the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper introduces the word \u201Cefficient\u201D into the purpose clause. Given that there has been a lot of comment in the media about that, I think it is really important that the select committee thought about and worked on it. There has been a lot of consultation with the parties who have been involved in supporting the bill, and I welcome that particular inclusion.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000422\u0022\u003EThis is a good bill. This part starts to define how we will shift transport in New Zealand and how we will solve some of the problems. I commend it to the Committee.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000423\u0022\u003EHon ROGER SOWRY (National): Part 1 of this bill is a shambles\u2014an absolute shambles. The Minister knows it is, because if he did not know that, he would not be coming into the Committee with Supplementary Order Paper 165, which is some 12 pages long, to change the bill. The Minister has had the bill back from the select committee for 2 weeks, and he has come back with another 12 pages of amendments, because in the last 2 weeks he has been done over again by the Greens. When those amendments are put into Part 1 it becomes a shambles.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000424\u0022\u003EI want to speak to a couple of amendments to Part 1, for which we seek support. The first amendment is to clause 3(1). We believe that the purpose clause should be amended so that we start to make economically efficient land transport decisions. At the moment, the purpose of the bill is to make decisions about funding, and when making those decisions we have to have regard for a whole range of Green ideas around everything to do with the road. The objectives of environmental sustainability and social responsibility are included, but there is nothing about economic efficiency or the creation of a safe, responsive, and economic land transport system. We seek to amend clause 3(1) to put that in.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000425\u0022\u003EWe also want to amend clause 3(2) to ensure that when Transfund New Zealand makes any decision on funding it has to have regard to whether the funding decision improves economic efficiency in land transport. At the moment, under this legislation Transfund New Zealand\u2014which has all the money\u2014will have to make decisions, but it will have to make decisions based on whether roads will be environmentally sustainable. The Greens have put all that in there. So, if a road runs through, let us say, three rare ferns and a couple of old trees, that will be it\u2014it will not be environmentally sustainable. Every single argument will be around that issue.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000426\u0022\u003EPhil Heatley: What about the taniwha?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000427\u0022\u003EHon ROGER SOWRY: That is before we even get to the taniwha argument, which is in there as well. There is nothing in the bill about economic sustainability and there is nothing that says: \u201CThis road should go here because it makes sense for the economy.\u201D To achieve 5 or 6 percent growth a good roading infrastructure is needed, and this bill simply will not deliver it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000428\u0022\u003EUnder Part 1 we also want to remove that silly, stupid nonsense that puts coastal shipping into the Land Transport Management Bill. Those of us who pay our petrol tax will find the money being used to subsidise foreign shipping vessels trundling around our coastlines. What sort of nonsense is it to have tax collected at the petrol pump being used to fund a coastal shipping operation, and to subsidise a foreign vessel to pick up empty containers and ship them around the coastline? We think that that is nonsense and, I say to the Minister, we believe that those who pay their petrol tax money will also think that that is nonsense. We can understand why the Minister never talks about that; he is always very quiet about it. We want to see that part removed from this bill because we think it is a shambles.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000429\u0022\u003EIn fact, this was the Minister who said, when he was in Opposition, that he was going to stop foreign vessels from going around the country from port to port and carrying domestic cargo. He has backed down and broken that promise. He has forgotten those speeches. Not only is he not going to stop it, but he is also going to subsidise it. He will use taxpayer money to subsidise foreign vessels. Not only has he broken his word to the Seafarers Union that he was going to stop it\u2014Mark Gosche made the same promise; he sat there for 3 years and could not deliver on it\u2014but now his Government is going to subsidise it. Harry Duynhoven made the same promise as well, and he knows he did. He backed down on it, but now the Government is going to subsidise foreign shippers out of petrol tax money. New Zealanders will not get roads built out of their tax money because the money will be going into foreign shipping.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000430\u0022\u003EIs there a cap in this part on how much is spent on subsidisation for foreign shipping? No, there is not; there is no cap at all. Later in the proceedings, we will move amendments to try to put a cap on to that, as well.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000431\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): If we go back to the genesis of this bill, we see that it followed on from the New Zealand Transport Strategy, which was released in December 2002. One of the objectives of that strategy was to assist economic development, but if we look at the bill we can see that it has totally removed any reference to economic development\u2014any reference at all. That reflects how this Minister has been shoved out of this bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000432\u0022\u003EI know that this Minister\u2019s heart is in the right place. Of all members in this Labour Government, this Minister is probably one of the few who does understand economic development and what we have to do to grow this economy. Unfortunately, this bill was drafted when Mr Gosche was the Minister of Transport. It was drafted, as we know, in conjunction with the Greens and it was a trade-off with the Greens.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000433\u0022\u003EWhen we came to the Committee today we received Supplementary Order Paper 165, which will change clause 3(2)(e) by omitting the words \u201Ccost-effective\u201D and substituting the words: \u201Callocated in an efficient and effective manner\u201D. Well, what does that mean? I ask, by whose standards? What is meant by \u201Cefficient and effective\u201D? That is just semantics. It is just a little bit of a crumb that has been tossed to United Future, so that that party can boast it is the Larry Baldock clause. It is a meaningless piece of verbiage that adds nothing at all in terms of economic efficiency.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000434\u0022\u003EJust the other day, on 30 October, it was reported in the paper that higher road-user charges and increased fuel taxes contributed to the Government\u2019s road funding agency, Transfund New Zealand, holding $225 million in its accounts. That is money that has been taken from New Zealanders who are trying to get from one place to another. If those New Zealanders live in Auckland they are penalised even further, because they are spending, on average, $50 a week to fill a petrol tank. Of that sum, $27.25 goes into Government taxes and fees, but\u2014members should listen to this\u2014only $6.95 of that $27.25 is spent on roads at the moment, and when this bill is passed even less of that $6.95 will be spent on roads.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000435\u0022\u003EThis bill has no cap on how much of that money can be taken out and used for other purposes. Part 1 is extremely loose in its definition of what an \u201Capproved activity\u201D is, so we have no idea of how much of that money will be spent on roads. The Government did not put a cap on what will be sucked out of road-user charges and spent on other approved activities.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000436\u0022\u003EThe bill also tries to deal with the protection of the environment and sustainable development. One of the worst things for the environment in Auckland is that cars are idling on the massive car-parks we call motorways. Cars stuck in traffic contribute to bad emissions. The worst thing is for cars just to sit there. What will this bill do to expedite that problem? Nothing.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000437\u0022\u003EI have a suggestion for the Government. In 1989, the America\u2019s Cup (Planning) Act was passed. It aimed to expedite planning consent in order to get the America\u2019s Cup village and other facilities built quickly and efficiently, so that Auckland and the rest of New Zealand could benefit from the economic growth that that would bring. A planning authority was set up\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000438\u0022\u003EMark Peck: What did Bluff ever get out of the America\u2019s Cup?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000439\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON: I say to the member that his Government passed the legislation. If he did not like it, then why did his Government pass the legislation in 1989? The Act set up a planning authority to fast track consents so that the America\u2019s Cup village could be built. Who would deny that that has brought enormous benefit to this country?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000440\u0022\u003EI have a member\u2019s bill\u2014the Auckland Roads Network (Planning) Bill. Even though I hate the word \u201Cplanning\u201D I could not get around it, because there was not another word that fitted. \u201CPlanning\u201D is a word that has been hijacked by socialists. However, I had to use it. We will be able to set up a planning authority to fast track consent for Auckland\u2019s roading network.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000441\u0022\u003EHon MARK GOSCHE (Labour\u2014Maungakiekie): It is interesting to listen to the Opposition debate this part, which is really the guts of the bill. This is where National should have had Don Brash speak, because he could have talked about the real guts of the bill, instead of wasting his time on the title. But I suppose he will learn, sooner or later.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000442\u0022\u003EThe two previous speakers from National and ACT should check their in-trays every now and then for documents from the organisation that funds transport\u2014it is called Transfund. The previous speaker talked about economic development. We can look at the latest edition, October 2003, and consider the people of Northland, and that very good group of mayors up in Northland. I send my greetings to them, particularly to the Mayor of the Kaipara District Council, who took me in a helicopter, with the Mayor of the Whangarei District Council, over Northland\u2019s roading problems. He said there were a lot of forests growing there, but no roads to handle them; that tourism was now burgeoning, but that people had to drive on gravel roads. What did those people get from the previous National Government to fix that problem? Zilch, zero, zip, nothing! Yet National Party MPs up there just take them for granted.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000443\u0022\u003EThere are eight more regional development projects for Northland, dealing with the problems of tourism and forestry\u2014the industries that are sharing old, broken-down, dangerous gravel roads. They looked at trains, and did not reject them out of sight, but said it could not be done in that part of Northland, and everybody agreed. Transfund is funding it. Then I turn the page of this document and see that the Napier-Gisborne rail link is to be funded with $164,000. The very poor road between Napier and Gisborne, which cannot handle very big, heavy trucks, will get some relief. Local people are so keen on this link that the Hawke\u2019s Bay Regional Council and the Gisborne District Council are putting up $100,000 of ratepayers\u2019 money. Will we get any complaints from motorists about that terrible use of their funds, which will put heavy road traffic on to rail, where it belongs, and not through that windy, dangerous piece of road? Will the motorists who travel that road complain that that is a misuse of their funds?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000444\u0022\u003EMark Peck: I don\u2019t think so.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000445\u0022\u003EHon MARK GOSCHE: Absolutely not! They do not want to get stuck on those narrow, dangerous, windy roads, behind big trucks. They would rather see heavy freight on rail. They would say that that was a good, sensible, common-sense use of their money. The National Party says no, it is not cost-effective and efficient to do that. That is why, in its 9 long years in Government, it built nothing to solve the problem up in Auckland. Why? Because it had a cost-benefit system that equated a death to $2 million, and lots of people were dying elsewhere. The time delay and its cost-benefit measurement did not measure up against road deaths, so Auckland just got nothing. The record of the National Party, with its love of efficiency, was 22 percent, 23 percent, and 21 percent spending. It let Auckland go; it did not bother. There was nothing sensible about it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000446\u0022\u003EI will give members one example, and they will be very interested in it. The Auckland Harbour Bridge could have had high-occupancy vehicle lanes to relieve a lot of the pressure, but nobody would do it. Why not? Because it would have interfered with the cost-benefit ratio on the North Shore busway. They wanted the busway, because it was absolutely sensible to have it, but if in the meantime they put a high- occupancy vehicle lane on the Auckland Harbour Bridge, then they would never have been able to build the busway. That was the madness that National oversaw for 9 years. That was the economic efficiency that Dr Brash is so proud of, and that Mr Key and Mr Sowry will speak about. What a shambles! National did not use the opportunities when it was in Government for 9 years, and that is why voters rejected it and chucked it out.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000447\u0022\u003EMembers on this side of the Chamber will use the money in the best possible way, and that is why we are putting these words in the bill\u2014because we want to see decent roads to deal with logging traffic and tourism in Northland. We have to spend money on that. The Government put in 100 percent of the funding of roads in Northland. It did not have to get a cent from the ratepayers that Dr Lockwood Smith is supposed to represent. Did his ratepayers have to spend any money on that? Not a cent! He says that building decent roads in his electorate, to deal with tourist and logging traffic\u2014which should not be mixing together on gravel roads\u2014is a terrible waste of money. He also says that we should not dare to take heavy traffic off a skinny little dangerous road between Gisborne and Napier, because that is not a sensible thing to do with taxpayers\u2019 money. People will be laughing at the National Party in those parts of New Zealand.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000448\u0022\u003EJIM PETERS (NZ First): I listened with great interest to the last speaker, and I concur with everything he said. Yesterday, at a mayoral forum in Whangarei, the mayors of Northland told us to go easy on the Government on the issue of transport, because of the goodies that we have just heard about. I willingly acknowledge the work that the Government has done in the last 3 years, and the extensive changes that have taken place, and are about to take place. If the Government can find a few more dollars for the railway, all the better. The issue is that the work has been done, and accomplished, and more visible evidence is yet to be seen.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000449\u0022\u003EIt was our good luck, perhaps, that we\u2014being from a region in Northland that has foresight and knows how these things work\u2014took up the challenge of an integrated transport study, gave a regional face to Northland transport issues, had the agreement of territorial bodies, and put together a regional plan that gained Government acceptance. But that was not accomplished under this bill\u2014it was accomplished under the cost- benefit situation that the member spoke about, plus additional Government funding. The big problem with this bill is the very issue that the last member spoke about, which is funding.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000450\u0022\u003EI say to my National Party friends who sit to my right that I have heard some of the debate so far. I concur that between 1993 and 1999, we in Northland awaited developments\u2014with a white paper, a green paper, and, I think, a pink paper, and any other paper\u2014but nothing took place before the election of 1999. Nothing happened. As a New Zealand First member, my position is that the old party did not do it. In this city we spent numerous hours discussing it\u2014paper after paper\u2014with an optimistic Minister, and nothing happened. The Hon Maurice Williamson, the man who now sits behind me, was in that very position in 1999. I say to my National Party friends that he appeared 2 weeks before the election in 1999 and assured us that things would happen. So New Zealand First members do not come to this issue with any great optimism about what our friends on the right might do. They did nothing in this regard.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000451\u0022\u003EBut I also say to the party across the House, which says that this transport bill is the best it has ever seen, that one thing we have to thank the Government for is its understanding, for a time, that the transport issues in Northland came about under the present regime. So when we look at the issues we will be debating in Part 2, we see that at the end of the exercise they will all come back, not to all the fine speeches we made in this House in defence of this bill, or to those that will be made opposing the points in the bill, but to one simple issue: after all the talk, have the objectives set out in Part 2 the ability to be achieved in funding terms? The answer will be no. We have already heard that from the Minister of Finance, and we have heard it in various ways from the other side.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000452\u0022\u003ESo on behalf of New Zealand First, I point out that there is an alternative. It is presented in the minority report, and as we go through each of those sections, we ought to think very carefully about it. The funding answer in this bill, which is espoused by some parties in this House, is not fair and reasonable when motorists are paying an unused share of the road levy at the present time. To that end, we do not support this bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000453\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green): In speaking to Part 1 of this bill, I want to address the question of efficiency, which has dogged the argument about the Land Transport Management Bill since it was first introduced, and has, I must say, generated a great deal more heat than light. Efficiency used to be the objective of transport legislation, but nobody could figure out what \u201Cefficient\u201D actually meant. It seemed to mean that we had to meet a cost-benefit ratio, and the way that cost-benefit ratio was calculated was a black box that nobody else could get inside. It gave huge weight to the saving by very large numbers of people of fractions of a second, but no weight at all to what was happening on rural roads. So I came to this bill with a very jaundiced idea of what \u201Cefficient\u201D had actually led to in the past, under the previous Government and under the previous legislation.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000454\u0022\u003EThe Greens, of course, wanted to ensure from the beginning that the funding for transport was allocated in a cost-effective way, and that, I think, is a word everybody can understand. So in the bill as introduced the purpose clause states that it \u201Censures that land transport funding is cost-effective;\u201D. That seemed, to us, to say what needed to be said. However, we have agreed readily to the change in Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain, which states that instead of the funding being cost- effective, it should be \u201Callocated in an efficient and effective manner\u201D. That is absolutely fine. We want to see the funding allocated efficiently. Nobody wants to see transport money wasted or used inefficiently or ineffectively. I personally do not see that the amendment makes a lot of difference to the outcome, but I am perfectly happy to support that change.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000455\u0022\u003EAnother thing in the Supplementary Order Paper that I want to draw attention to is the definition of land transport options and alternatives. Land transport options and alternatives have to be considered now at all levels before funding is allocated. This is a piece of legislation that states we should not just rush in and build something until we have looked at the need we are addressing, at the various options for addressing that need, and at which of those options will address that need most effectively and most efficiently, for the least amount of money. It goes on to state that then, having looked at those options, we should go and build the best one, or otherwise we will end up with a lot of white elephants because we did not do our homework properly. So options and alternatives are a key part of the decision making in this bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000456\u0022\u003EWhat the change in the Supplementary Order Paper has done is to clarify that land transport options and alternatives include demand management options and alternatives. Only if we start looking at the demand side of the equation can we prevent the constant increase in demand for transport jamming up whatever roads we build. It is now well understood internationally that if all that people ever do to deal with transport demand is to build more road space, they actually induce more demand, the road space fills up as fast as they build it, and things continue to get worse. So we have to look at some more creative alternatives. There is a whole raft of things that some councils are already doing, and they are things that regional land transport strategies will have to look at in order to provide different ways of meeting the demand.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000457\u0022\u003EMy favourite example\u2014I know the Minister likes it too, but it is only one of many examples\u2014is the walking school bus. We all know that on weekdays when schools are open, traffic congestion on the Auckland motorways is much, much worse than it is during school holidays, and it is that way simply because so many parents drive one child to school. We also know that the safety situation and the congestion outside school gates at half past 8 in the morning is so extreme, with vehicles milling around and parents letting children on and off, that it has made it unsafe for other children to walk and cycle to school, when they would otherwise have liked to do so. We can have the Auckland roads as uncongested on school days as they are during school holidays if we promote all the other safe, effective ways of getting children to school, rather than each of them being delivered by a parent in a separate car. The walking school buses, which provide supervision for large groups of children to walk to school safely, have a whole lot of other benefits, as well. They are supported by the people who are into health and exercise. They mean fresh air for children, rather than keeping them cooped in cars all the time. Walking school buses are better for children\u2019s development than going to school by car. They experience the world around them, rather than just sitting in a motor vehicle.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000458\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I would like to address some comments to Part 1, particularly the purpose clause, and to make some reference to the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 153 and 158, which I have on the Table. The first amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 153 does address the issue of efficiency in subclause (1) of the purpose clause. Based on the comments made in the speech given by the Hon Roger Sowry, I look forward to National\u2019s support for that amendment. I can tell Mr Sowry that he need not bother writing his own amendment, as he is recommending exactly the same things that I have put in my amendment. We do need to see efficiency mentioned in the bill, and I welcome the Minister\u2019s reference in his speech earlier to what he has adopted in Supplementary Order Paper 165 in his name. That is the second Supplementary Order Paper on the Table, and it omits the word \u201Ccost-effective\u201D and substitutes the words \u201Callocated in an efficient and effective manner\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000459\u0022\u003EWhen we went through the submissions\u2014and I admit I did not get to hear them all, because the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee meets at the same time as the Local Government and Environment Committee\u2014we heard that many, many people were crying out for efficiency to be put into this bill, and we have taken that very, very seriously. We will be glad for the amendments that are passed during the Committee stage. Even though the ACT member has called them crumbs, we in United Future are happy to make any amendments we can to the legislation in order to improve it. If we were to look at the crumbs that ACT may have, we would see, of course, that ACT would be very, very hungry for some time\u2014very few amendments are ever made through its efforts.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000460\u0022\u003EThis bill does take a multimodal approach to transport, and, as I said in my second reading speech, we do support that multimodal approach. But, as I also said then, the reason we want to see efficiency mentioned in the purpose clause\u2014and also in connection with clause 20(3)(c), which Jeanette Fitzsimons referred to earlier, so that it further strengthens the need for efficiency\u2014is that the multimodal approach must be balanced by the requirement for efficiency. We welcome some of the common-sense approaches that are incorporated in this bill and the things that will come out of it. Certainly, the walking buses are a great idea. They do help to improve some things, but in no way can they solve Auckland\u2019s problems or Tauranga\u2019s problems, and that is the problem with the ideology that lies behind the multimodal approach.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000461\u0022\u003EI am astounded to hear Jeanette Fitzsimons say she does not understand what efficiency is, and that she cannot define it. I will help her out this afternoon, by giving her a definition of what United Future understands efficiency to be and telling her why we want efficiency to be included in this bill. We are not talking about the old cost- benefit ratio, where we had to have a person die on a corner of a road in order to get that road fixed. Efficiency relates to the efficient movement of people and goods around a transport system. That is the definition of \u201Cefficiency\u201D that United Future has adopted. It means that when people move around this country they can do so in an efficient manner, without spending hours and hours sitting in traffic. It means that when producers\u2014the people who work hard to produce the goods that keep our economy going\u2014want to move their products to the market, they can also do so in an efficient manner.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000462\u0022\u003EThe issue is not about spending money efficiently. After all, every Government department should be spending its money wisely and efficiently. But land transport is about having an efficient system\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000463\u0022\u003EPeter Brown: What are you talking about?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000464\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK: That member obviously has not caught on, because I have said before that an efficient system is one that moves goods and people around this country in a manner that does not waste time. I will not use the word \u201Cefficient\u201D again, so he cannot come back at me with that argument, but I refer to a system that moves people around without having them waste time. Delays are inefficient. Surely we all understand that. What we want to see in this bill is that if we are to allow for a subsidy for rail or for walking and cycling, in order to get people off the roads, that subsidy is balanced by the requirement to prove that it will contribute to the overall efficient system that we are developing. The land transport system that we want in this country is one that will be efficient for everybody, not just for cyclists or for those who want to walk.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000465\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I call Mark Peck.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000466\u0022\u003EHon ROGER SOWRY (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is a tradition in this Parliament that you go from side to side of the Chamber. The person on his feet was sitting on the Government side of the Chamber, and, in fact, earlier in the debate when I went to take a call, you went from the Opposition side over to the United Future side, and then came back. You cannot classify United Future as being part of the Government for some calls, and then as part of the Opposition side for others.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000467\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the member is not correct. It is not a Government party. I call Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000468\u0022\u003EMARK PECK (Labour\u2014Invercargill): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You had called me.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000469\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I call Mr Mark Peck.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000470\u0022\u003EMARK PECK: I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000471\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney): In speaking to Part 1 of this Land Transport Management Bill, I can understand why Mark Peck wants to close down the debate. The Government ought to be ashamed of this bill and of the pathetic, weak Minister in the chair, Paul Swain, who is being pushed around by Jeanette Fitzsimons, for God\u2019s sake! Members should read clause 3, \u201CPurpose\u201D. Subclause (2) provides that this legislation will improve social and environmental responsibility in land transport. But our people around Auckland want some roads to be built. That Minister and his Government closed down the debate on the Penlink toll road legislation last year. They would not allow that to go ahead, because Jeanette Fitzsimons did not want it to go ahead. This weak Minister kowtows to Jeanette Fitzsimons! That is pathetic. Meanwhile the other day, as I tried to get to Auckland, the traffic jam was right back to the end of Windy Ridge, just past Warkworth.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000472\u0022\u003EI say to the Minister in the chair that this legislation will not solve that problem. As may be seen in Part 1, this pathetic legislation has more to do with the Greens doing deals with Labour than with solving the problem\u2014and the purpose clause reveals that totally; it shows there are backroom deals. Jeanette Fitzsimons has told us today this is not a bill for roads. The Greens do not want to see more traffic on our roads\u2014the Greens have already told us that\u2014so we know that this bill is not a bill for roads. Why does this Minister think all those business organisations in New Zealand who know something about financing and construction say that this legislation will not work?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000473\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain: Not all of them.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000474\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Almost invariably they all say it will not work. The Minister can probably find one obscure business group somewhere that may say it is possible this legislation will work, but almost without exception they all say it will not work. When we read the purpose clause we find it is obvious why the legislation will not work: because the focus is on social and environmental issues, and on long- term planning. Again, we have heard from Jeanette Fitzsimons what that means: long- term planning, so that nothing ever happens. Then we turn to clause 4 and find that is all about the Treaty of Waitangi\u2014more roads around the country being held up by taniwha.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000475\u0022\u003EThis Minister has got to get his act together. He is being pushed around by Jeanette Fitzsimons on this legislation, and that is clear in Part 1. He is being pushed around by officials, when it comes to road safety issues. He is not prepared to take a stand himself, based on research. He lets the officials push him around. The death of New Zealanders will be on this Minister\u2019s head, because this legislation will not result in building better roads in order to save lives. The changes to transport enforcement that the Minister is proposing will result in more accidents and more deaths. Research is starting to show us that fact.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000476\u0022\u003EAs we debate Part 1 I am angry about this legislation, because it so clearly makes it\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000477\u0022\u003EHon Mark Gosche: There are great roads up there. The member knows absolutely nothing about this.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000478\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I say to the Government that the Environment Court has just ruled that this Government is so useless at making progress on roading that the court wants the Government to be back in court next year. The court has extended the use of the link road at the end of the northern motorway for only 10 months, and the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) has a build time of 3 years. The Environment Court does not trust this Minister; it knows that this legislation will do nothing. So the Environment Court wants the Government to be back in court in 10 months\u2019 time, because it knows there will be no progress and it wants to keep the heat on this Minister and this Government. The Environment Court does not trust the Government. That is the only explanation as to why, when the court knows the build time for the road is 3 years, it wants the Government to be back in court in just 10 months.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000479\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, I emphasise that when we look at Part 1, which contains principally the purpose of the bill and the definitions, we see clearly that this bill will not result in more roads for New Zealand.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000480\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000481\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First): The Minister well knows that this bill is not going to do the job on a nationwide basis, and it most certainly is not going to do the job for Auckland. He knows that.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000482\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain: It\u2019s a start.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000483\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: It is hardly going to be a start. Little or nothing will occur before he has to bring in more legislation to address the Auckland problem. This is just farcical. The Government has bought into the Greens\u2014lock, stock, and barrel. I think someone said earlier that this bill should be called the \u201CTraffic Reduction Bill\u201D that the Greens had. It would have been more honest to use the title of Jeanette Fitzsimons\u2019 member\u2019s bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000484\u0022\u003EThis bill produces a framework for road tolling. I do not know where Paul Swain, the Minister in the chair, is on this. He looks as if he is all at sea, and is quite clearly out of his depth when it comes to road traffic management.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000485\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000486\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Just before the dinner break I was endeavouring to emphasise the huge importance of roading in this country. We need more roads, and we need better roads. There can be no argument on that. The influence the Greens have had on this bill is dramatic, unnecessary, and will be to the detriment of New Zealand as a whole for quite some time. The key to developing our roading is funding. New Zealand First will not support a generic tolling regime. I want to make that quite clear. That is not necessarily saying that we are against tolling per se, but we will not accept a generic tolling regime. That is what this bill does.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000487\u0022\u003EJeanette Fitzsimons: No, it doesn\u2019t.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000488\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Yes, it does. I invite the member to read the commentary, and then she will understand a little bit more about it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000489\u0022\u003EHon Lianne Dalziel: Read the bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000490\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: I would be curious to know what that member knows about this bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000491\u0022\u003EJohn Carter: Or any bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000492\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Or probably any bill, but I could write in block capitals on the back of a postage stamp what that member knows about this bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000493\u0022\u003EWe believe that the motorist in this country has been paying, unnecessarily, for other things, when the funding should have gone into roading. First and foremost, we would like to see that 18.5c back into roading\u2014not on a one-hit basis, but on a gradual basis.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000494\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock: How gradual?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000495\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: I think we could do it over 5 years. That is my opinion, but I am not talking about one-hit stuff. I am aware that some time ago the Minister of Finance\u2014 I think it was mid-September\u2014told this Chamber that an economic report was being compiled, presumably by the Treasury, that would say why this 18.5c was essential to the Government\u2019s coffers. In answer to a question, he made reference to the Minister of Transport, saying that he would consult with the Minister.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000496\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock: I asked the question.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000497\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: I think Mr Baldock asked the supplementary question, and I followed up with a point of order. As I recall, he was going to consult the Minister of Transport about releasing this report to all MPs. That was my point of order, and he assured the Chamber that he would. I have not seen it. Has Mr Baldock seen it?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000498\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock: It\u2019s still coming.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000499\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: I know that the officials have not seen it. When I asked the officials at the select committee, they were not aware of this economic report about the 18.5c. But on the basis that there is some substance to that\u2014I want to make this quite clear, because the Prime Minister was confused, in an answer to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, earlier on this afternoon\u2014New Zealand First would look at a different regime of funding. We would look at funding based on a regional fuel tax. It is far better than tolling. Look at the latest toll road in Tauranga.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000500\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville): It is not true that the Land Transport Management Bill is good for nothing. In my opinion, it has two very fine uses: the first could be as a doorstop. If doused in petrol, its second use could be as a Little Lucifer fire-starter. What it will not do is fix New Zealand\u2019s roads, or Auckland\u2019s roads.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000501\u0022\u003EI want to put this in perspective: if this legislation were used to construct the Flemington track, where the Melbourne Cup was run today, we would not need gallopers, we would need hurdlers. They would have to be good hurdlers. They would have to jump over hurdles so high that they would be unbelievable. This legislation is drafted by the Greens for the Greens. It is all about coalition arrangements, and all about walking buses around the Coromandel. It has nothing to do with the $1.4 billion of economic activity that is just not happening in Auckland.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000502\u0022\u003EWe have sat through this debate and heard some self-congratulatory speeches from the Labour Party. What a load of nonsense! What a load of waffle! If the Minister\u2019s own officials cannot provide him with the information, I will do so myself. Never let the facts get involved with a good story! That has a helluva lot to do with Part 1, which is meant to fix the problem outlined by the Government. We have been told that Auckland roads are being fixed because the Labour Government is spending more money. Let me just point this little fact out: in the 2002-03 period, $151 million was spent on Auckland\u2019s roads. It was up from $89 million. That is quite correct. That is an increase of about $80 million\u2014$80 million out of the $256 million that was raised on the 4.7c petrol tax.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000503\u0022\u003EJust before the Government goes round congratulating itself on what a wonderful job it has done fixing New Zealand\u2019s roads, I want to say that it has failed miserably and is a disgrace. This legislation is so bad that the Minister went up and down the country, begging people to oppose it. He said he wanted people to write the strongest submissions they could, because this was the biggest load of rubbish they had ever seen in their lives, and had nothing to do with fixing roads. What he said was: \u201CLook, very quietly, this is about a coalition agreement with the Greens. I have not drafted it. It has not come from my officials. It has not come out of my office. It has come out of some woofter in the Greens\u2014and Heather Simpson.\u201D That is what has happened.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000504\u0022\u003EI want to tell members how much worse it has become. Not only has this legislation now come out of the Greens, but I sat on that select committee\u2014day after day, hour after hour\u2014and begged the Labour members to put efficiency into the clause. I was on my hands and knees begging them for efficiency. Do members know what they told me? They gave me the old \u201Cdeer in the headlights\u201D look. There was no response from Paul Swain\u2019s office. He did not want to know, because he was too busy booming up the coalition arrangement and being Helen Clark\u2019s lapdog. That is what this bill is all about. That is what was happening.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000505\u0022\u003ELo and behold, what do we see? Efficiency has now been introduced. Why? Because United Future wandered over and said it might not be good for much, or contributed much, but if the Government did not put efficiency in, United Future would not like it either. Mr Swain said: \u201CWhat the hell, when we are forming legislation that is good for a coalition negotiation, who cares whether it fixes roads! That is not our objective.\u201D\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000506\u0022\u003EThis legislation has failed so miserably that I do not know why I am going on to discuss the individual bits of it. It is so bad that after asking people to campaign against his bill, Mr Swain gave up and set up the joint officials group. We all know that at a date between 15 and 17 December it will come back and say that this hopeless legislation is a waste of space, but do not worry about it, because we have our coalition agreement tied up, and here is the real deal we will present to the people of Auckland. That is now called blatant vote buying. We have tied up the old coalition arrangements, so now we will get out there and try and hoodwink the good people of Auckland. Well, it will not work, because they are good in the Labour Party at babysitting the settlers.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000507\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT): I did not have the opportunity to be on the select committee that considered this bill. But as an ordinary New Zealander who has a car, who pays petrol tax, and who in the past has had vehicles that incurred road-user charges, I, like most other New Zealanders, thought that the money collected from road users actually was spent on improving roads. We thought this Land Transport Management Bill would solve the traffic problems around New Zealand\u2014Auckland\u2019s traffic problems, in particular, and the big problems here in Wellington\u2014and what do we find? This is a piece of politically correct rubbish. I tell you what, you know, here we are talking about a bill\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000508\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please do not bring me into the debate. You used the word \u201Cyou\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000509\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN: Oh! I apologise, Mr Chairman. I meant the Minister of Transport\u2014the Minister sitting next to you in the chair, who was falling asleep until you did what you did and woke him up.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000510\u0022\u003EWhen we look at this bill to see what its objective is we see that it is to protect and to promote public health. When we talk about transport, petrol tax, and road-user chargers, most New Zealanders think we are actually talking about roads. I would like the Minister to stand up to take a call to explain to New Zealanders who see this bill as the answer to New Zealand\u2019s traffic problems what protecting and promoting public health have to do with transport. The question is whether we need improved roads in New Zealand, and the answer is a huge \u201CYes\u201D, as we all know, because poor roading holds back progress and productivity. All those poor people sitting in traffic jams every day end up wasting their lives; they are not able to get on and drive their own productivity and the productivity of the country.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000511\u0022\u003ENowhere is worse off than Northland, with the Orewa to Puhoi link road for the northern motorway sitting incomplete because this Minister does not have the courage to do something about it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000512\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will withdraw and apologise for challenging the Minister\u2019s courage. That is not permitted in the Chamber.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000513\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN: I withdraw and apologise. I did not know that \u201Ccourage\u201D was a word we were not allowed to use in this House. However\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000514\u0022\u003EHon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that when a member has had a point of order drawn to his or her attention in respect of a matter, there can be no reference to it. It is very clear in the Standing Orders that questions of courage cannot be raised in this House.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000515\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): A lack of courage. The member will continue.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000516\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN: The point is that the Minister, being Minister, has had the opportunity to try to help to push forward the completion of the northern motorway. He has completely and utterly failed in that regard. We have our major State Highway 1 weaving through a residential area and stopping dead in the middle of a paddock. It is costing the region $1 million a week\u2014that is Transit New Zealand\u2019s figure\u2014in lost productivity. The Minister is busy telling everybody this bill will be the answer. That is an absolute load of rubbish, and the Minister knows it. By the time the Government goes through this process\u2014if anybody will go into a partnership with the Government to help to build a toll road\u2014that bit of road will be about 10 to 15 years away. By then, all the consents for it will have lapsed, and we will have to go through the whole process again. The Minister is looking at a delay of probably up to 20 years before the northern motorway is completed and does not stop bang-slap in the middle of a paddock.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000517\u0022\u003EThe Minister just shook his head. I challenge him to get to his feet to take a call and to explain to the people of Auckland and Northland\u2014that is, millions of people who feel that this Government is stupid for not completing a major piece of roading infrastructure\u2014exactly how this bill will help them. They know they are losing $1 million a week in lost productivity for this nation because this Labour Government is too stupid to prioritise that roading, which clearly should be prioritised. What other country has a major State highway stopping in the middle of a paddock, for goodness\u2019 sake! Honest to goodness me! The point about that piece of highway is it was stuck before the Environment Court for 6 long years, but all the consents are now through, and the Minister has the opportunity and the ability to do something about that project and to have it fast-tracked forward. Under this bill he is condemning that project to remain stalled for probably another 10 or 20 years, because this bill does not have the provisions in it actually to do what he has told people it will do.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000518\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (National\u2014Ilam): I do not know much about this bill at all, I must confess. I am pleased, as the newly appointed spokesperson on transport for the National Party, to announce that I have done no work on this bill whatsoever. I am delighted to find today that I need not have bothered, and that I have been quite insightful in not finding out anything about this bill. When the Prime Minister was asked in the House today about this particular piece of legislation she said it is a good piece of legislation but one cannot expect a Labour Government to put anything right. If it is so good, and if the Government cannot fix anything with this bill, why would one bother to put any time into it?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000519\u0022\u003EThat Minister can wave his hands in absolute disgust, as a member of the Labour Party caucus, that the Prime Minister should be so honest with the House as she was today, but I ask why we are discussing this bill when the Prime Minister has conceded that it will not put right the problem. That is what the House heard today. Members can talk all they like about the money going to Auckland; my colleague John Key outlined how many hundreds of millions of dollars are being sucked out of the South Island and other parts of New Zealand and sent to Auckland. What for? To fix the roads, which the Prime Minister has told us today will not happen under a Labour Government.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000520\u0022\u003EI noticed earlier in the day that the Government put out a release stating that it had put an extra $21 million into Auckland roads.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000521\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain: When?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000522\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister sitting in the chair is saying \u201CWhen? What? Where? Why?\u201D. He is scratching his head; he does not know. He should talk to the Hon Judith Tizard. She announced today that an extra $21 million would be spent in Auckland on the roading system, to fix up the drains, the gutters, and the walking tracks. Not one car will move faster, more smoothly, or more quickly to its destination because of that spend. The Government collects $256 million out of the taxpayers\u2019 pockets, gives out a lousy $21 million, and brings a bill into the House that the Prime Minister says will not fix the problem.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000523\u0022\u003EI ask the Minister why we are discussing this bill. The Minister went up and down the country saying to the major groups that have an interest in roading that they should not worry about this bill. He told them that the Government had to put the bill through the House because it had stitched up a deal with the Greens, but that it wanted those groups to oppose the bill as much as they could. He said that the Government had to put it through, that that was the price of it being in coalition, but that it would bring in another bill in the New Year, by which time it would have convinced United Future that it was now so hopelessly dependent upon the success of the Labour Government for its own future that it would have to support that bill no matter what. That is what the Minister has done. This is the way the Government is putting out the spin.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000524\u0022\u003EI have always said, sadly, that people understand small numbers more than they do the bigger ones. When one talks about $256 million or, in the case of the Auckland roading system now, it seems, a blowout to about $3 billion, New Zealanders understand that as just a big number. When one talks about $21 million, New Zealanders think it is just 6 months of good luck on a Saturday night; they understand that figure. This Government cynically manipulates that sort of understanding to make out that it is doing something about the transport problems in the big city of this country, Auckland.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000525\u0022\u003EAs the Minister seems keen to talk to the Committee, I want to know why, after all these years, we suddenly find that a new bridge is going up in the Waimakariri electorate. Is it not fantastic! The ACT party talks about a club of the right getting together to unseat Clayton Cosgrove, and suddenly a bridge that has not been needed for over 25 years comes out of the bag, and the pork-barrel Government goes on its way, spending taxpayer money all over the place. I am very pleased about it. I am delighted that that bridge is going there. It is a very important access way to our city. I am pleased that the Minister has done it. But there is nothing like a little bit of vested interest and the fear that Government is slipping away to get those members moving.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000526\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002218d5415db79d4c6c832963f08c2485e7\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000527\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002273beb1bdf6ac4efc8063ba4a89676bce\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000528\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 3 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000529\u0022\u003Eto omit subclause (1) and substitute the following subclause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000530\u0022\u003E(1) The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and economically efficient land transport system.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f7a8887eb5504e47a60815be07bfb5e2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000531\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 3(1) be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022a3d1d53bddeb4063a7ad1514a29f05b7\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 61\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000532\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 3 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000533\u0022\u003Eto insert, after subclause (2)(a), the following new paragraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000534\u0022\u003E(aa) improves economic efficiency in land transport, funding, planning and management; and.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223d812d83dbde40519b766cbc2ac68218\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 82\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000535\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The amendment to clause 3(2)(e) in the name of Larry Baldock on Supplementary Order Paper 158 is out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision on the Minister\u2019s amendments.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000536\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 5 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000537\u0022\u003Eto amend the definition of land transport by omitting the words \u201Ccoastal shipping\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002296cae256f4b24ae3b3b5ae6025fc9faf\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 82\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000538\u0022\u003EThe question was put that Part 1, as amended, be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d14fee66865b4759b9e2fdd2a32a312e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1, as amended, be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1, as amended, agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000539\u0022\u003EPart 2 Funding of land transport system\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000540\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): Part 2 contains quite a lot of meat. It deals with a number of substantive issues and involves a lot to do with tolling and public-private partnerships. I know that members want to talk about a number of other clauses, but I suspect that there will be some outrageous, outlandish, and hurtful criticisms, particularly from the National Party, about these provisions.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000541\u0022\u003ENever before in my life have I seen something as unbelievable as the National Party\u2019s minority report, which states that National is concerned the Minister has to ensure that a feasible untolled alternative road is available to road users when there is a tolling arrangement. This concern is unheard of internationally. In fact, virtually every tolling arrangement in any country requires a feasible alternative. Anyone going to Europe knows that. This minority report was done by the old, demoted spokesperson on transport. I know that the new, modern spokesperson will probably want to take a careful look at it, and possibly rethink his views.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000542\u0022\u003EThis part is about tolling new infrastructure, not existing infrastructure. There are lots of conditions around it and decisions that have to be made, after comments from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that there should be some ability for the Minister to give some initial indication a project will proceed. That has now been built into the bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000543\u0022\u003EPublic-private partnerships are very important for New Zealand. They have been very, very successfully operated in other parts of the world. Before I hear all the comments that they will not work, the particular clauses in this legislation are based on the Melbourne link where lease arrangements are used to attract public-private finance in order to get a project built.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000544\u0022\u003EThere are some very, very good clauses in this part. It is the meat of the bill, and I commend it to the Committee.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000545\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville): The Minister, as he said, just touched on the guts of the bill, which will allow generic tolling in this country. Well, that is the spin and that is all that will be spinning. Mark my words: no tyres will be spinning on toll roads in New Zealand as a result of this legislation.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000546\u0022\u003EThe Minister predicted that we would be opposed to this part because of the need to have a free alternative route. He needs to do his research properly. Every financier who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee\u2014and there were many\u2014 said to us time and time again that they had had huge experience in funding such operations overseas. We had people from Australia who had funded the Sydney tunnel and the Victoria ring route, people from the United Kingdom, and financiers from all over the world who told us time and time again that if there was a free alternative the toll road would be used only at periods of heavy traffic, and that there would not be enough money generated to fund the road. Those are the simple facts of life.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000547\u0022\u003EI might add that Standard and Poor\u2019s released a report some months ago that looked at all the problems with funding toll roads. The report found that in 90 percent of all cases people who were putting up toll roads over-predicted the income they would get\u2014and that was when there was not a free alternative. The banks themselves had to write down that kind of funding, because they could not rely on it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000548\u0022\u003EThe Land Transport Management Bill will not be the solution to Auckland\u2019s problems. I was absolutely stunned that, the day after this bill came back to the House for its second reading, I read in the New Zealand Herald that Transit was telling the country it was releasing its 1-year study into an alternative harbour crossing for Auckland. First, it told us that it would take 16 years to build\u20145 years for planning and 11 years for construction. What a joke it is to take 16 years to build a bridge that would be about a quarter of the size of a bridge built very recently from Copenhagen to Sweden, which is 16 kilometres long. That bridge was built in 7 years, and we are talking about 16 years. Will that work out under this Land Transport Management Bill? I think not. The predicted cost of the Auckland bridge is $3 billion. The reality is that if that bridge were ever built it would take longer than 16 years and would cost $5 billion.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000549\u0022\u003EMembers should think about these figures. New-road spending in Auckland is roughly $151 million a year on State highways\u2014and that is calculated on the new revamped numbers. That bridge alone would cost $5 billion dollars and take roughly 33 years of the entire spending in Auckland, so it would not happen without some alternative forms of funding. That is why Auckland mayors want the full tool-box\u2014 regional petrol taxes and borrowing\u2014and I know that the Minister will deliver it to them in a sneaky piece of legislation. He will whip it in between 15 and 17 December\u2014 but I cannot tell members, because if I tell them I will have to kill them.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000550\u0022\u003EThat is what will happen, but it will not happen as a result of this legislation. Why will it not work? Because this bill states that there has to be a free alternative, the new bridge would have to be built 500 metres away from the existing bridge. What would people do? Option A would be to take the non-paying alternative, and option B to pay four bucks to go over the bridge. It will not happen. That is why, I tell the Minister, in Sydney they tolled both the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the tunnel. They are not just brighter than we are, in Australia, but they can do the maths. They can work out that they need all those funding sources, and that is what is required if we are seriously to fix Auckland\u2019s road problems. We do not need some woolly-woofter document that is there to shore up the relationship with the Greens. We want serious stuff that will actually fix the roads.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000551\u0022\u003EI now want to discuss consultation. When people came to the select committee, time and time again\u2014rightly so\u2014they said that consultation was a nightmare when trying to build anything. Beca Carter, those wonderful engineers, told us that they allocate up to 7 years to build a road that can take 2 or 3 years to construct.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000552\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National\u2014Pakuranga): I start off by saying that the Prime Minister said\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000553\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain: Welcome back.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000554\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Let me tell the member that it is hard to make a comeback when one has not been anywhere.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000555\u0022\u003EPeter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am keen to hear this member speak, and I apologise for interrupting. However, I draw your attention to the fact that you have gone from a National Opposition member to a National Opposition member\u2014if he is still a member\u2014and that seems to me to be an unusual practice.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000556\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, not so. The reality is that I look at the proportionality of the House and National has twice as many members as any other party in Opposition.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000557\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I want to pick up on two things the Prime Minister said at question time today, as a start to this speech. First of all, she said not to rely on the Labour Party to get roading initiatives right. I think she got that in one. Secondly, she said not to listen to the National Party because it never did anything. I tell the Prime Minister that that is wrong.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000558\u0022\u003EBack in the early 1990s, when Auckland\u2019s roading was starting to become a problem, we began a very long process of trying to engage various stakeholders through what was called the Land Transport Pricing Study, which tried to find out what the Road Transport Forum, the Taxi Proprietors Federation, the Automobile Association, local authorities, regional authorities, and so on thought should happen. We got through to a document by the end of the decade, in 1999, called Better Transport, Better Roads.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000559\u0022\u003EBefore Labour members start to rip into me about what a hopeless document it was, I tell them that I have some wonderful quotes on file from Labour members about me, such as \u201CHe\u2019s going to privatise our roads with tolls. That\u2019s what this Minister Williamson will do.\u201D, and \u201CDon\u2019t you let the National Government get back.\u201D If the Minister tries to deny it I will start with some of the quotes, because some of his senior colleagues gave some absolute beauties\u2014for example: \u201CToll roads are an outrage.\u201D; \u201CThe roads should be free.\u201D; \u201CThey should be for the public to use at their will.\u201D; \u201CThey\u2019re the Queen\u2019s highways.\u201D; and \u201CIf you let this Williamson and the National Government back in, that\u2019s the outrage you\u2019ll get.\u201D And what do we see in this bill? Toll roads. The Minister had better get the Labour research unit quickly on to the search engines of their computers and start to dig up some of the juicy quotes from his colleagues about how dreadful the privatising of roads by having toll roads would be.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000560\u0022\u003EI have gone through this legislation carefully and I have to say that it really does miss the bus. In fact, although it probably has the bus in it, it misses the road. That is what it does. The legislation, in order to curry favour with the Greens\u2014who seriously believe we can get people out of their motorcars\u2014states that we will not build any more roads, or finish all those partly broken arterials in Auckland that simply do not function until they are joined up. Instead, we will fund walkways and cycle tracks. That is the Greens\u2019 view of it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000561\u0022\u003EI tell this Committee and this Minister that every other jurisdiction in the world that has poured huge sums of public money into shifting people into public passenger transport openly acknowledges that the money was wasted, because people are wedded to the motorcar. Modern lifestyles demand that if we are to drop the kids here, go to the supermarket there, pick up something, and go to the gym after work, public transport that used to work\u2014the old \u201Cget up, go to work, go home, go to bed\u201D mentality that some Labour Ministers still employ; in fact, they go home to bed in the afternoons\u2014 simply does not work now for modern lifestyles. This bill does not recognise that.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000562\u0022\u003EI tell the Minister the one key ingredient that can fix the transport issues is to start pricing roads based on what they truly cost. That is what should be in the bill, and I intend to take a number of calls on that issue, because it is central to the legislation. If we did not pay for the electricity that we used but just paid a flat rate of $20 a month, or something, we would leave the lights and everything on, all the time. I tell the Minister that on some central arterial routes in downtown metropolitan Auckland it costs a fortune to have traffic moving at peak times. In other places in the country, like on a back road at Opotiki on a Sunday afternoon, it costs very little, yet the same petrol tax is used for the same number of kilometres.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000563\u0022\u003EThe legislation will not work unless we do two things. First of all we must free up some private investment. I can tell members that I have not met one private investment company that will have a bar of investing in new roads. If the Minister knows about any I want to hear what they are, because I have not heard of any with the restrictions that are in this bill. Why does the Government not say to a private company: \u201CIf you want to buy the land, if you want to spend the money, and if you want to build the road, then that\u2019s all right, but there will be some restrictions.\u201D? But that is not what it says in this bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000564\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future): In summarising what I have just heard, it seems to me as if we had a Government that was in power for 9 years and that took 9 years to produce a document. Then we had the Labour Party that was formerly opposed to tolls, and the Greens who are opposed to roads. It is a jolly good thing United Future arrived on the scene so that we could have this bill come into the Chamber today\u2014a bill that will provide some alternative methods of funding for New Zealand\u2019s roads.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000565\u0022\u003EWe do need alternative funding. Since coming to this House I have made frequent points about the diversion of funds from the petrol excise tax, and I take Peter Brown\u2019s point. Some people think that I have gone quiet on that issue, but I have given the Government a chance, according to its word, to give an explanation about what the money is used for. I believe there will be some good reasons why some of that money is spent on things other than roads.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000566\u0022\u003EMost New Zealanders are not so much concerned about the money not being spent on roads as about lack of accountability and lack of transparency. If Treasury can make a good account of why that money is spent on health or other aspects of the Budget, then most New Zealanders will be prepared to put their hands in their pockets to pay for the roads that we desperately need. If we do not see that explanation coming forward very soon, I will again join my voice with others in this Chamber who want that accountability and transparency.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000567\u0022\u003EBut the facts are that we do need alternative funding to get our roading network built. We need it in Tauranga, which needs $500 million worth of roads built within the next 10 years. If we consider that Tauranga\u2019s population is 100,000, we have as big a challenge, if not bigger, than the one Auckland faces with a population of 1 million and a need for $5 billion worth of roads. We have the same challenge in Tauranga. I am pleased to hear the member from Auckland John Key say that he would toll almost anything in order to get the roads built. That is very different from the view of the member for Tauranga, who is now campaigning against tolls in order to try to shore up his support in the city and appeal to a small minority of Tauranga residents.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000568\u0022\u003EMost residents in Tauranga want our roads fixed. They see this bill as providing something very practical in order to get our roading infrastructure moved forward. I love going to Germany and driving on the Autobahns, but the reality is that the German people pay heavily for that facility. We in New Zealand will have to face up to the facts of what it will cost us to build a 21st century roading infrastructure.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000569\u0022\u003EThis bill, through tolling, provides one of the mechanisms for that alternative funding, and it will invite some public-private partnerships. Unlike the member who spoke before me, I do know of some companies\u2014some investors\u2014who are very enthusiastic about this bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000570\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: Name them.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000571\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK: I will be happy to do that, after this speech. I invite the member to come and see me privately and I will be happy to tell him about them. They have not listened to all the hype that has been coming out of the Opposition about how useless this bill is. They have read it for themselves, and they have seen the changes that were made during the select committee process. They are very satisfied that this bill now provides a mechanism for them to get involved and invest in New Zealand\u2019s roading. I look forward to that developing in the years ahead.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000572\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: Make a profit?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000573\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK: They will not enter into it unless they make a profit; the member can be assured of that.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000574\u0022\u003EMany people said at the beginning of this bill that it was useless, and I have to agree with them in terms of many of its complicated parts, but I believe that the select committee has done an excellent job in listening to submitters. The bill has been changed, particularly the parts that relate to alternative funding, which is the part that United Future has taken most interest in because of our agreement with the Government. It is now a workable bill, but it is not the total answer. It is not a silver bullet.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000575\u0022\u003EWe need further alternative methods of funding. As I have said before, I look forward to working with the Minister to see those provided so that Auckland, Tauranga, Wellington, and even Southland can have the kinds of roads that we should have in this country, as a developed nation in the 21st century.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000576\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First): I have to respond to that member. He sat there yesterday, with the mayors of the local district and other dignitaries, and agreed with the member for Tauranga\u2019s assertion that the first call for funding for roading should be on the petrol tax that goes into the Crown account. Now he is saying that the member for Tauranga is doing this for popularity reasons. I tell you that\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000577\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Do not bring me into the debate.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000578\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Well, I tell the Chairman and the Committee that the member for Tauranga had a public meeting on Friday\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000579\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson: You\u2019re supposed to tell him.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000580\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: That is what I thought. Members are keen to know what the member for Tauranga did. He called a public meeting. Every seat was taken. It was full and brimming at the sides. There were business people, small-business people, large- business people, and members of the general public. They were not necessarily New Zealand First people. Many of them probably voted for United Future. I think they might change their mind now, after hearing that member. They said, unanimously, that they do not want tolls.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000581\u0022\u003ETolling is not fair. If one wants to look at how tolling is being applied, and how unfair it is from time to time, look at Route K in Tauranga right now. It was estimated it was going to take between 6,000 and 10,000 vehicles a day. It is averaging 2,000 vehicles a day. It is barely getting sufficient funds to man the toll bridge. It is not paying for the debt of building the road, because people use the alternative route. That member, Mr Baldock, will support clause 53(2), which the Minister has put in. It was not in the bill as introduced. It will allow the Minister to toll an existing road. We know that is set up for Tauranga. We know that that is\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000582\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain: Ha, ha!\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000583\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: The Minister is laughing. He knows that it is a set-up for Tauranga. He knows that we are so darn efficient in Tauranga we want to use our roads to the maximum, and he thinks that the people of Tauranga are silly enough to pay a toll on a bridge that was tolled a year ago, but the toll has been taken off. I tell the Minister that they are not that silly. Mr Baldock might think they are, but I can tell members that they are not that silly. They do not want the bridge to be tolled again, to pay for future developments in Tauranga.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000584\u0022\u003EI might add that the harbour bridge project clarifies and fits all the criteria of a State highway. It should be declared a State highway and it should be funded by Transit/Transfund. This is nothing but a con trick to keep it as a local road and force the local people to deal with the problem. There is money in Transfund to pay for that project right now. It does not need any further income at all. Mr Baldock knows that. I say to Mr Baldock that if he puts his name, and United Future puts its name, to signing up to this bill, as apparently they are going to, they will be doing a disservice to the people of this country. New Zealanders do not want generic road tolling across the board, at the whim of the Minister. I think the Minister will find that out in due course.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000585\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson: They don\u2019t want taxation, for that matter.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000586\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: No, they do not want taxation. I think the member behind me made some very good comments. The average person wants the cost load spread as far as possible in proportion to road usage. Mr Williamson would like swipe cards, transponders, and what have you. I do not think New Zealanders will go that far, but they would be prepared to pay for roading through their fuel tax, if it was across the board.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000587\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: What\u2019s the difference between that and road tolls?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000588\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: I tried to illustrate\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000589\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: Why should my grandma pay for your roads in Tauranga?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000590\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: She does not have to pay for our roads in Tauranga. The member is quite confused. How long has he had the transport portfolio? I will have to talk to him privately. He has no idea how this system works.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000591\u0022\u003EI make it quite clear that we should be sitting down, working out the total cost to this country of bringing the roading up to par, and then working out a formula that is fair to everybody.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000592\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): This is Part 2, which deals with the funding of the land transport system and the land transport programmes. The member for United Future made a very good speech in favour of pork-barrel politics, because with this legislation we are seeing a return to having money dished out in election year, or close to election year, to favour certain electorates. We will see tolling only in Tauranga, just to satisfy that member. We have heard that a bridge will be built in Waimakariri, which will keep Clayton Cosgrove safe, because he listened to the speech given at the ACT conference and knew that he might be in danger of losing his seat. We have seen the Associate Minister of Transport signal what will happen in the eastern part of Auckland. She said that she did not agree with the eastern corridor and that it was not the right solution, just so that the people of Howick could have an extra half an hour in bed. She says that she was misquoted, but everybody says that, do they not, when it comes back to bite them?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000593\u0022\u003EPeople have said tonight that they do not understand what the old system of cost- benefit ratio was about, or that it was something to do with having someone die on a road before anything got done. That is impugning the reputation and expertise of all the officials at Transfund, who did a very good job of setting a cost-benefit ratio. This bill sacrifices cost-efficiency to social and environmental factors. The efficiency goal, in terms of the cost-benefit ratio, does not accommodate those considerations, at all. Members opposite obviously do not have a clue what the cost-benefit ratio meant. [Interruption] It is obviously market day again, because the fishwives are out in force\u2014 to quote the member for Tauranga.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000594\u0022\u003ESafety considerations are incorporated via the estimates of the benefits of a project in reducing road accidents. They already are taken into consideration. That is part of the cost-benefit ratio. United Future members talked about efficiency, but they cannot actually define what that means. They had some nebulous definition that efficiency meant moving around without wasting time. It is interesting that they support the Transmission Gully project\u2014or their leader has supported it\u2014but Transfund has repeatedly reported that that project is not cost-efficient. All projects seeking money from Transfund should be evaluated on economic criteria, and be expected to provide a positive net benefit for the required investment. That is what it means.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000595\u0022\u003EThe previous Minister of Transport said earlier that this legislation would get the trucks off the road. That is absolutely not true. That is Government spin, because this Government has done a sweet deal with Toll Holdings and given that company exclusive use of the soon-to-be-formed Track Co. Under this bill, road-user charges will be used to maintain and prop up Track Co, the rail track\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000596\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson: That\u2019s outrageous.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000597\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON: It is outrageous. The people who use the track should pay for it. Toll Holdings, an Australian company, should pay for it. It only has to get freight up to a certain tonnage\u2014the Minister knows what I am talking about\u2014which is not very high, before it stops paying any rent on that. So New Zealand road users will be subsidising Toll Holdings, which has come in here and is going to take over the New Zealand trucking industry. Why would it want to invest money in a trucking industry, when it wants to put all the freight on to rail? It would not. If this Government wants to get freight on to rail it will have to return to the bad old days of the 40-mile or 150- kilometre limit, because that is the only way freight will be forced on to rail. Trucking is more efficient.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000598\u0022\u003EThis Government should be getting rid of all the nonsensical consultation that is in Part 2 of this legislation\u2014consultation that goes on and on. Consultation has to be with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, with affected communities, and with M\u0101ori of the region. We will have more and more taniwha nonsense and consideration of w\u0101hi tapu holding up the construction of important roads. Members should look at what has happened about the highway between Auckland and Hamilton. The people in this Government talk about roads being safe and saving people\u2019s lives\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000599\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green): Part 2 provides, for the first time in New Zealand law, for public-private partnerships for the building of new roads. This provision has exercised more excitement than any of the other measures in the bill, both from those who are extremely wary of public-private partnerships as the first step towards the privatisation of roads for private profit, and from those who see public- private partnerships as a wonderful free lunch that will fund roads we otherwise could not have funded.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000600\u0022\u003EThe way they are set out in this bill, neither of those views is true, and perhaps would not be true under any circumstances. But I want to point out that public-private partnerships are not a free lunch, a panacea, or a source of funding for roads that we would not otherwise have had. Regardless of whether the public sector or the private sector builds a road, the money for that road will be borrowed, or will come from road- user charges and petrol tax, or from tolls. There are only three possible sources of funding for that road, in order to pay off the initial capital and running costs. Whether the public or the private sector provides that capital, the funding stream still has to come out of the same pockets, so it is not really a panacea at all.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000601\u0022\u003EHowever, with a design-build - fund-operate road, such as is provided for in the bill, there is the possibility of efficiencies in having the contract with the same concession partner, who works through all stages of that operation. So the Greens have agreed to support the public-private partnerships provision, provided that there are measures in the bill\u2014which are there now\u2014to make sure that the agreements cannot be rigged so that the public purse carries all the risk and the private purse gets all the profit. I think we have achieved that quite well.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000602\u0022\u003EWhen working through the Rodney District Council (Penlink Toll Road) Empowering Bill that came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee a while ago, it was interesting to find that the main way that that project was to be profitable for the private partner was through a tax rort. The private partner was double-dipping on tax savings, and once the Inland Revenue Department had pointed that out to the select committee, it became quite unlikely that the road would have gone ahead\u2014even if the bill had been passed. When these agreements are set up, it is very easy to disguise the fact that the public purse is being made to pay twice for the road. I think we have managed to avoid that kind of rort in this bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000603\u0022\u003EAnother way that the public purse can subsidise private profits inadvertently is if deals are set up where the return on capital is predicated on a certain traffic volume, and if that traffic volume does not eventuate\u2014and we have just heard from Mr Brown about what has happened with Tauranga\u2019s Route K, where the traffic volumes are\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000604\u0022\u003EPeter Brown: You are not challenging me?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000605\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS: No, I am not challenging you. I myself virtually predicted that the traffic volumes would not quite measure up, and therefore that the revenue would not be there. There are some overseas agreements where the public purse then has to compensate the private partner if those traffic volumes do not come up to scratch. This bill initially tried to prevent that with clause 61(2)(j): \u201CThe public sector will not be liable to compensate any party because traffic numbers fall below forecast levels \u2026\u201D. That has been replaced with the rather broader and more general provision in clause 61(3B), which I think is an improvement: \u201CA concession agreement must not include any provision that provides a disincentive for a party to pursue other sustainable transport options \u2026\u201D. In order to keep up traffic volumes on a road, we do not want public transport authorities avoiding expanding a rail link or putting public transport into place because they might reduce the profits of the private partner that owns a public-private partnership concession road.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000606\u0022\u003EWith those provisions in place, plus the fact that there must be an alternative route before a toll can be charged, I believe we have put sufficient conditions around public- private partnerships so that where they are in the public interest, they will happen, and where they are not in the public interest, they will not.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000607\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (National\u2014Ilam): I think a number of speakers have traversed the inadequacies of this bill, and have come to understand why the Prime Minister told the House today that Labour is unable to fix the problem not only of roading throughout New Zealand, but more specifically the difficulties of Auckland City. I am flabbergasted to read clause 15 in Part 2, which talks about consultation. We know that up and down the country now, local authorities that had their new bill passed just before Christmas last year are beginning to struggle under the weight of the consultation they are required to participate in, and their ratepayers are beginning to feel the cost of that consultation process.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000608\u0022\u003EInterestingly, it probably will not hit them fully until the election year 2005, but I note that in order for any of the parties involved to get a roading project up and running, there is an extraordinary requirement for consultation. Clause 15(1) lists that, when it is preparing a land transport programme, Transit must consult Transfund New Zealand, the Land Transport Safety Authority, every affected local authority\u2014that would be the regional councils\u2014and every affected approved public organisation. What sort of a list is that? What public organisation does not have an interest in transport on behalf of its members, on behalf of its employees, or on behalf of the group that it works in? Is there a public organisation that does not have an interest in transport? One could go to the phone book, find the public organisations in a certain area that must be consulted, and come up with a huge list of those, I am sure.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000609\u0022\u003EClause 15(1) provides that Transit must consult the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Commissioner of Police, the Ministry of Health, the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, and the land transport users and providers. [Interruption] Perhaps the Green member could tell the Committee who the users and providers are who have to be consulted in this particular clause, because, once again, I would have thought that it was a matter of going to the phone book to find out who the users are.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000610\u0022\u003EClause 15 goes on to list affected communities, M\u0101ori, and the public. In the case of Auckland, there are seven territorial local authorities, plus the Auckland Regional Council, plus the infrastructure-owning Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd, plus the Infrastructure Auckland organisation. So Transfund New Zealand has an interest, Transit has an interest, and Track Co. has an interest. In this case, it is easy to list seven groupings that have to consult anything up to 11 other categories of interested parties before anything moves. In the case of Auckland, there are seven territorial authorities, and it is inconceivable that a roading project would not go across more than two or three of those authorities. It is not hard to build a picture of a massive consultation process that will just bind everything up so much that nothing will happen.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000611\u0022\u003EI know that the select committee heard from the respected Auckland engineering firm, Beca Group. It said that even without this bill, a roading project that might take 2 years to construct can take 5 years to gain consent.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000612\u0022\u003EJohn Key: Seven.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000613\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE: The member behind me says 7 years. A 2-year project takes 7 years to get off the ground. That firm came to the select committee and said: \u201CMake it easier.\u201D Well, the Labour Government, being the Labour Government, thought that was code for \u201Cmake it harder\u201D\u2014it must have. The brilliant Minister, Mr Swain, got all those cloth-cap friends of his into his office in the Beehive, sat them around a table, and, as they sipped their water, they came up with this amazing clause that makes it harder.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000614\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Junior Whip\u2014Labour): I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000615\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First): Earlier on in this debate there was much made of the words \u201Cefficiency\u201D and \u201Ccost-effectiveness\u201D. I think Jeanette Fitzsimons said she did not understand what efficiency meant in terms of this bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000616\u0022\u003EJeanette Fitzsimons: I said nobody could define it for me.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000617\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Larry Baldock from United Future had a go. He tried, and got four out of 10. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness should apply to every dollar the motorist puts in. If we go for road tolls, as this bill does, the motorist has to build toll plazas, man them 24 hours a day, be responsible for their administration, pay back the interest on the capital borrowed, and make a profit for the private component. If we talk of fuel tax, there are none of those capital costs or outlays. It is relatively very easy to collect. It can all, or very, very largely all of it, go into roading\u2014the whole darn lot. I would like to see a measurement of what amount of a dollar collected through fuel tax could go into roading, as against a dollar collected at a toll plaza. I would say it would be significant.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000618\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock: Are you going to support a 50c increase?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000619\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Mr Baldock has asked me a question and I will endeavour to answer it. I would say that fuel tax wins hands down in terms of efficiency and cost- effectiveness. We are arguing, therefore, whether the motorist pays enough now or, in lieu of paying a road toll, should pay a bit more. If the Government is to collect so many millions\u2014or so many billions, as Mr Baldock obviously thinks he is going to\u2014through road tolls from the whole of the country, what would that amount to in terms of adding on to the fuel tax, or taking a bit out of the 18.5c or whatever? With fuel tax we do not have to worry about alternative routes. We do not have to worry, as they are worrying right now in Tauranga, about putting restrictions on those alternative routes in order to compel people to use the toll road. Fuel tax or, to put it better another way, the motorist paying on a common user basis, is a much fairer system, it is a much more easily understood system, and it is a much more acceptable system to the average New Zealander.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000620\u0022\u003EI say to the Committee, is the motorist paying enough now? Is there an economic report? Has the Minister of Transport seen the economic report that the Deputy Prime Minister indicated he was having compiled some months ago?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000621\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: It\u2019s a secret.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000622\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Is it a secret? Or is it, worse still, a con trick? Is it something that the Minister told us about in this House but does not exist?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000623\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain: No, it was about the cost and charges study and it is due to come out at some stage.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000624\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Why not bring it out before this bill is passed, so that we, the people who are genuinely questioning this bill, can have a fuller understanding of what it is about?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000625\u0022\u003EI ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Swain, to ask his officials whether they are aware of such a report, because the last time I spoke to them, they were not. I find that most unusual. I tell the Minister, honestly, that I would not run a corner diary with that sort of philosophy. If we are straight-up in addressing roading problems in this country, then we have to be straight-up. We have to divulge what we know, what the problems are, and what the recommendations are for fixing them. If there is a report on the economic evaluation\u2014call it what one likes\u2014of roading in this country in terms of the 18.5c that goes into the Crown account, then we should see it before we pass this bill. I believe that the Minister has a duty. The Minister of Finance referred to this in the middle of September, in answer to a supplementary question from Mr Baldock. I gather that Mr Baldock has not followed that up. He is nodding that he has not followed it up.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000626\u0022\u003EHon MARK GOSCHE (Labour\u2014Maungakiekie): I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000627\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville): The Land Transport Management Bill is a hopeless piece of legislation, and everyone knows it except for the Prime Minister, who came to the Chamber and said: \u201CI think it is a good piece of legislation\u201D. We cannot expect the Labour Government to get it right. \u201CTrafgaffe\u201D\u2014that is what this will be known as. She will regret the day that she took on the warrior for the National Party, the future Prime Minister of New Zealand, Don Brash. She will regret the day that she rolled out \u201CTrafgaffe\u201D, and she will be eating her words for months to come. As she sees the polls slip lower and lower, her fear will rise, and all of a sudden she will rue the day that she did not do something to fix Auckland\u2019s roads. Mark my words, \u201CTrafgaffe\u201D is here to stay. [Interruption] The senior Government whip needs to listen, because this legislation will not work.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000628\u0022\u003EI want to discuss a couple of specific clauses\u2014in particular, the clauses that state that we cannot toll existing highways in New Zealand. I think this is a poorly constructed piece of legislation, and I will explain why.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000629\u0022\u003EHon Mark Gosche: That\u2019s not what you said in the select committee.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000630\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY: That is what I said. In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I argued vehemently that existing roads should be tolled. Imagine this clear example: we are on a three-lane highway in New Zealand, and one lane could be tolled. Under that model, we could have traffic demand management, we could raise funds to put into new roading, and we could take a step toward fixing Auckland\u2019s roads. What did the Government say when adviser after adviser told it to do that? It said no, it would rather deliver a hopeless piece of legislation.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000631\u0022\u003EMr Brown has said that the answer lies in fuel tax. He is right, in part, because a great deal of money will be required to fix New Zealand\u2019s roads. But fuel tax is not the answer, in totality, because it does very little for demand management.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000632\u0022\u003EPeter Brown: Don\u2019t tell me the Greens have got at you.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000633\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY: No, no, it does very little indeed. It cannot be specific to a single lane. It cannot be specific to some clip-ons that could be put on the Auckland Harbour Bridge.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000634\u0022\u003EBrent Catchpole: You can\u2019t put any more on it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000635\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY: Well, one can, actually. I do not believe that fuel tax is the single answer. I think it is part of the problem, but not the complete answer.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000636\u0022\u003EI also refer to why the inability to toll existing roads is so important. Auckland has had an uncompleted network of roads since 1963. That is the fact of the situation. Those pieces of road need to be put together. That has to be the priority for Auckland. I do not believe that any single individual road in Auckland will be self-sustaining, from a tolling point of view. I think that if we look at building the eastern corridor for $2.9 billion or $3 billion, we will not be able to toll it and pay for it in totality. But we can toll the network in Auckland, which can be paid to fund not one specific road, but all roads. We are talking about a large amount of money. My prediction is that we are talking about a minimum of $10 billion to fix Auckland\u2019s roads. That will not happen without some substantial efforts to toll.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000637\u0022\u003EI also make reference to clause 62(2) and the provision that requires the Minister, under the concession agreement, to be satisfied that the activities have a high degree of support from the affected community. When the officials came before the select committee, I asked them what a high degree of community support was. They were unable to give an answer. They thought that two-thirds of a community had to agree before it was OK. Two-thirds is a ridiculous number. Seventy-one percent of all New Zealanders turn out for a general election, and about 29 percent vote in local government elections. How on earth will we get two-thirds of a community to agree to sign up for a toll road? What is an \u201Caffected community\u201D? If I have a beach house that is at the end of an area where a road could go through, am I part of the affected community? Not according to the definition in the bill.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000638\u0022\u003EI will also talk about the limitations of the concession agreement, which was limited to 35 years. I want to give the Minister some credit, because he changed it from 30 years to 35 years, and that is good.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000639\u0022\u003EDIANNE YATES (Labour\u2014Hamilton East): I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000640\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT): I have listened with huge interest to this debate, and I will make a few comments, first of all, about the Green Party\u2019s contribution. I have always believed that the Greens are a party of principle, and its principle is simply that no sacrifice is too great for the people of this country to make on its behalf. It is a party prepared to die in the ditch on its principles. Jeanette Fitzsimons very nearly did, according to, I think, the Independent just recently. Ignoring the green strip on the road that is supposedly for buses, or cyclists, or somebody or other, the Green Party\u2014this party of principle, this party of the law\u2014instructed a taxi to pull in outside Bowen House, which held up the traffic, and contributed to an outrageous situation, in this very town, just outside this very building. I am shocked. It is not the sort of thing that an ACT party member would do.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000641\u0022\u003EHon Maurice Williamson: That\u2019s resignation stuff.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000642\u0022\u003EGERRARD ECKHOFF: It is resignation stuff. I am talking about principle: getting things right, doing things right, and sticking to what one believes in. I hope that Jeanette Fitzsimons will take a call, and explain to the Committee why she ignored the very important paint on the road, which enables cyclists and the buses to travel in safety, except when the Greens are in a taxi.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000643\u0022\u003EI listened with great interest to a new economic policy that I heard from some members tonight\u2014I think United Future has one, and I think Peter Brown has one, as well. It is that roads should be free. One can only assume that United Future prays to God, and the next morning there is a free road somewhere. I have a little surprise for them\u2014it does not happen that way. Nothing is free. Somebody pays somewhere. If this principle about roads being free really did work, why do we not apply it to electricity? Why not make electricity free? We have a shortage of electricity right now, so imagine what would happen if we made electricity free. It would make the roads in Auckland on a Friday morning at 9 o\u2019clock look absolutely ridiculous by comparison. Why do we not have free food? There is a thought for us. What would happen if food became free? I have heard these dumb concepts in the Chamber, about this new economic principle.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000644\u0022\u003EIf we really want to look about and fix the roading problems, then two things stand out in my mind. First of all, you have\u2014I say \u201Cyou\u201D, Madam Chairperson, but I am speaking in the \u201Cewe\u201D concept, being an agrarian-type person\u2014to make decisions. This might be a difficult concept for the Government to understand, but we have to decide that we will fix this problem, make a decision, and stand or fall on the merits of that decision.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000645\u0022\u003EIt is not difficult, but what we have here are huge impediments to decision making. At last count, clause 15 listed something like 11 organisations. There was Transfund, the Commissioner of Police, affected local authorities\u2014God only knows how many of them; representatives of land transport users, affected communities, the Ministry of Health, and approved organisations. I suppose \u201Capproved organisations\u201D means groups like the Environmental Defence Society and Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand and those sorts of organisations. Then there are affected M\u0101ori. That is an interesting one. I see later on in the bill somewhere that there are such things as M\u0101ori roads. I wonder whether anybody could tell me exactly what a M\u0101ori road is. Is it a road that is privately owned by M\u0101ori, or is it the \u201CRoad to Nowhere\u201D up near Tame Iti\u2019s spot? Some of the stuff that I find in this bill is quite extraordinary\u2014 absolutely amazing.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000646\u0022\u003EIf the Government is going to have this level of consultation, then we should not be surprised to find that no decision will ever be made, because there are vested interests. It will be a case of territorial authorities versus everybody else. Then we have Infrastructure Auckland, which is desperately wanting to hang on to however many dollars it has.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000647\u0022\u003EDAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip\u2014Labour): I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223fac0b3095d4478899fbc64736f1e402\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAbstentions 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000648\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National\u2014Pakuranga): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I put it to you that this is a very significant piece of legislation, and this part has 60 clauses in it. There has never been transport legislation with as many clauses, and in a short period of time the National Party has, I think, taken three calls. To take the closure motion as quickly as this is an outrage.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000649\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member\u2014[Interruption] That member can leave the Chamber, because a warning has been given that during points of order there will be silence.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000650\u0022\u003EDianne Yates withdrew from the Chamber.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000651\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The chairperson is the sole judge of when to accept the closure.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000652\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Senior Whip\u2014NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000653\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is the point of order relevant to the vote?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000654\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Earlier on\u2014I think you were in the Chair at the time\u2014I picked up on the chairperson going from National Party member to National Party member.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000655\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, no\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000656\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Let me finish. My point of order is serious.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000657\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Will the member please be seated. It is not a point of order about the vote. I thought the member had a point of order\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000658\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Well, I am challenging the vote because New Zealand First has had only calls that I have taken. My colleagues here sought the call.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000659\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, that is not a correct point of order.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000660\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 10 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000661\u0022\u003Eto amend subclause (2) by inserting, after the words \u201CThe national land transport account may be used to provide funds as follows\u201D, the words \u201C, with available non- roading funding capped at 10% of the total fund\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227f1a1b2a316c415280df75131f2932b4\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 34\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 82\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000662\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to the amendment to clause 61 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000663\u0022\u003Eto omit new subclause (5) set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 165, and substitute the following:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000664\u0022\u003E(5) The term of a concession agreement is open to negotiation between the parties involved.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002276f6d8b103354114aec5c7536eabf7ad\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 34\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 82\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment to the amendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000665\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228272780e70444753ab1a97cca4ff6208\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000666\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 53 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000667\u0022\u003Eto omit subclause (1)(e).\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e385f6de25c94014950fedca5075ea0d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 34\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 82\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226826e13d3cc240adb3f16a56002adde1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 47\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000668\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Senior Whip\u2014NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am challenging whether you are administering the speaking slots in proportion to the party size. I believe that New Zealand First got two calls on Part 2. I got both of them, but my colleague did not get a call. I believe that other parties are getting a bigger slice of the cake, so to speak, than we are. I am asking you to administer the calls proportionately, and I wonder whether you would confirm whether I am correct.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000669\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That was carried out.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000670\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: Can you tell me how we stacked up compared with the other parties?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000671\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the closure was given correctly in terms of the Standing Orders. The member can have a look, if he wants to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000672\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I did not challenge your ruling at the time, but I would now like to point out that the Green Party had one call on Part 2, National had four, and two other members of the House had two calls each. My colleague came down to the Chamber to seek the call and did not get one. I feel that we have been rather under-represented in the last debate as well, which is why I abstained on the closure motion.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000673\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As I indicated, the proportionality in terms of the Standing Orders was correct.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000674\u0022\u003EJOHN CARTER (Senior Whip\u2014National): I am seeking clarification, Madam Chairperson, because I think this is an important matter. Peter Brown has asked whether the number of speaking slots for each party could be indicated. You have said we cannot\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000675\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I did not say that; I said they were available to members. What I said was they were given proportionally, and the member\u2019s proportion was correct.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000676\u0022\u003EJOHN CARTER: It would be useful perhaps if we could be told the number of speaking slots we got, so that each of the parties could know. Given that the Greens have also expressed an interest, it might move this along if the Clerk could give us an indication of the number of speaking slots that each party got and then we can judge for ourselves. I am unsure. I think the National Party got four slots\u2014Gerry Brownlee got one, John Key got two, and Maurice Williamson got one.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000677\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): To clarify, the proportionality was correct in terms of the numbers in the Chamber. The National Party received four calls, New Zealand First two, United Future one, ACT two, and the Greens one.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000678\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000679\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I am sorry, the matter of the closure motion cannot be debated. It is not a matter of further debate. I have ruled on the point of order. Is this is a new point of order?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000680\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE: Yes. My point of order is that what you have just said is incorrect. It would be impossible for there to be proportionality when we got two calls and the others got only one.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000681\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not the only factor that is taken into account. In terms of the proportionality issue that Mr Brown raised, I refer members to Standing Order 103.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000682\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You said to the Committee that the speaking slots were allocated in terms of proportionality. The entire Committee heard you say that, and it was not correct.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000683\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It was correct.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000684\u0022\u003EPart 3 Administrative provisions relating to Transfund and Transit, and miscellaneous provisions\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000685\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (National\u2014Ilam): Right at the start of Part 3 we find the reason the Prime Minister so confidently said in the House today that Labour could not fix the problems of Auckland transport, and could not put right the difficulties that New Zealand communities are faced with when it comes to their need for roading. The reason for that can be found in clause 70, \u201CObjective of Transfund\u201D, where subclause (2) states that \u201CTransfund must exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility, which includes\u2014(a) avoiding, to the extent reasonable in the circumstances, adverse effects on the environment;\u201D. That is a very broad and most definitely contestable circumstance put upon Transit when it comes to considering any project at all\u2014adverse effects on the environment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000686\u0022\u003ESome people in this country believe that every time a key is turned in a car, there is an adverse effect on the environment; that every time the wheel of a car turns full circle on a road, there is an adverse effect on the environment; that every time a bit of shingle is quarried to build a road, there is an adverse effect on the environment; and every time some new tarmac is laid down somewhere, there is an adverse effect on the environment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000687\u0022\u003EUnder subclause (2) Transfund must take into account the need for the views of affected communities to be taken into account by persons and organisations preparing land transport programmes. I spoke before about the incredible list of affected parties that clause 15 picks up. So we have not only the all-catching subclause (2) enabling every environmental enthusiast in the country to hold up a roading project anywhere, but also the obligations on Transfund to go out and find the objectors and consult them.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000688\u0022\u003ESubclause (2) also states that Transfund must provide for the need for persons and organisations when preparing land transport programmes to give early and full consideration to land transport options and alternatives in a way that contributes to the objectives referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). This means effectively that if there is a big group out there that thinks bicycles are the answer, then the roading is out. If there is a big group out there that thinks walking is the answer, then the roading is out. If there are a lot of people in the whole phone book of organisations that must be consulted, then we see a complete slowing down of these projects.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000689\u0022\u003EI repeat for the Minister\u2019s benefit that one of the most respected engineering organisations in this country, Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner\u2014the Minister nods his head, because he knows\u2014asked the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee whether it could have some way of speeding up these projects. People might have thought: \u201CNo, hang on. There should be a reasonable amount of process when these projects are put together.\u201D But Beca Carter said that under the current arrangements a road that takes perhaps 2 years to build\u2014therefore many, many kilometres long\u2014can take 7 years in the consent process.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000690\u0022\u003EI ask the Minister to explain how clause 70 of Part 3 will in any way mitigate against the extensive resource consent process that is there now. It will not make a blind bit of difference. All it will do is ensure that the Government has a huge fund of money being collected from petrol tax\u2014from the 4c that my constituents pay on every litre of petrol in Christchurch\u2014accumulating for its use. We have seen in other parts of the bill the legislation allowing it to put its hands in that pot.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000691\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): This afternoon we heard the Prime Minister state that this Government could not fix the roading problems in Auckland\u2014it could not put it right. [Interruption] She clearly stated in question time, in answer to a question from this side of the House, that the Government could not put it right. The planning for the motorway system in Auckland has been in place since 1963\u201440 years ago. Successive Governments have failed to provide the funding, and in this case it would be for Transfund to fund this roading network. Instead, Governments have failed to put the planning in place for that funding. The network and the corridors are in place\u2014they have been there for 40 years\u2014but the funding has been done piecemeal. The Government has swapped it from one project to another, and it has continued to do that, and it has just done it again around Auckland because it wanted to shuffle the figures, and it tried to bring in tolling. Tolling will not work. The Government has continued to tax the motorist, but it has failed to put that money towards roading. All tolling will do will mean that the Government will put less of the petrol tax towards roading and will continue to siphon it off and put it elsewhere. Therefore, Transfund will never have sufficient funds to fund the Auckland network. When will this Government put the 4.7c of tax that it put on in February last year into roading? It put the tax on motorists throughout the whole country to pay for the roads in Auckland. That money has never gone towards the roads in Auckland. The taxes were siphoned off elsewhere, yet it was stated that it was definitely to be for the solving of Auckland\u2019s roading problems.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000692\u0022\u003EHon Rick Barker: Has the member been to Auckland?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000693\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE: I wonder whether the Minister has been to Auckland. I live in Auckland and I have to travel through Auckland on a regular basis.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000694\u0022\u003EHon Rick Barker: There are roads under construction and bridges being built there.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000695\u0022\u003EAuckland has never seen so much activity.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000696\u0022\u003EBRENT CATCHPOLE: The Minister is bleating, saying that there are bridges being put in here and everywhere. I ask the Minister why the Albany to Puhoi realignment (ALPURT) in North Auckland has not gone ahead. It has now gone back to the consultation process because this Government wants to toll it. So, once again, the funding that was already set aside for this piece of road has been transferred elsewhere. The Government has shown that it is not to be trusted with the taxes that it collects from petrol taxes. The Government wants to siphon it off and transfer it elsewhere, and it does so. It transferred the funding from the ALPURT project because now this bill has brought in that that particular road can be tolled. All tolling will do is slow it down and put it back. When the courts were asked whether they would extend the resource consent at Orewa for this particular project, they said that yes, they would extend it, but for only 10 months\u2014not the 7 years that was requested to extend this motorway. They limited it to 10 months, because they know that this Government cannot be trusted to put this funding towards the roading in Auckland, which it had promised in the long term. It was promised to Auckland as a means of funding Auckland\u2019s roads, as an election sop. What happened? The moment the election came around, the Government shifted it away from Transfund to elsewhere. This Government cannot be trusted to fund the Auckland network. It is estimated that it will take $10 billion to get Auckland back on the road. This Government has proved that it is not willing to do that.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000697\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): Part 3 is the essential part that changes the statutory objectives of Transfund and Transit to broaden the focus of each entity\u2014the administrative provisions relating to Transfund. Let us look at what this means. Clause 70(1) states: \u201CThe objective of Transfund is to allocate resources in a way that contributes to an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system.\u201D What is a land transport system? Land transport, according to clause 5, means: \u201C(i) transport on land by any means:\u201D, plus \u201C(ii) the infrastructure, goods, and services facilitating that transport:\u201D. Under this bill there are road-user charges, of which, as we have already heard, only $7 of every $50 that is spent on petrol goes into the roads. The rest goes into Government taxes. Even more of this will be spent on other things. This legislation is so loosely defined.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000698\u0022\u003EI ride my horse every weekend around the Rodney electorate, and I could argue that under this legislation this Government should hand out road-user charges to me for my horse\u2014and not just for the horse but for the blacksmith, as well, because it provides money to infrastructure, goods, and services facilitating that transport. Why on earth should the people who use the roads have that money sucked off and put into the fact that I ride a horse? I choose to ride a horse because I think it is environmentally sound. I do not see many Greens out there, around that electorate, riding horses. Does that member see them? [Interruption] I do not see them riding bicycles, for that matter. But under this legislation the Government could put money into the blacksmith, the stables, and the vet, and take from me all the responsibility for paying for my own form of transport that I choose to use in the weekends. It could take all the responsibility for that from me and load it on to the poor old motorist, who gets whacked every time.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000699\u0022\u003EDo members know why this legislation is anti-car? Because that is what it is; it is anti-car. Why is it anti-car? It is because cars represent freedom. Cars represent freedom of choice for people who choose to get around\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000700\u0022\u003EOpposition Members: Oh!\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000701\u0022\u003EDEBORAH CODDINGTON: \u201COh!\u201D those members say, laughing away. What does that Government know about mothers who have to get across Auckland and pick up children from four different places? This party knows about bringing up children. This party knows about having children. The three women ACT members have 11 children between them. What does that Prime Minister know about bringing up children? What does that Prime Minister know about picking up one\u2019s kids from soccer and music, picking up someone else\u2019s kids from school, and running all around town? That is what using a car means. That is what freedom of choice means.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000702\u0022\u003EThis Government would not have a clue what it is like for an average family to get around Auckland\u2014or Tauranga, for that matter\u2014or any other city where there are problems with the roads. It is not just in the cities but out in the rural areas too, where the roads are in an appalling state. This legislation, because of the changes to the provisions for Transfund and Transit, will do nothing. In fact, it will do even less for the roads. Under this legislation, especially Part 3, that money can be used for anything\u2014 any land transport; any means of transport on the road. This is an absolute disgrace for New Zealanders, for New Zealand working families, who are having even more choice taken off them.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000703\u0022\u003EI have no problem with people using public transport, but it is always the same\u2014 whenever one goes to a public meeting, people say: \u201CWe need more public transport. We need more money for public transport.\u201D, but when one says, at the end of that meeting: \u201CWho came to this meeting using public transport?\u201D, they all shake their heads; not a single person. Well, public transport will not be there if they do not use it. If people do not use it, they lose it. The reason people do not use public transport in New Zealand is that we are wedded to the car because it affords us much greater mobility. We are a nation of people who actually like freedom of choice. We do not like central planning or central control, which this legislation brings back in terms of shifting the focus of Transfund and Transit, which were operating very well. It was not so much the lack of funding that stopped roads getting built; it was the Resource Management Act.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000704\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green): Part 3 introduces the radical idea that Transfund and Transit should exercise their functions with a reasonable degree of social and environmental responsibility. There is a change!\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000705\u0022\u003EWe have already heard from Lockwood Smith tonight that he is totally opposed to social and environmental responsibility. He said that he just wants roads, so therefore he does not want responsible roads; he wants irresponsible roads. It seems to be that what the National Party is mainly arguing tonight is, let us have irresponsible roads. Lockwood Smith and the National Party should eat their hearts out! We are to have roads built with a reasonable degree of social and environmental responsibility. The clause that provides for that is clause 70, which sets out the objectives of Transfund. In meeting its very reasonable objective of allocating funds to contribute to an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system, Transfund has to avoid, to the extent reasonable in the circumstances, adverse effects on the environment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000706\u0022\u003EMembers may not know that the biggest single cause of water pollution of local streams in rural areas is rural roadworks. It is greater than agricultural run-off, even. The silt running from rural roadworks, through carelessness, where proper silt traps and bunding around the works are not put in, creates more problems for the life in those streams than any other rural activity. All this legislation is saying is that when Transit is building a road it needs to take a reasonable amount of care to protect the environment. It means that when roads are planned through fragile ecosystems like wetlands, Transit must not just barge through without any thought as to how the ecosystem will be disrupted or where the water drainage will go. It means that the old cut and fill approach to putting roads through fragile landscapes sometimes needs, where it is reasonable and affordable, to be replaced by a certain amount of bridging and tunnelling, which is what every other civilised country that has some care for its environment would do. I am proud of the fact that this legislation moves us forward to a time where we meet our economic needs with a certain amount of responsibility towards our social and environmental needs, as well.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000707\u0022\u003EClause 70 also requires that Transfund takes into the account the views of people who are affected, and there seems to be a lot of opposition in the Committee to that, as well. There seems to be huge opposition to the idea that anyone should be consulted, that people should have a chance to express a view, and that options should be considered at an early stage when it is still possible to choose the best one. Surely we are past the old Industrial Revolution stage where we simply bulldoze something we call progress through anything that is in the way, without taking any account of people or the environment on the way through. I cannot believe that New Zealand wants to be stuck back in the Dark Ages, and I am proud that we now have legislation that provides for proper consultation of the people whose lives will be affected by the road, and proper environmental responsibility.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000708\u0022\u003EI want to ask those people who think that consultation will delay things, whether they have ever thought how long it takes to build a road when people do not consult. How long does it take to go through appeal after appeal, when everybody is up in arms at the project because they never had a say? What about all the cases we never hear about, where people get it right in the first place, where people are consulted, and where the problems are ironed out at the beginning when there are still options, and that simply go through without opposition? It is faster, in the end, to do it right at the start than to keep on trying to deal with public opposition once it gets up a head of steam. That is why we have consultation principles in this bill that provide for the consultation to be early rather than right at the end, which is what Resource Management Act consultation does. They also provide for options to be properly considered, and provide for the appropriate bodies that have advice to give, for example, health organisations, and the people who are affected, such as the communities through which roads are built, to be consulted.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000709\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National\u2014Pakuranga): I want to cover this part that relates to the administrative provisions for Transfund and Transit. Firstly, I want to claim credit in this Committee for being the Minister who created the beasts Transfund and Transit, and separated them. When I became the Minister of Transport there was what, I think, was a grubby conflict of interest within Transit. Because it was both the funder and the provider of roads, there were some quite perverse incentives for it to fund its own little operation, at the expense of others.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000710\u0022\u003EHowever, I say to the Minister how disappointed I am that this legislation has not moved us forward and given Transfund a whole tool-box full of the funding tools that are so desperately needed, and that are just taken for granted elsewhere. I was staggered to hear Peter Brown, the New Zealand First member, say how opposed to tolls he was. I ask that member to just reflect. Can he tell me a civilised Western World jurisdiction that we would like to be comparable with that does not have toll roads? That is the question. Some of the most left-leaning Governments in Europe have toll roads. Schroeder has toll roads in Germany, and he is from the left.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000711\u0022\u003EHon Harry Duynhoven: Denmark.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000712\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yes, that is right. I know that right-wing countries like, say, the United States\u2014which we obviously like to compare ourselves with, in some way\u2014has toll roads, and Canada has toll roads. Tony Blair, that Labour Prime Minister in Britain\u2014I was going to say ever-popular, but that is not quite the case any more\u2014has toll roads.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000713\u0022\u003EJohn Key: China.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000714\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: My colleague John Key interjects with the best interjection of all. The People\u2019s Republic of China\u2014the communists, the reds under the bed\u2014probably has more toll roads as a percentage of its network than anywhere else. I ask Mr Brown how he thinks the old blunt instrument of the flat petrol tax can continue, when things like demand management will be an essential part of any formula in the future. How would he try to stem peak demand at peak times?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000715\u0022\u003EI say to the Minister that I hope he looked at an example that I looked at in California\u2014in fact, it was present in more states than just California; it was also in some of the other west coast states\u2014where some of the trucking companies were being allowed to have global positioning systems on their trucks and to pay time of day, day of week, and location rates. That would mean that if the trucking companies stayed away from the \u201CSpaghetti Junction\u201D that we have in Auckland during the peak time they would get a discount, and if they did their goods delivery at 3 a.m. in Penrose, rather than at 3 p.m., they would get a discount. I think the flat, universal hubodometer-type charging that we have for the big trucks is a nonsense.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000716\u0022\u003EWhen I first saw this bill come to Parliament I thought that it was weak, and now that the Greens have nobbled it further, it is even weaker. It is actually puerile. If the Minister wanted to get the roading system working, he should have taken up the offer that the National Party made that we would make up the numbers needed to provide the Government with the tool-box that Mayor Banks, the employers and manufacturers, and so many other sectors have said is desperately needed. I see that Simon Carlaw quotes from Business New Zealand. There is a whole range of others also saying that. It is just not possible to go into the future using some sort of a communist, socialist, flat-earth thinking, whereby we will all pay the same no matter what. I think one of the most bizarre proxies for our road use and charging\u2014and it has not been addressed in this part\u2014is rates. What on earth does the value of one\u2019s property have to do with what one should pay for the roads?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000717\u0022\u003EI would have loved to see something in this bill that moved us out of that flat-earth thinking, moved us out of rates, and moved us out of the petrol tax to some extent\u2014 although I understand that petrol tax will always be a reasonably flat proxy\u2014and put in place some proper systems whereby Transfund could start some electronic road pricing. Maybe it would not be for ordinary cars to start with; I do not think most New Zealanders are quite ready for their car to have electronic road pricing. Yet they only have to flick over to Melbourne or to New South Wales, and they think it is great there. So it is not that far away. We are not talking of nations that are so bizarre. Electronic road pricing is just across the pond, and it will come to New Zealand. But what about electronic road pricing for our commercial vehicles? There is none of that in this part.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000718\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First): I welcome following the member, because if he had listened to me carefully he might have understood a little more of what I said. New Zealand First never ever said that we are totally opposed to toll roads\u2014never ever. I did not say that. What I said\u2014I will make this quite clear, and I think the Minister will understand it\u2014was that we are against the framework of generic toll roading that this bill provides for. We would be supportive of the individual toll road, but we are not prepared to give a blanket, across-the-country support for toll roads that just leaves the Minister or some such person to sign off on them. I tried to point out, and I went to some pains to do so, that there is better use of a dollar when it goes through the petrol tax system. The member just acknowledged that there is a use for that.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000719\u0022\u003EWe are saying that if we provide a framework for generic toll roading, then motorists will get taken to the cleaners time and time again, and they are sick of that. The average motorist is sick of being used as a cash cow. So just to recap for the benefit of anybody who is in doubt, we would not necessarily oppose a toll road in a specific area for a specific reason, but we are not prepared to support a bill that gives toll roading carte blanche here, there, and everywhere. Nor are we prepared to support a bill that has been amended to give the Minister the right to toll a road that is already in existence, which we know is targeted at the harbour bridge project in Tauranga. We know the Government has United Future under the thumb. The United Future members will put their little hands up and say yes, they will go along with that. We know that clause 53(2), although not in this part, has been specially inserted in order to accomplish that project by means of tolling. I tell the Minister that if he pursues that, then there will be quite some outbursts in Tauranga. The people there do not want a toll to be put back on the harbour bridge. There is no reason\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000720\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe: Yes they do!\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000721\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: That member is so out of touch he does not know what the price of petrol is. He just gets in his Crown car and drives around the country at the taxpayers\u2019 expense, and he gleefully enjoys it. For a young man who does not know what he is doing, he is doing very well at the taxpayers\u2019 expense.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000722\u0022\u003EBrent Catchpole: He certainly won\u2019t be walking home tonight.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000723\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: No, he will not be walking home tonight.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000724\u0022\u003EDavid Benson-Pope: What is that member\u2019s salary\u2014unearned?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000725\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: The member over there on the Government side of the Chamber is very confused. I would invite Mr Benson-Pope to stand up, take a call\u2014he has plenty to say in terms of interjections\u2014and let us hear what he actually feels about this bill. Generic toll roading is not required in this country; it is neither required nor is it desirable. I think the Labour Party will find, to its detriment, that New Zealanders do not agree with it.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000726\u0022\u003EWe believe that in the first instance, and I want to make this quite clear, there should be fairer use of the 18.5c tax that goes into the Crown account. The Minister shakes his head\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000727\u0022\u003EHon Paul Swain: Why didn\u2019t you change it when you were in Government?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000728\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: We did. I welcome the opportunity to say we did exactly that. We took money from the Crown account and put it into roading\u2014and the 2.1c was going to carry on. Is that right?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000729\u0022\u003ER Doug Woolerton: It would have been more.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000730\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN: It would have continued, and by now the Crown\u2019s portion would have been reduced significantly.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000731\u0022\u003EBut I want to know from the Minister where the economic report is. I do not want to stand up here harping on about the evils of that 18.5c being used in the Crown account if, in fact, that can be justified. On the information available to me I do not believe there is justification for that money to go into the Crown account, but when the Minister of Finance says that he has compiled an economic report, I want to see it. I will be asking the Minister about that report time and time again. I will not be like a United Future person, who rolls over because the Government smiles nicely or does whatever it takes for the United Future members to do that.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000732\u0022\u003EKEITH LOCKE (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support Part 3, which provides objectives and functions for Transfund and Transit. The objective, for instance, that Transfund allocate resources to achieve an integrated and a safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system is very laudable. Clause 70(2) outlines some of the aspects of creating such a system, which dovetails into the objectives in the land transport strategy. For instance, in that clause Transit and Transfund have to minimise any adverse effects on the environment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000733\u0022\u003EI want to give as an example the eastern highway in Auckland, because I think that if one applied the objectives set out in that clause and dovetailed them into the objectives in the land transport strategy, one could not go ahead with that eastern highway. Clause 70(2)(c) states that there has to be a full consideration of land transport options before any project is entered into. If one fully considers what should be done about that corridor from the east of Auckland in through Remuera and into the city, then one would not go for an eastern highway. Instead, one would go for upgrading the railway, because that option would reduce the impact on the environment and provide many other benefits.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000734\u0022\u003EFor example, one of the objectives in the land transport strategy is assisting economic development. We know that to push a highway into central Auckland will just clog up central Auckland, by putting more cars into that area. It will encourage more people out in Howick, Panmure, and places like that to hop into their cars to come into town. It will have a worsening effect on Auckland\u2019s economy and cause more gridlock. Also, encouraging more people to get into their cars and use petrol will subtract from the resources available for the Auckland economy, because there is a huge burden on the Auckland economy from the overuse of cars, and the petrol costs and maintenance costs involved. Adding an extra highway will actually make that burden worse for the Auckland economy, whereas a railway would allow people to go from the eastern area much more smoothly and efficiently in economic terms.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000735\u0022\u003EAnother objective in the land transport strategy is assisting personal security and safety. We know that building another motorway\u2014the eastern highway\u2014will only put more cars on the road, with more accidents. Travelling by rail is clearly much safer than travelling by road, so a railway would fit that objective if Transfund were to consider the range of land transport options for that particular corridor.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000736\u0022\u003EThe third objective in the land transport strategy is to take into account access and mobility. There are a lot of elderly people, children, and beneficiaries who either cannot drive cars or do not have the money to run a car long distances. Under this legislation they would be better served by a railway that went through that eastern corridor, rather than by a motorway.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000737\u0022\u003EThe fourth objective is to protect and promote public health. It is much healthier to have more trains running. Particularly if the rail system was electrified, it would not put the same degree of fumes into the air as motor vehicles do. Fumes from transport are killing 300 or 400 people in Auckland each year, and are reducing the health status of us all. Also, it is much less stressful for a person to hop on a train in Panmure and go in by rail than to hop into a motorcar, with the stress of going along a clogged roadway\u2014 either the highway itself, or, once one gets to Auckland if the new highway is built, along streets with traffic jams everywhere.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000738\u0022\u003EThe fifth objective in the land transport strategy is to ensure environmental sustainability. If one looks at that eastern highway, one sees it will have a number of detrimental effects in that respect. One of those is in terms of the green space that such a highway will destroy. If one looks at any of the options that have been proposed for the eastern highway, one sees they all go through parks and green space, and have a detrimental effect on the environment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000739\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise to address this part of the bill, and particularly a couple of my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 153 to clauses 70(1) and 79(1), in which I want to see the word \u201Cefficient\u201D inserted into the objectives. I believe it would be best if clause 70(1) read: \u201CThe objective of Transfund is to allocate its resources in a way that contributes to an integrated, safe, responsive, efficient, and sustainable land transport system.\u201D That is the kind of system that I believe New Zealanders want, and it is the one this Government ought to be committed to delivering. We have had a great deal of discussion this evening about \u201Cefficient\u201D and what it would mean. Members have talked about us wanting to get our money\u2019s worth from the system, whether it is put in by way of road-user charges, petrol excise, or tolls. However we may contribute, not only do we want that the money be spent efficiently but also we want to get a good outcome from our expense. I believe that the outcome New Zealanders want is greater mobility\u2014as I said earlier, \u201Cefficient mobility\u201D, but we will take out the word \u201Cefficient\u201D. We want to be able to get around without being stuck in traffic. If we choose to travel by train, as the speaker before me said\u2014riding on public transport and getting there quickly and cheaply\u2014that is a choice New Zealanders have, but most want to be able to travel in their automobile.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000740\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee: Oh, no! Who told you that?\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000741\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK: It is a stunning comment, I know, but it is true. Most of us want to move around in our automobile, because we consider it to be the most efficient way to get around this country, given that we do not have huge populations that will sustain the kind of train network we see in other countries, particularly in Europe.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000742\u0022\u003EThe member who spoke somewhat earlier is still committed to the fact that all the money for Transfund and Transit should come by means of a fuel excise tax. He considers that to be an efficient way of collecting the money, and he completely rejects the user-pays principle. I am astounded by that. I still do not understand how he considers that this bill will provide for what he calls generic tolling\u2014that somehow tolling schemes will spring up all over the country\u2014when most people have commented on how difficult it will be to get a tolling scheme under way. There is a huge contradiction in that.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000743\u0022\u003EThe whole point of the bill is about giving communities choice about the way they meet their roading needs, and I support that principle. I particularly support it for Tauranga, where people will be able choose the way they solve their roading network. I have some sad news for the member who spoke earlier: his party leader may well be finished as the member for Tauranga. Although right now he is running around telling Tauranga people that tolling is a terrible rip-off, he will have to turn round to explain to his supporters in retirement villages around Tauranga\u2014people who do not even go across the bridge more than once a week\u2014that they will have to pay another 30c per litre on their fuel. They have plenty of time to be able to avoid the bridge and go by the alternative route that will be provided. He might find that some of the support base he has relied on for a long, long time may begin to dwindle away. I think he should wake up and realise, as also should the other member of his party who lives in Tauranga, that in meeting the problems of the city there needs to be many different tools in the tool bag. Not all of them are delivered in this bill, as we said earlier, but they are coming. They will be delivered so that communities can choose which particular tool to pick up to meet their needs.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000744\u0022\u003EBill Gudgeon: Far short of Route K\u2019s expected numbers.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000745\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK: It is doing just fine. Once the bridge is built, Route K will be a marvellous way of getting across the city and to the other side of the harbour.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000746\u0022\u003EClause 79 discusses Transit and its objectives. Again, I believe that the word \u201Cefficient\u201D should be inserted in subclause (1), so that it reads: \u201Cintegrated, safe, responsive, sustainable, and efficient land transport system.\u201D I fully support that Transit should be the lead builder of highways in New Zealand. I believe that Transit does an excellent job. Also, I believe that the requirement now for Transit to give a 10-year programme for its new State highways is an excellent move forward. It will mean that people have more certainty. However, it is becoming painfully obvious to everybody that the funds that will be available to Transit to build the land transport system will be limited.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000747\u0022\u003EJILL PETTIS (Junior Whip\u2014Labour): I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000748\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY (National\u2014Helensville): Some months ago Trans-Tasman wrote a review of the Land Transport Management Bill, and in the column on the right, under \u201CComments\u201D, it wrote: \u201CCould be the pinnacle of this Minister\u2019s career.\u201D It must be a very low mountain.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000749\u0022\u003EI feel sorry for that Minister, because sometimes life is not fair. He has been delivered the ultimate pup by the Greens. I say that, because Keith Locke got up and waxed lyrical about trains in Auckland. Let me avail Mr Locke of the facts. There were 925 million trips taken in Auckland last year\u2014875 million in cars, 48 million on buses, and 2 million on trains. Every time someone got on a train, the New Zealand taxpayer gave that passenger a $10 subsidy. It would have been quicker to give him or her a taxi chit.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000750\u0022\u003EHon Member: What!\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000751\u0022\u003EJOHN KEY: That is right, $10\u2014a $20 million subsidy. Boston Consulting Group wrote a report, which Mr Locke obviously has not read. It said that if $1.5 billion was spent on all the things to fix the rail network in Auckland, including electrification, double tracking of the western line, signature stations, and so on, we would do really well\u2014we would really knock it out of the park. Those 2.5 million trips taken on a train will increase maybe to 15 million, or, at very best, 25 million. If the number goes to 25 million, the operating subsidy required for those trips will be $4 per trip\u2014$100 million. So if Mr Locke thinks that spending $1.5 billion and then paying an operating subsidy of $100 million is a great way to get 25 million people around Auckland, when at the same time car trips will be up, at 1.1 billion, then all I can say is: \u201CGoodness help New Zealand if Keith Locke is ever in the finance portfolio in bed with the Labour Party.\u201D, because it will not work. I feel sorry for this Minister of Transport, because he has been delivered a pup.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000752\u0022\u003EI want to refer to one other thing. The Minister has gone around the country, and said: \u201CWe\u2019ll be able to borrow, and that will fix some of the roads.\u201D He is absolutely right. The borrowing level in Auckland, in my opinion, is somewhere in the order of $5 billion to $6 billion. That is the amount that will be required. That is the kind of borrowing involved. That is not new. Transit has had the ability to borrow, with the Minister of Finance\u2019s approval, for decades. That is not new. If that is the best the Land Transport Management Bill can deliver, then it is a hopeless piece of legislation, as well.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000753\u0022\u003EI want to refer in part to Transfund, and to some additions that were made, such as the construction of the Transfund board, because I thought in part that those looked pretty good. The old board could have on it no more than five people. The select committee wisely said that the number of people on the board could go from six to eight. I initially thought that that was pretty good, but the last Transfund board was dominated by none other than Mike Williams, President of the Labour Party. When he got control of the funding schedule, lo and behold, a whole lot of projects that were ranked 94th, 87th, and 42nd and happened to be in Labour Party electorates, were rammed up the list.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000754\u0022\u003EI ask members what happened to Auckland\u2019s projects. Miraculously, they were dropped off the list. So, on the one hand, I look at the provision and say that if Mike Williams had a lesser voice on Transfund\u2019s board, it would be a good thing for Transfund. On the other hand, I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance will appoint another two or three Labour Party lackeys to push through its socialist agenda and pork- barrel politics that seem to be dominating Transit New Zealand and Transfund New Zealand. What a sad day it is.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000755\u0022\u003EI want to refer to one other point, which is last year\u2019s performance by Transfund. Last year\u2019s performance showed that at the end of the year Transfund had failed to spend $155 million. That is right\u2014it had $155 million left over, despite the fact that the Auckland Chamber of Commerce could point to a couple of billion dollars-worth of projects that were ready to go. Why was that? The reason was that it had approval for projects it did not have funding for.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000756\u0022\u003EDAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip\u2014Labour): I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000757\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip\u2014ACT): I would like to take a call on Part 3, which spells out the administrative provisions of Transfund New Zealand and Transit New Zealand. I seek some clarification about this part of the bill from the Minister, because, following on from the contribution made by John Key, the previous speaker, one has to realise that more and more New Zealanders are now saying that the boards of Transfund and Transit are stacked with Labour Party cronies, and that the decisions that are made are no longer about the good of New Zealand but about what will help buy Labour votes in Labour Party seats.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000758\u0022\u003EI see no other example that highlights that as much as what happened with the completion of the northern motorway. It was always known to be a No. 1 priority as soon as the consents were through in the Environment Court. But what happened under this Government? The project got dumped right to the bottom and the money was put into other areas. The real reason is that, basically, the whole of the north is held by the National Party. Those seats are all National Party seats, so Labour does not care a stuff about that project. All the money has now gone into Labour Party electorates.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000759\u0022\u003EI ask the Minister to take a call and explain how he reconciles clause 71\u2014which talks about the statutory independent functions of Transfund New Zealand\u2014with clause 74, which says that the board will be appointed by the Minister. The problem is that the National Government, when it had to appoint members to the board, had a focus on growth and productivity, and on trying to lift the prosperity of this country. Labour has one focus, and one focus only\u2014that is, winning power by buying votes.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000760\u0022\u003EI would like the Minister to take a call to tell us how he can explain that to New Zealanders, who, at the present time, are very worried about the Labour cronies on those boards. The people are getting sick of the Labour Party trying to buy votes. I can say that a lot of us, as members of Parliament, yesterday visited mayoral forums around the country and heard that local authorities are sick to the teeth of the hundreds of millions of dollars they are paying in compliance costs and consultations imposed on them by the Labour Government. It is all money that has to come out of their ratepayer-funding base, following the passing of the Local Government Bill, the Responsible Gambling Bill, and the Prostitution Reform Bill. Local authorities are terrified of the Land Transport Management Bill and what it will cost them.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000761\u0022\u003EProgress reported.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id2003110428d4fc4dfc544083990e2a89213216f1000762\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 9 55 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"