Wednesday, 26 February 2003

Wednesday, 26 February 2003

Wednesday, 26 February 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Reporting Dates

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the time by which the Māori Affairs Committee must finally report the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill to be extended to 21 March 2003.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.

Membership

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for Keith Locke to be a member of the Law and Order Committee for the purposes of its consideration of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill, but without the right to vote on any question before the committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Terrorism—Police Resources

1. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) to the Minister of Police: Does he consider that the police have adequate resources to deal with the cyanide terrorism threats sent to the Australian High Commission, British High Commission, United States Embassy and an Auckland newspaper; if so, will they also have adequate resources in the event a similar threat is made against the wider New Zealand public?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): Yes. The police inform me that they have all the resources they need. An investigation is under way, and steps have been taken with regard to the security of diplomatic missions and the America’s Cup operation. If there is a more extensive threat, the police are able to upscale their response in conjunction with other agencies.

Marc Alexander: Given that the police in centres like Auckland are already overstretched and struggling to combat everyday criminal activity, can he reassure the House that the resources assigned to this new threat will not be at the expense of existing police duties; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police have all the resources they need, both in terms of money and of manpower, to cover that matter, and they are very confident in this case.

Martin Gallagher: Can he outline what counter-terrorism arrangements have been put in place within New Zealand and overseas by the New Zealand Police?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Following the January 2002 Government announcement on enhanced capabilities for counter-terrorism across a number of Government departments, the police took the following steps: a strategic intelligence unit was established at the office of the commissioner to build on existing capabilities, which interacts on a constant basis with other intelligence agencies, both in New Zealand and overseas, and additional staff dedicated to aviation security were deployed at the six domestic airports to supplement the existing airport police units.

Hon Tony Ryall: If the police in Auckland have all the money and manpower they need, why are the police not responding to burglary complaints from Aucklanders, even from those who provide the name, address, and car registration number of the offender?

Mr SPEAKER: That is wide of the original question, but I will allow the Minister to comment.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police inform me that even in Auckland the times of response are coming down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister give such a blanket assurance of police preparedness no matter what the threat might be, when, for example, the Auckland police numbers are being made up right now with police from Tauranga and Mt Maunganui, due to the America’s Cup; why does he not get realistic and recognise the current deficiencies in our police numbers?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I think that member needs to reflect on the police putting their resources where they are needed. Police from across the North Island go to the Tauranga and Mt Maunganui area every New Year’s Eve to meet the need that arises on his own patch.

Dr Muriel Newman: Why has it taken the threat of terrorism to awaken this Minister to the fact that in spite of the response he has given to this question, New Zealand has too few police with too few resources to combat our rising tide of crime?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: If that claim were true, I would be worried. It is not.

Marc Alexander: Can the Minister advise us what specific steps he is taking to ensure that the cyanide terrorism threat is not part of a wider threat to the New Zealand public, or is this just another case of the media “banging on about issues of no substance”?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police have briefed me on this issue and they are confident they have the resources to deal with it. I have confidence in the New Zealand police.

Economy—OECD Ranking

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Can she explain the difference between comments made in the 2001 budget speech by the Minister of Finance that “We need to set ourselves a goal of being back in the top half of the developed world in terms of per capita GDP.” with her own criticisms of speakers at the Knowledge Wave conference that reaching the first half of the OECD per capita GDP rankings is “totally unrealistic”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, easily. The member should quote me correctly.

Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister considers that reaching that goal by the year 2011 is “totally unrealistic”, then when does she think we could reach that goal, and is it soon enough to make it worthwhile her Government even talking about it?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Like the National Party’s spokesperson on finance, I do not consider that is a short-term goal. Over time it can be achieved.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had two examples now of answers that you must rule as unacceptable. How can a Prime Minister say that a member should quote—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. I will have silence during points of order, and that applies to everybody.

Gerry Brownlee: How can the Prime Minister answer that someone needs to quote her correctly, when the Clerk’s Office has verified that the quote is correct in the first place? That is disrespectful to the whole House, for a start. Secondly, how can the Prime Minister begin an answer to a question that only she can answer by referring to the National Party spokesperson on finance? Quite certainly the country would be better off if he were the Minister of Finance.

Mr SPEAKER: That last comment was not in order. In relation to the first question, the Prime Minister was perfectly entitled to address the question like that. It might not have satisfied people, but supplementary questions are allowed. As far as the second question is concerned, I would like the Prime Minister to come to the point of the question.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I did give an answer. I have long since forgotten what it was.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that a very direct question was asked of the Prime Minister and you clearly did not think she had answered it—because you invited her to come to the point—and she clearly has forgotten the question, it might be more proper if the Leader of the Opposition were to re-ask the question, and the Prime Minister can then answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a fair point. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask the question again.

Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister believes that it is “totally unrealistic” to reach the first half of the OECD by the year 2011, then when does she think we could reach it, and is it close enough for it to be even worth her Government wasting its time talking about such a goal?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What is required to reach it over time is to grow faster than the OECD average, and that will take rather a long time.

Rodney Hide: Can the Prime Minister assure the people of New Zealand that her goal of returning New Zealand to the top half of the OECD economic ladder is a serious goal for this Government, unlike her previous goal of closing the gaps, where she has even gone so far as to ban the use of that phrase; and why does she not show that she is serious about this goal by providing working New Zealand with much-needed tax relief?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Because there is no evidence that lowering taxes would contribute to the goal at all.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether she has had discussions with the Minister of Finance about the likely date or year by which we might reach that goal; if not, why did she say it in the first place?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Going back to the time of the launch of the framework, the Government was clear that it would be over time. We need to grow consistently faster than others, on average, to get there.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister have a goal for New Zealand to be in the top half of the OECD for quality of life and sustainability measures such as access to open space, worthwhile employment, clean air and water, and affordable, quality education and training; if so, does she have a concern that aiming at gross domestic product (GDP) growth only may compromise those other goals?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Government takes a sustainable approach, and I agree with the member that it is desirable to see New Zealand perform very well against all those indicators. When we look at a range of the indicators, like those in education, we see we are already well up in the top half, and in some cases very close to the top. We should aim for a balanced approach across the indicators.

Clayton Cosgrove: Why is it unrealistic to expect to reach the goal by 2010? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Some people are going to be not in the last century but in another place. I have called the Prime Minister—no one else.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Members might be interested in Treasury’s advice, which is that to achieve a place in the top half of the OECD within 10 years would require New Zealand to grow a full 2 percent per annum faster than the average OECD per capita rate of growth for the past 30 years. That is why neither I nor Dr Brash think it is credible to say it is achievable.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Prime Minister accept that the alleviation of child poverty would assist New Zealand in climbing up the OECD growth ladder; if so, why have we seen no adjustment, even for inflation, in family support and tax credits since 1998?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is a somewhat chicken-and-egg situation, because a more prosperous country would not have the level of child poverty we have. That is why next year is the year we have earmarked for addressing the low and modest family income issue.

Hon Bill English: Why did the Prime Minister set a goal of reaching the top half of the OECD when today she has confirmed that that goal is simply not credible—particularly in the light of the policies she is following—and does she intend to abandon the goal now that she has said it cannot be achieved in the foreseeable future?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I recognise that the member’s interest is very much in the short term, but I take the long-term view about what is achievable.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on a difficulty that we had throughout that question, and it is this: we, as Opposition parties, are circulated with the primary questions of the day, and in Mr Bill English’s question there is a long quotation: “We need to set ourselves a goal of being back in the top half of the developed world in terms of per capita GDP.” That quotation has been through the Clerk’s Office, and has been checked off as correct, so other members of this House think that that is a correct quotation. The Prime Minister, in her answer to that question, said that the quotation was incorrect. She did not explain what was wrong with it, and we are left in some quandary about that. I would like you, next time, to suggest that if a quotation is wrong, then that is explained at the time.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think in this case it is a matter of getting the quote of the quote of the quote correct. The Prime Minister said that she had not been quoted correctly, but the piece the member just referred to is a quote from my speech, which is quoted correctly.

Mr SPEAKER: That is where the matter ends at this point.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: There is one member to my right who has had his last interjection today.

Rodney Hide: My point is that we have now had the explanation, and I thank Dr Michael Cullen for that, but I ask you, as the Speaker, to reflect on this point, for the sake of good order in question time: if that explanation had been made at the time of the answer, it would have been so much easier for the rest of us to make a contribution. If someone is going to say that a quote is incorrect when, in fact, it was not—because it had been through the Clerk—then that member should explain why that is.

Mr SPEAKER: A member is not obliged to correct or explain another member’s question.

Treaty of Waitangi—Article 4

3. MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiāriki) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Has she received any further reports on “the so-called fourth article” of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes, I note the reassuring statement from Mrs te Heuheu in this morning’s Dominion Post, where she is reported as saying: “If this has raised any anxiety in the minds of the public I think they can take heart from the fact there is no claim based on article four.” The member is to be congratulated on her leadership on this matter.

Mita Ririnui: What was the purpose of Governor Hobson’s statement that was read prior to the signing of the treaty: “The Government says the several faiths of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also the Māori custom, shall be alike protected ...”?

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on how the Minister could have any responsibility for Governor Hobson’s intentions in 1840. I know that she sees herself as having a rather grandiose role in life!

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: In this case, as the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations she is somewhat responsible for what Governor Hobson said and did.

Mr SPEAKER: Even I was not present in the past when he was around. I think that on balance I will move on to the next supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister denying the existence of any such claim, when on National Radio yesterday there was a long interview with such a claimant, who was putting the case in respect of Mr Ririnui’s question, and who claimed that such a clause did exist, and on which he was basing his case?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: As Mrs te Heuheu noted, it was not a claim on article 4; the matter was raised in the context of another claim. Certainly, since 1840 certain claimants have raised this as an issue. The fact that it is raised as an issue does not make a fourth article.

Stephen Franks: What will she do if her new Supreme Court judges decide that her rejection of the fourth article is not weighty legal authority on the treaty, and decide instead to impose the fourth article, agreeing with Justice Durie, the chair of the Waitangi Tribunal, when he said in relation to the fourth article that American precedent is undoubtedly correct in asserting that in treaties with indigenous people of oral tradition, verbal promises are as much a part of the treaty as that subscribed to in the documentation?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I am pleased to see that the member accepts there will be a Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court gave leave for such an issue to be argued before it, then, obviously, it would make its decision on the argument before it, and that would have to be accepted in its context.

Hon Bill English: Given the Minister’s statement yesterday that she believes there is no such thing as an article 4, will she do today what she did not do yesterday—that is, give an undertaking to Parliament that she will instruct Government officials to stop referring to article 4 in public documents, as they did in the Ministry of Health document Achieving Health For All People?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: As I recall, yesterday I was asked to stop the tribunal from hearing the matter.

Gerry Brownlee: Answer the question.

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I am happy to answer the question. The Government accepts that there should be full debate and discussion on matters where there is public consultation, as there was in this particular case relating to the health document. Just because people discuss this matter and put it in a working document does not mean that it is Government policy. If, however, we were to do as that member wants, then we would be at risk of being contrary to freedom of speech under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Metiria Turei: Given that the Minister has said she will not be instructing the Waitangi Tribunal to refuse to consider article 4 if it arises in treaty claims, does she acknowledge that the Crown has caused a devastating effect on the Māori community in restricting Māori religious freedom under legislation such as the Tohunga Suppression Act of 1908?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: There is certainly evidence, in relation to that Act, that there was suppression of belief. That is what was being alluded to at the time of the signing of the treaty—that there should be freedom of religious belief, whether it be Christian or Māori belief.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I take it from the Minister’s answer to Stephen Franks that the relevance and existence of what has been referred to as article 4 would be a decision made by the future Supreme Court that she seeks to appoint—politically appointed, or otherwise? Can I take it that it would be the court’s decision, and not one made by this Parliament?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The Supreme Court will be there to interpret law, not make law. Making law is the business of this House. If, however, an argument is put to it, and there is no law relating to the fourth article, then, obviously, there would be a decision that would say it is not law.

Stephen Franks: To try to understand the Minister’s answers, is it correct that the Minister said that if the judges of the Supreme Court hold there is a fourth article, that will prevail; if so, what weight can New Zealanders place on the Prime Minister’s denial last week, and the Minister’s denial yesterday, that there is a fourth article, and the attempted reassurance that we need not worry about it?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The only possible reason they could hold there is a fourth article would be if it were recognised in legislation, and it is not.

Economy—OECD Ranking

4. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) to the Minister of Finance: Further to his answer to question No 7 yesterday when he claimed that New Zealanders’ average incomes rose faster than almost any other country in the OECD over the last couple of years, exactly how many OECD countries experienced increases in gross average wages higher than New Zealand between 2001 and 2002?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The member seems to be confusing average incomes with average wages. Total gross earnings are a better measure of incomes, because they capture changes in wage rates, numbers in employment, and hours worked. Gross earnings in New Zealand increased by 7.7 percent last year and 6.6 percent the previous year. This was about 5 percent above the rate of inflation in each year.

Hon Richard Prebble: Is the Minister not aware that the latest OECD report this week shows that, in the last year, gross average wages increased faster in 19 OECD nations than in New Zealand, yet the rise in the tax bill of the average worker was greater in New Zealand than in all but one OECD nation; and would he like to reconsider his answer to Parliament yesterday, when he said that the rise in tax being paid by the average New Zealand worker is caused by the increase in gross wages?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. Again, the member confuses wages with incomes. Let me try to explain to him how the family support system works. It is a targeted wage rebate, which is clawed back on the joint income of husband and wife. Therefore, if the family income rises, there is a claw-back of family support payments. Unless there is indexation, increases in income automatically lead to overall reductions in the level of family support payment, on average. That is why the average tax burden for a person with two children rose in New Zealand. The member also noted that the tax burden for a single person in New Zealand is at the lower end of the OECD scale.

Jill Pettis: Why was New Zealand’s gross income performance so strong over the 2001-02 period?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because income is a function of both wages and the number of jobs. New Zealand has the ninth-lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. Last year we posted the third-highest growth rate in the OECD, and we are amongst the top five in terms of job growth.

Dr Don Brash: Given the large number of OECD countries where average incomes rose more quickly than they did in New Zealand in the last year or two—when our economy was buoyant because of strong export prices and a low exchange rate—would the Minister expect to see any improvement in our relative position over the next year, when the latest Treasury projection for growth suggests that, after adjusting for the higher exchange rate, total growth is likely to be only about 2 percent?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member repeats exactly the same error as Mr Prebble; he confuses average incomes with average wages. Mr Prebble correctly quoted the OECD tables relating to wages. I would have thought a former Governor of the Reserve Bank would know the difference between wages and incomes.

Dail Jones: Given that table 1 of the OECD report to be tabled in April, entitled “Household tax burden in 2002 as a percentage of gross earnings equivalent to the average production worker”—so that we are clear about the basis we are using—shows that an Australian one-earner family with two children pays tax of only 14.7 percent, whereas a New Zealand family of exactly the same ratio, being a one-earner family with two children, pays 18.2 percent; what will the Minister do with the substantial tax collection he has received, which has resulted in a substantial surplus, to improve the situation of a one-earner family with two children in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As we have indicated, should it prove over the next year that the surpluses we are experiencing at the moment are structurally strong and not merely cyclical, the intention is to address that matter in the 2004 Budget. We do not intend to repeat the experience of the United States and the United Kingdom, which confuse cyclical surpluses with structural ones, and have blown them in advance.

Hon Richard Prebble: Can the Minister explain why a 4 percent increase in the average gross wage in this country results in the second-highest increase in the tax bill of average workers of any country in the OECD, but a 7 percent increase in the average wage in Ireland results in a 6.2 percent decline in the tax paid by that average worker; and should the Minister not have a look at the Irish tax system?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. As I tried to explain to the member, New Zealand has a targeted family support rebate system. Many other countries around the world have universal systems of family rebates on the tax system, or of direct family payments. Mr Prebble is one of the Ministers who designed the targeted family support rebate system.

Immigration—Ukrainian Farm Workers

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Why is she denying that the New Zealand Immigration Service gave approval for a scheme which allowed young Ukrainians to come to New Zealand and be exploited as low-paid farm workers?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): Because the New Zealand Immigration Service does not approve work shortage schemes. The New Zealand Immigration Service, as in all cases such as this, issues approvals in principle to employers to recruit skilled staff where there is an identified labour market shortage.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister trying to duck-shove this on to some other department, when she knows full well that these workers would never have come to New Zealand without the Immigration Service having approved them, which is the content of an Otago Daily Times article where she begins, in the first paragraph, by denying it, then about three-quarters of the way through says that the approvals in principle would have been issued to named farmers, who were to be the employers, by the Immigration Service; and why can she not just tell us the plain, unvarnished truth when she is caught out again?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I do not think I have got enough time to do that. I think the member ought to know that since 1997, 1,003 Ukrainians have been brought to New Zealand on work visas or permits, and we have had three complaints. They are complaints—allegations at this stage. They need to be investigated by the appropriate authorities.

Dave Hereora: Are migrant workers entitled to the same protections as all other workers?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes. Migrant workers, even those who are working illegally in this country, are entitled to the same rights and protections as any other worker in New Zealand in terms of our labour laws and our occupational safety and health laws. The Employment Relations Service, which enforces those rights, or the Occupational Safety and Health Service, which enforces the occupational safety and health rights, enforce those rights for migrant workers in the same way as they do for any other worker. The New Zealand Immigration Service does not have a responsibility for enforcing those rights.

Hon David Carter: Has the Minister seen reports in the Christchurch Press today that discredit the allegations of Ron Mark MP and the three Ukrainian dairy workers, and are we not seeing yet another example of a knee-jerk reaction by the Minister, who changes policies on immigration according to the headlines of the day?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I have seen that article, as was the case with the article yesterday, which similarly showed Ukrainian workers working very happily on Ashburton farms. I do remind members that these are allegations at this stage. What I have done is simply suspend the approvals in principle for the individual farmers while those allegations are investigated. A number of issues have been raised by this case, every single one of which could have been progressed much more quickly by reference to the appropriate authorities rather than by participating in a tabloid-style beat-up on the front page of the Sunday Star-Times.

Paul Adams: In the light of the fact that the primary question relates to the use of immigrants to fill skills shortages in mid-Canterbury, where the number of unemployed is very low at 132, has the Government considered offering incentives for internal migration to unemployed in other regions?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Work permit policy seeks to achieve a balance between the needs of employers in areas of skills shortage, and the responsibility of employers to contribute to skills training and development within New Zealand. It is intended to be a stopgap measure. Immigration is not the solution to industry’s problem as far as long-term, endemic skills shortages are concerned. It is not an alternative to improving conditions of employment, and it is not an alternative to industry developing relocation packages to ensure that work opportunities outside the main centres are attractive to New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister to refer to her own material and the criteria set out on the Immigration Service website, and tell this House whether, at any time, farm labourers have ever been approved, which seems never to have been the case, and herd managers have been approved, which is the case—which surely debunks the case put up by Mr Carter that these people were being underpaid and misdescribed in a scheme approved by her own department.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The member knows well, because he was part of the Government in 1997 and 1998 when work permits were being issued to Marvin Farm Services in the Waikato area, that they have been issued for year after year. A process is gone through of checking whether there is a labour market shortage, and seeking ways of addressing that shortage. The member has seen the approval in principle to employ a foreign worker. The individuals concerned had to show evidence of a 3-year relevant tertiary qualification, and of at least 6 months’ practical work experience on a dairy farm; a letter offering them a position, listing the salary offered, and any other form of remuneration and accommodation; and a copy of this letter, showing the overseas—

Mr SPEAKER: The answer was too long.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table evidence in respect of the Canterbury situation—the one we are talking about—which refers only to herd and farm managers under Lianne Dalziel as the Minister of Immigration, and, for dairy farmers, senior positions only, experienced under her administration—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is.

Youth—Policy Implementation

6. SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: What progress, if any, has his Ministry made since he became the Minister of Youth Affairs to help disadvantaged youth in New Zealand? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member will stand and withdraw.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs): Heaps.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to allow John Tamihere to take his muzzle off, so he can answer in a fuller manner.

Mr SPEAKER: I will regard that as mildly humorous, but not in order.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: It had better not be in relation to this.

Rodney Hide: I could not hear the answer. Did he say he received heaps, or was giving it heaps?

Mr SPEAKER: This is the last warning to that member.

Simon Power: Does he intend to allow his ministry to cooperate with the Ministry of Social Development in the future, especially on issues regarding disadvantaged Māori youth, given his comment: “It is clear that our potentials can never be realised or released by an all-knowing, all-caring, centralised bureaucracy called the Ministry of Social Development.”; if so, why?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Yes, because it is good policy.

Darren Hughes: What strategy guides the Government in its work in the youth affairs portfolio?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Over the past 2 years the Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa has been developed, following wide consultation with young people and the agencies dealing with them. Strategies for children and for youth health combine with the youth development strategy to provide the best policy foundation for young people in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What image and example does the Minister think he is setting to disadvantaged youth in this country, when he, as a Minister, makes a speech—supposedly one that was genuinely made and heartfelt—then backtracks on it the next day, denies its existence on the website, and hides behind the skirts of a woman; what young Māori would be pleased with that?

Mr SPEAKER: The comment made during the last part of that question was not appropriate. I am perfectly happy with the first part of the question—that was all in order. But the implications of the last part of that question are not appropriate in this House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You might think it is inappropriate, but I can tell you, as someone who knows something about Māori background and culture, there is no better—[Interruption] I point out to you that in Māori culture the very idea that someone, particularly a male, would cower behind the skirts of a woman is an affront and an insult that is frequently given, and one that I have seen in the last few days in respect of this Minister, and he cannot deny it. It may not be the norm in our culture to accept that, but I can say, as those people over there claim to have the Māori seats and to have the interests of Māori at heart, that that is exactly how the Māori people feel, and I am certain that Dover Samuels will back me up.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me say that as far as I am concerned I will have questions asked within the Standing Orders as I determine them to be. The question was in order until right at the end. The Minister may comment on it.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I am grateful to represent the Māori communities that I do represent, and I stand by everything I said.

Paul Adams: Is the Minister concerned that a pilot programme that aims to turn round the lives of disadvantaged youth with substance abuse problems appears to be failing miserably, when the police report that 80 percent of the 15 to 17-year-olds passing through the youth drug court in Christchurch have reoffended?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Any evaluation and monitoring report that throws up those sorts of figures is a source of concern, and we are investigating the matter.

Simon Power: Did the Minister just say that he stood by everything he had previously said; if so, would he care to confirm that position again?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I was responding to a number of issues raised by the member for Tauranga, and I stand by matters that I stood by in what he was talking about.

Simon Power: I seek leave to table John Tamihere’s speech entitled “The Reform of Welfare and the Rebuilding of Community”.

Document not tabled.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That last answer was not complete. Could the member allow the Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, to explain what he actually meant?

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member knows that is outside the Standing Orders.

Defence—Policy Implementation

7. DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Defence: What recent reports has he received on the implementation of the Government’s defence policy?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence): I have recently read a report commenting on the Government’s defence policy that suggests that in 1999 “the NZDF was perilously low in capability, and short of the funds to correct this” because of “nine years of neglect”. I think that is a fair assessment of the situation I inherited upon taking up the responsibility of the defence portfolio in 1999.

David Benson-Pope: Who was the author of the report referred to in the Minister’s reply, and what position does he or she hold?

Hon MARK BURTON: The author’s somewhat jaundiced view of National’s poor stewardship and funding of defence through 9 long years of neglect—which, of course, included Mr English’s time as holder of the purse strings—perhaps explains why Mr Worth was, but no longer is, the defence spokesperson of the National Party. I should note, however, that news of his removal appears not to have reached Mr Worth, given that his views appeared in the Otago Daily Times, with a banner describing him as the spokesperson.

Mr SPEAKER: When I stand up, the member sits down. That last part was completely out of order.

Simon Power: Does he agree with the statements of Peter Reith, former Australian Defence Minister, that New Zealand’s defence policy should not be “tainted by anti-Americanism”, and that “You neglect your own national interests if you leave your defence policy to greenies and peaceniks.”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: I have not seen that particular comment by Mr Reith, but under this Government there is no risk of this country’s defence policy being left to anyone other than the Government. We have a plan, we have a policy, and that is something we have not had after 9 years of neglect.

Hon Ken Shirley: Is it part of the Government’s defence policy to oversee the continuing collapse of the territorial forces; if not, what action will he take to reverse the trend that has seen the Army Territorial Force reduced to less than 43 percent of what it stood at in 1992?

Hon MARK BURTON: I am glad the member raised that issue. It is an important one, and one that almost every party in the House has been working on cooperatively. Had I known that ACT was interested, we would have got it involved too. I can tell the member that a bill that heavily adapts Mr Mapp’s original member’s bill will be coming back to the select committee very soon. It has been a complex matter, but it will put in place a raft of positive measures for the future of the Territorial Force, which we strongly value.

Keith Locke: Can the Minister assure us that no new New Zealand ground forces will be committed to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and does he agree that the US-led effort there is now more directed against those warlords who are at odds with the Karzai Government than against al-Qaeda?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can assure the member that no new decisions have been taken, further to the ones that have been announced, and there are no plans to change the current deployments in Afghanistan.

Housing—Entitlements

8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) to the Minister of Housing: What changes, if any, will be made to the Government’s housing policy after Youth Affairs Minister Hon John Tamihere said that the policy is wrong and that the Government has “not made it clear that this housing entitlement is not a lifetime entitlement with rights of succession to your family, but is rather a respite facility”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Housing): Housing New Zealand tenants have a tenancy agreement that gives them security of tenure unless they are bad tenants, or their circumstances change—for example, their income lifts, and therefore they are lifted to a market rental. On the issue of succession to one’s family, it is not, and never has been, our policy that tenants have a right to grant succession of tenancy to their families.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister explain, without what Mr Tamihere describes as “bullshitting”—

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I am not going to allow that. That is a word I prefer not to be used in this Parliament. I know it was said outside, and I know it has been said inside occasionally. When we are asking supplementary questions, I would prefer that word not to be used.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister explain the logic of the Government’s housing policy, which has a single person living in a four-bedroomed State house, paying 25 percent of income in rent, or $61 a week, when just along the road in Nelson a family of five, expecting twins, is living in a garage; and is John Tamihere not absolutely right to describe that policy as “dumb, dumb, dumb”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The family to which the member refers—the one with the five children, is moving into a house on Thursday—

Hon Bill English: It is not a State house.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: —into a house got for them by Housing New Zealand, and if the member would just be quiet for a wee while—

Mr SPEAKER: I want the answer to be heard in silence. There will be an opportunity for more supplementary questions.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I know that Mr Smith and Mr English are bit scratchy; they are both living together at the present time—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment, and carry on with his answer.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I withdraw and apologise. The family he refers to shifted into a house on Thursday. Yes, the member raises a very good question—the one that referred to having, for example, single people with no children living in a larger house. That is exactly why Housing New Zealand has a policy of shifting families from houses where they are not adequately housed into houses where they are. The situation would have been made a whole lot easier if the National Party had not sold 13,500 houses, and had done something about modifying the accommodation so it would work.

Taito Phillip Field: What is the Government doing to address the housing needs of low-income New Zealanders?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government has been embarked on a range of policies that are designed to help low-income New Zealanders into houses. It. has provided an additional 1,600 State houses over the last 3 years; it is committed to building another 3,000 in this 4-year period, and income-related rents have been introduced for 53,200 State-house tenants, which means that those people are, on average, about $35 a week better off. The social allocation system of State housing has ensured that nearly 98 percent of new tenants receive an income-related rent. Against that, we had National selling 13,500 houses.

Sue Bradford: Given the manifest shortage of affordable housing for low-income people in some districts at present, what steps, if any, will the Minister take not only to speed up State housing building and acquisition programmes, but also to do more to enable and assist the community sector build houses for people in desperate need?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member will know that Housing New Zealand has just released a housing strategy that contains all those policies—speeding up building, and looking particularly at modernisation of the stock to make sure that the right kind of house is available to the right kind of tenant around the country. In other words, we are doing all the things to correct the failings of 9 long years of National Government.

Dr Muriel Newman: In relation to the speech by the Hon John Tamihere, in which he criticised the Government’s housing policy, what is the Minister’s response to the reported comments that “he is going to have to get away from statism and bullshitting under the name of third wayism because he is not practising”—

Mr SPEAKER: I prefer not to have that comment brought into this House. There are ways around it. Just because a statement is made outside the House, that does not make it in order inside the House. I prefer that the member restates the question, and I ask her to do so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the quotation given by the member is crucial to her question, is it appropriate that when she gets to the—

Simon Power: Offending phrase.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —offending phrase, she can interpose the words “expletive deleted”, because Mr Tamihere usually makes those sorts of speeches.

Mr SPEAKER: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 36/7, which goes back to 1899: “Quotations should be as free from unparliamentary language as a member’s own speech.” I ask Dr Muriel Newman to ask her question. I am sure we will be able to hear it.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I feel obliged to ask you to consider this matter further. It goes to the heart of the role of the Opposition, and the ability of the Opposition to point out when there is a difficulty in a Government. If you are ruling that a Minister giving a speech should not use unparliamentary language—as you have clearly indicated—then at no point can we use that same language inside this House, inside quotation marks, in order to get the Government to respond to it. The point is that Mr Tamihere is a member of the executive—a Cabinet Minister—and he is bound by collective responsibility. The Cabinet Office Manual states that if he wants to speak against policy, then he should first resign. The Prime Minister has not required him to resign, but there is a case for him, or his Cabinet colleagues, to answer questions that relate to his speech. It would be very harsh if the Speaker were to rule that the Opposition can never repeat the words that a Cabinet Minister has offered in his analysis of his colleagues’ policies.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has asked a question of Mr Maharey. I have asked that, if possible, that unparliamentary word not be used. I said I would prefer it not to be used, and I would prefer it if the member could possibly reword the question. I would like it if unparliamentary comments were not made in this House, even though they have undoubtedly been made outside this House. That has gone on for as long as I have been in this House. I would like to invite Dr Muriel Newman to do that for me, because she is capable of doing so.

Dr Muriel Newman: In relation to the speech made by the Hon John Tamihere in which he criticised Government housing policy, what is the Minister’s response to the reported comments that “he is going to have to get away from statism and blankety-blank under the name of third wayism, because he is not practising third wayism; no, no, he is practising old left”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am prepared to offer anyone who wants it a seminar on “third wayism”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I do not think you could go to any other Parliament with a Western democratic tradition and hear a Minister offer—and not for the first time—a seminar to a person who asks a question. It is arrogant, trite, and it is dismissive of the serious nature of the question. Having led an unblemished life, he should be required to put his mind to it and answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to please give an answer.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The question asked me whether I would carry on articulating policies around the third way, and the answer is yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What sort of housing outfit is this Government running, when in having made numerous—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I ask Mr Duynhoven to please leave the Chamber. I have warned him about interjecting when questions are being asked. I ask the member to now ask his question.

Hon Harry Duynhoven withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What sort of housing outfit is this Government running when, having made numerous inquiries to Housing New Zealand over the last year for families living in tents, caravans, packing sheds, and garages, I was repeatedly told by Housing New Zealand that there were no vacant homes, but this morning I found out that there are six Housing New Zealand homes—one of which has now been offered to the Grey family—that have been vacant for 12 months?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is a better Housing New Zealand than the one the National Party ran when, in June 1998, there were 13,000 people on the waiting list.

Mr SPEAKER: Can the member please just answer the question.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is a better one than the National Party ran.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a constituency MP, I am told that Housing New Zealand has no homes. I have families living in tents and packing sheds. I ask the Minister why Housing New Zealand is not telling me the truth, and he gives me that pathetic answer. This House deserves better.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: First of all—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber. I have reminded people about not interjecting during points of order, or while questions are being asked.

Hon Ken Shirley withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: First of all, Mr Speaker, you demanded silence on the Government’s questions, then ejected a Minister. The Minister’s answer was immediately interrupted by a barrage of interjections from members opposite, which invited the Minister to respond in kind in terms of references. The answer addressed the question, which asked what kind of outfit was being run. The answer was that it was better than the one run by National. The fact that National does not like the answer is too bad. The Standing Orders do not require Ministers to give answers that members opposite like.

Mr SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, the answer addressed the question. It was certainly not satisfactory to the member, but that is for debate.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to what the Standing Orders state about what must be given in an answer. There are certain types of replies that are not allowed, and one of those is arguments. Whether the present Housing New Zealand is better than the National Party’s Housing New Zealand is an argument and not an answer. It is a type of answer that is strictly ruled out. If the Minister does not know what the answer is—which I suspect is the real situation—it would be far better if he said that it was news to him and he would find out, rather than giving the answer he gave. That is just replying to a question with an argument, which leads to disorder. I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the Minister should answer the question correctly.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The point made by Dr Cullen is the most valid one. If Dr Smith wants his answer, he should preface his question with something other than “what kind of outfit are you running?” I respect the people I work with in Housing New Zealand. If the member asked a decent question, I would give him an answer.

Mr SPEAKER: This matter has gone too far. As far as I am concerned, there are faults on both sides. The first few words of the member’s question were not in order and outside the form in which questions should be asked. Mr Prebble has made some very sensible comments. When we come to review the Standing Orders in respect of question time later this year, I will review that particular issue, as I will review a number of issues. The Minister did address the question, and I will move on.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I suggest that there might be a better way, which is to ask Dr Smith to restate his question correctly, and then we could perhaps get an answer to the question. Why does he not just ask: “Why was I told that there were no Housing New Zealand homes, when, in fact, there are six?”

Mr SPEAKER: That is a very good suggestion, but on this occasion the matter has been going on for some length of time. We usually have about an hour for questions, and I want that to be reasonably respected, otherwise I will have to cut the number of supplementary questions. I do not want to do that, because I think the best part of this Parliament is allowing a large number of supplementary questions.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to rephrase this important question about the honesty of Housing New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Broadcasting Quota—GATS

9. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Broadcasting: How did New Zealand’s General Agreement on Trade in Services commitments affect the way in which the Government approached Labour’s 1999 election promise to introduce “format specific quotas as soon as possible on radio and free to air television to increase the level of local content”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) did not affect the Government fulfilling the 1999 election promise that the member refers to. We have established a voluntary local music quota, with targets for radio that are on track to meet the 20 percent target in the year 2006. We also have a memorandum of understanding with the television industry, which is working to set voluntary genre-specific targets, as we speak.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that if voluntary quotas failed and the memorandum of understanding did not produce the results he wished, and the Government legislated for a local television quota to achieve its election promise, the Government would then be in breach of a New Zealand GATS commitment that was negotiated in secret 9 years ago by a previous Government, and that that is unfair and undemocratic; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, we have looked at the issue of trying to legislate, if necessary, for a mandatory quota, and the member is exactly right. The previous National Government negotiated away that ability.

Mark Peck: Can the Minister tell us how the approach to local content works?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Commercial radio, under the umbrella of the New Zealand Music Performance Committee, works cooperatively to increase the amount of Kiwi music that is broadcast. The achievements so far are pretty good. Last year local music made up 15 percent of the commercial playlist, beating the 13 percent target. The television agreement that has been signed with TVNZ, TV3, the Screen Producers and Directors Association, and New Zealand On Air pledges the group to setting 3-year targets for increases in New Zealand programming on New Zealand television.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that, for all the discussion about quotas, Labour was told by officials in 1999 that its policy to introduce mandatory quotas was in conflict with trade agreements, and that, for all its threats to the industry about introducing such quotas if it did not cooperate, the Government has no ability to do so?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I mentioned before, the Government has looked at the possibility of mandatory quotas. As the member indicated, the party of which she is a member negotiated away that right some time ago.

Sue Kedgley: Given the Government’s expressed frustration at being bound by a foolhardy GATS commitment that was secretly negotiated 9 years ago, will he commit to a full, open, and transparent process, including debate in this House, before this Government makes any commitments in his portfolio areas under the present GATS round; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My understanding is that the Hon Jim Sutton has told members just recently in the House about the process that is going on in the World Trade Organization, where countries are currently registering their interests and a range of views around GATS. That debate will undoubtedly continue in the future, and I am sure those issues will come up in the House.

Sue Kedgley: Will the Minister make a categorical commitment in this House today that the Government will not agree to any of the current requests in the present GATS round to open up our audio-visual services, which would require the New Zealand Film Commission fund to be available to foreign film makers, and, further, to consider any request to have a debate in this House; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not believe that anybody is asking for that under the GATS procedure at the present time, but I can tell the member that if that were the case, it would not be my position.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, this question has had a rather chequered path to the Chamber today. There are two matters that I wish to raise with you. Following the acceptance of this question by the Clerk’s Office, a significant quote from the Minister’s original speech was deleted from the question on the insistence of the Minister’s office that it was outside the Associate Minister’s delegation. Following that, I understand that a further change was required after representations were made to you. There are two matters I want to raise with you. I accept that under Standing Order 365(4) that authority does reside with you, Mr Speaker, and I am not questioning that.

First, Mr Speaker, I want you to reflect on the practice of total reliance on the word of a Minister or Minister’s office as to the delegations to that Minister. I have looked carefully at Speaker’s ruling 116/4, and I suggest that Mr Speaker Harrison’s rulings tend to note previous practice rather than to provide a fulsome or enthusiastic endorsement of it. I suggest that there might be some scope for you to insist on a slightly better practice in that regard. Further, I suggest to you that it would be helpful to members if you were to give a clearer indication of the nature and scope of the delegation that you provide to the Clerk’s Office. In these matters it has been the practice of the Opposition members to rely on, after the usual debate, the ruling of the Clerk or the Clerk’s officers. If we are to see members of the Government able to go directly to yourself subsequently, and if that is to be an accepted practice, then I put it to you that it opens a whole new vista of opportunity for members of the Opposition also, of which my colleagues and I would like to take the fullest advantage. I think we might help our future practice if we were to have some clarity from you on those matters.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. He advised me that he was going to raise this point with me. We had a discussion about it, and I appreciate the manner in which he has raised it. Yes, I agree with some of the points that he makes, and I will be giving this matter very careful consideration. Of course, ultimately, it is I as Speaker who must rule on whether a question is in order, and I accept that responsibility. However, the member has made a couple of valuable comments. I invite him to discuss them further with me, and I will give a further ruling in the House.

Treaty of Waitangi—Knowledge Wave Conference

10. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) to the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his statement in his speech that was circulated to the Knowledge Wave conference that “the Treaty is not a panacea for Māori success or participation in any new economy”; if so, why?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes, I do stand by that. I do not see any one thing as a universal remedy.

Hon Murray McCully: Given the statement in the same speech that “Māori will be hammered into the rocks”, rather than being able to surf the Knowledge Wave, unless there are “a number of policy shifts”, which particular policies of the current Government did the Associate Minister have in mind, and how does he propose that they should be changed?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Mr Simon Power has already tabled my speech. I respectfully ask the member to read it.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I would like—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Stop being a smart alec.

Mr SPEAKER: The member should address a comment to me, not to anybody else. I ask the Minister to form an answer to the question.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: There are a number of—

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not often that I want to defend the Minister, but I think he has answered the question. He said that the speech has been tabled. He is clearly saying that he stands by it. We are all pleased to hear that.

Mr SPEAKER: He did not quite say that. That was a very good try. I would like the Minister now to comment on the matters raised by the member.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I look forward to a robust and continuing debate on policy development and evolution.

Nanaia Mahuta: Is the Minister aware of any reports that show Māori successfully participating in the economy?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: The recently released Te Puni Kōkiri - New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report on the Māori economy entitled Te Ōhanga Whanaketanga Māori shows that that Māori economy is strong. Production amounts to $1.9 billion per year. The Māori economy produces an operating surplus of around $826 million, and Māori-owned commercial assets produce more export revenue than the overall wine, wool, kiwifruit, and fisheries industries put together.

Metiria Turei: Given the Minister’s criticism in his speech of the current treaty grievance-resolution process, will he now be advocating to his colleagues a change in policy to recognise that Māori communities at hapū level are best able to identify and take up opportunities, and that the Crown should engage with hapū directly, rather than with large natural groupings?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I regret to convey to the member that that is outside my delegations.

Hon Murray McCully: Given that the Prime Minister responded to the Minister’s speech of last week by instructing her officials to closely check his speeches in future, does the Minister envisage that that unsolicited assistance from the ninth floor will be helpful to him; if so, in which ways?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I am delighted with the offer from the ninth floor, and I look forward to working in the most engaging way.

Driver Licensing—Foreign Drivers

11. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Transport: Has he received any reports or recommendations in relation to tougher laws for foreign drivers; if so, what has he done about this?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I have recently received some initial advice on that matter. I intend to meet with representatives of the Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand, tourism, overseas students, and the rental car industry to discuss issues relating to foreign drivers. Officials will also be reporting further on ways to improve driving behaviour for foreign drivers, particularly students.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister adopted any of the raft of recommendations prepared by the Christchurch Coroner, Richard McElrea after the inquest into the road death of Yunfei Zhao, an 18-year-old student who was found to be driving alone on a fake Chinese driving licence and a New Zealand learner driver’s licence?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, I have seen a copy of that report, and the issues that were raised by the coroner are under active investigation.

Helen Duncan: What changes are being made to ensure foreign drivers better understand New Zealand road rules and conditions?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The Land Transport Safety Authority is currently investigating ways to improve foreign drivers’ understanding of New Zealand road rules and conditions, such as providing those drivers with better information, and improving the road markings and signage. However, New Zealand is party to international agreements in this area. Any toughening of the laws against foreigners driving in New Zealand would affect our ability to drive overseas on New Zealand licences.

Hon Roger Sowry: Can the Minister explain why overseas students, in a matter of weeks after their arrival in New Zealand, can pass the New Zealand learner’s licence, then return to their home countries for a holiday, acquire full licences from their countries, return to New Zealand, and do overseas conversions to full New Zealand drivers’ licences—the whole process taking a matter of only a few weeks; and will the Minister immediately move to stop that practice?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: One of the explanations is that that was the policy inherited by this Government from the previous National Government. Having said that—

Hon Member: It’s not good enough for us.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: It is not good enough for us, and we are working on ways by which we can improve that whole system.

Larry Baldock: Given reports of the growing occurrence of European campervan tourists involved in head-on accidents whilst driving on the wrong side of the road as being the main cause of harm by foreign drivers, does the Minister agree that the best thing we can do in this country is to improve the substandard nature of our State highway system, so that foreign tourists will find it safer to drive here?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I would not agree that our State highway system is substandard. It is true, though, that improvements need to be made. Of course, the Government is actively working on those. As far as foreign drivers are concerned I am, for example, meeting with a number of rental car companies to try to make improvements in that area.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand I have a second supplementary question that I was going to seek, but I would like to clarify a matter. Given that Bill Gudgeon’s supplementary question was ruled out of order, does that now mean that I can ask another two supplementary questions?

Mr SPEAKER: No. The New Zealand First Party has had its 10 questions, and 2 days ago it had 11. The number is 10 or 11.

Business Development—Pacific People

12. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: What commitment is the Government making towards business development for Pacific people?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Acting Minister of Pacific Island Affairs): The Government provides $930,000 annually to the Pacific Business Trust, which this week opened a new office in Porirua. The trust has already helped hundreds of Pacific businesses and individuals by providing advice and support.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: What services does the trust provide?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The trust offers businesses funding support and advice, research funding, scholarships, and art awards. It is extending its reach through partnerships with other businesses and organisations, such as WestpacTrust and Business Porirua.

John Key: Will the Minister be seeking a preferential tax rate for Pacific Island corporations, or is that something that is solely reserved by this Labour Government for Māori organisations; if not, why not?

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have pointed out repeatedly that when questions are being asked, they are to be answered by the Minister they are addressed to. Lianne Dalziel was sitting there and yelling out through that answer, and I say that what you apply to the Opposition side of the House you should apply to the Government side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I do, and questions will be heard in silence. That one was. There was a comment made before the answer, but after the question had been finished.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am pleased to report that many Pacific Island businesses are doing extremely well under the present funding arrangements.

Paul Adams: In the light of reports that one particular Government development for Pacific peoples—Niu FM—is already in trouble after less than a year in operation, when will the Minister’s Government be releasing a report into alleged mismanagement of the radio station?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can report to this House that there have been some difficulties at Niu FM, but I am very pleased that Pacific radio is broadcasting daily around the country.

Urgent Debates Declined

Iraq—Draft United Nations Resolution

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate, under Standing Order 376, the New Zealand Government’s alleged decision not to support the American-British draft UN resolution. I have examined the media reports on this matter, provided by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister is quoted as saying it is not that New Zealand would not support the resolution, but that New Zealand could not vote on it, because New Zealand does not have a seat on the Security Council. She then goes on to say that all diplomatic means should be used to resolve the crisis. These statements were made during the course of yesterday morning. They could have given grounds for an urgent debate, but they would have had to be raised yesterday. In these circumstances, there is no particular case of recent occurrence that can justify an urgent debate today. However, as I have indicated to the Business Committee, provided a suitable matter involving the New Zealand Government’s responsibility arises over the situation in Iraq, an application is likely to be successful at some point.

Points of Order

Points of Order Raised out of Time

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I make this submission with regard to Standing Order 117, and I do so after question time. The matter was raised in question time by the member for Tauranga. The statement made by that member was “hiding under the skirts of a woman”. I am from Ngāti Porou and—

Mr SPEAKER: I presume the member wants to make a personal explanation. [Interruption] Well there the matter ends.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I do not often do this but I raised a point of order on the Opposition last week about points of order being raised out of time and late. I said then that I think points of order must be raised at the time the matter occurs. The member clearly is referring to a previous question that was raised. It is now out of time.

Mr SPEAKER: That is right.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the member leaves, I understood that the member was saying that he wanted to make a personal explanation, in which case he can do it at any time, and waiting until the end of question time was the appropriate time. I did not see anyone in the House preventing the member from making a personal explanation, if he wants to make it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member said to me that he did not want to make one.

Debate on Iraq

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a different point of order. It was very helpful for you to tell the House that you have given an indication in the Business Committee that if there is a development in the Iraq situation you will allow it for debate. I would like to ask, through you, as that is your view as Speaker, whether the Government itself has considered putting aside time to enable us to have a debate about the Iraq situation. I understand that we are now one of the very few Parliaments in the world that has not debated the issue.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Firstly, of course, 2 weeks ago we had a 14-hour-plus debate that included those matters. Secondly, instead of having the Budget Policy Statement debate, which is likely to take 2 hours next Wednesday—the Government is quite happy to spend 2 hours talking about its fiscal position and the state of the economy—the Opposition might be happier to spend 2 hours debating Iraq.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): That is a totally unacceptable suggestion from the Leader of the House. It appears he is saying to the House that if we want to debate Iraq we cannot debate his Budget Policy Statement, and if we do want to debate his Budget Policy Statement we cannot have a debate about Iraq. That is quite unacceptable, a total nonsense, and not a suggestion that anyone really needs to take note of.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not really a point of order, because of course anybody can deny leave to change that around.

General Debates

General Debates

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The question we are asking today is: what has happened to the Government’s economic goal of getting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD? We suspect that it has gone the same way as John Tamihere—pushed aside because it is too difficult to deal with. Let us see what the Government said about what it wanted to do with the economy. In the 2001 Budget speech the Minister of Finance said: “We need to set ourselves—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Keep your shirt on, Billy Boy.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: So flattering!

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to please be seated. I am going to allow the member to start his speech again. That member knows that is a personal reflection. He will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I am starting the member’s speech again. [Interruption] No, I will now ask the member to leave the Chamber. I am tired of that.

Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The question today is: what has happened to the Government’s economic-growth goal? I suspect that it has gone the same way as John Tamihere—pushed aside because it is too difficult to deal with. Let us see what the Minister of Finance had to say in the 2001 Budget speech. He said: “We need to set ourselves a goal of being back in the top half of the developed world in terms of per capita GDP.”—the developed world being the OECD. So that was the goal. It was taken as having serious intent. When he stated that goal it was taken that the Government was going to make priorities, make choices, that were in pursuit of a goal that it took seriously. We found out today that the Prime Minister does not take that goal seriously at all. She raised the issue in the House of being correctly quoted, and I will quote her. She said, when talking about the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference—

Hon Rick Barker: Boring.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member might find this boring, but this is just quoting the Prime Minister. She said that the recommendation they are looking at putting up is to reach the first half of the OECD per capita GDP rankings by 2010: “I have to say that is totally unrealistic.” She was asked today to say when she thought it was realistic, and she would not say. So what we have learnt is that the Prime Minister does not take that economic goal seriously.

I say that she never has. I say that it was always an attempt to brush over the “third wayism” and an attempt to look serious to the business community. However, as soon as it looks like it might get difficult, she has said that it is totally unrealistic by 2010. I ask when they believe it will be realistic. Will it be 2015? On current calculations it will be somewhere in the 2020s, even if we could grow at 1 percent faster than the OECD average for that period.

I ask when. Why should we take the Minister of Finance seriously when he talks about this, if he has no idea when he will reach that goal? Today I say that the Prime Minister has effectively abandoned that goal, and I am not surprised. It has occurred against the background of an increasingly strident, left-wing tone from the Prime Minister in her speeches and an increasing impatience with any kind of criticism. That came through from the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference. The Prime Minister gave such a long and boring speech that she looked bored with it herself. It left particularly our young leaders—the 101 emerging leaders from all around the country—totally disillusioned. They had a different impression of the Prime Minister, until they heard her talk about what was meant to matter most to her and her Government, and that was a growth goal in which she has no belief, no conviction, and no confidence.

Simon Power: No interest.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: And I suspect that the member is right: no interest. A great deal more effort is going into the fine calculation of the position on Iraq. As we found out today, and it was confirmed by the Speaker, the Government has not said that it will oppose the second resolution. It has just worked very hard to give everyone that impression without actually saying it. That is where the Government’s focus and interest is. It has vacated the field of economic growth. It will continue to ride on the back of high commodity prices, loose monetary policy, and strong net inward migration.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Loose monetary policy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is an argument. That will run the economy for the next 12 months or so, as the farmers get hit by the Auckland property boom that the Government has encouraged. The Government has lost sight of its interest in the economy. Today the Prime Minister has confirmed that as far as she is concerned the goal of reaching the top half of the OECD within 10 years is totally unrealistic.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I know that the member is terrified that Dr Brash will challenge him for the leadership, but attacking the monetary policy settings that Dr Brash left as loose seems to me to be going a little bit far in trying to pre-empt that strike upon his leadership. The present interest rate level was set by Dr Brash. Since then, monetary policy conditions have tightened as the exchange rate has gone up, and the Government is running a surplus of probably more than $3 billion a year. We have now learnt that National Party policy is higher interest rates, a higher exchange rate, and an even higher surplus presumably in that for the future. But then, interestingly, this afternoon Mr English sought a debate on Iraq, and then got up in the general debate and did not talk about Iraq, but droned on, proving that he actually knew what the Prime Minister said after all, as opposed to pretending in his question this afternoon that he did not know what the Prime Minister had said.

I want to know why he has suddenly gone off the Treaty of Waitangi. That was supposed to be his big issue. That was the way to climb back to the top. Do members remember the 1990s? About the only good thing National did was carry on with the treaty settlement process. It can claim a good record on that. But as soon as it got into Opposition it reverted to type. As National’s polls went down and down, it started saying: “Our core vote is middle-aged, middle-class, and very, very white, and we’re going to appeal to that vote by mentioning, every possible day: Māori, Treaty of Waitangi, and on and on.” Mr Williamson nods his head in approval, because he approves of that strategy.

This was the man who said: “We’ve got to attract brown, young voters to the National Party.” When he was trying to unseat Mrs Shipley, when he had the dagger in his hand, it was young, brown voters he wanted behind him. Now he is sitting there quivering with 26 pretenders to the leadership, the middle-aged, middle-class Pākehā are the only people he is interested in. For a start his whole campaign depends upon misrepresenting the treaty. First, he only ever seems to know that there is an English version of the treaty. There is a Māori version that is very, very different in articles 1 and 2. But all his interpretation is based on the English version. He should read the Privy Council decisions—

Hon Bill English: What’s yours based on?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Both. He should read the Privy Council decisions, and when there is a doubt, according to the legal opinions from here, the UK, the US, and elsewhere, the Māori version takes precedence in terms of interpretation.

Hon Bill English: Oh no.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh yes, it does. That is what the Privy Council has said. Why? Because it was Māori who were giving away rights, and therefore their understanding of what was being given away must take precedence over Governor Hobson’s understanding of what he was demanding. He cannot say on the basis of that, therefore, that Māori totally surrendered sovereignty. That is not what the treaty says in article 1. Sovereignty depends on the Crown assuming it some months later, and unchallenged exercise to that sovereignty since does not depend upon Māori surrendering that sovereignty in article 1 of the treaty.

But equally, in article 2, it is simply not true, as that member claims, that Māori simply had protected their lands, fisheries, forests, etc. That is the English text. If he reads further and understands the Māori text, a great deal more than that is protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, and that protection duty is owned by the Crown as signatory to the treaty. Thirdly, yes, we all are the common citizens, but not one people. We are many peoples in this country, not one people; many peoples in one nation, with one citizenship under the treaty. There is no article 4. He made it up himself. Oh yes, one health discussion document, not even seen by the director-general or the Minister, mentions an article 4, and he believes it. He invents a claim to the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal, says it is Government policy, tries to frighten people—and he nods his head in agreement. He could not avoid the body language then. He nodded his head in agreement.

The purpose of that is to frighten people—and frighten people with what? Freedom of religion that may be guaranteed is what we are to be frightened about. Here is a man whose co-religionists in 1840 did not have freedom of religion in England. Does he know that? [Interruption] He does know that. Does he know the National Party was an Orange Party when it was first founded? If he knows that, then he ought to be interested in freedom of religion.

RON MARK (NZ First): Some serious questions need to be asked of this Labour Government that came to this House and championed workers’ rights. It came to this House and launched its flagship policy, the Employment Relations Act, and told the whole nation that things would be different. There would be new standards of accountability, and workers’ rights would be protected. We also recall with great vividness the attacks on New Zealand First launched by Labour MPs and the Labour Government during the election campaign. They thought that any question that New Zealand First raised on immigration was based on racism or xenophobia. But I have to say that the performance in Canterbury, and what is starting to unravel down there in terms of how immigrant workers are being exploited, begs a lot of questions of this Government. It begs questions of the Minister of Immigration, who is party to allowing a scheme to go ahead that brings in labourers—workers, people who work at the bottom end of the dairy industry milking cows. It begs questions of that Minister, because her immigration department gave work permits to people on the basis that they were not coming in as labourers.

I have a letter that is an offer of employment that was forwarded through, and upon which work permits were granted, that describes the prospective employee as follows: “The person will be employed as an assistant herd manager.” Indeed, when I go to the immigration website, I find listed as a short-listed occupation in the Christchurch-Canterbury region, appointments for “Dairy farmers—experienced senior positions only.” Now let us think about the “experienced; senior positions only; assistant herd manager; herd manager” appointment. What sort of appointment is it? It is an appointment put together by farmers involved with a rather interesting recruitment agency. They wanted to recruit people with 3 years’ university schooling. They were not wanting people straight out of high school, or from Te Teko or Opotiki. They did not want just ordinary labourers, but people with 3 years’ university schooling. They are people who have been around Margaret Wilson for a long time.

They also wanted applicants to have no less than 6 months’ dairy-farming experience, because that was critical. They were also required to be fluent in English. What do I find down on the farms? What is the industry paying an experienced dairy farmer in a senior position, such as herd manager? The industry is paying between $35,000 and $40,000 as a base rate. On top of that comes housing and any other privileges that may be negotiated into the contract.

So what does that say? It says that through Steve Maharey the Minister of Social Services and Employment, Lianne Dalziel the Minister of Immigration, and the Prime Minister, ably supervised by the Hon Margaret Wilson the Minister of Labour, this Government is allowing people to be employed as labourers—thereby taking jobs that I would have thought any person on the dole could have done—under the guise of their being senior management.

That is a crock. It is fraudulent. At the very kindest, it shows that the Minister of Immigration and her department are simply rubber-stamping applications. We were told by the Minister that there were negotiations under way between the Ministry of Social Development and the employment service agent in order to identify the needs of those people. At what stage did immigration officials go and check to see what those people were doing? At what stage were their linguistic skills tested? At what stage were the farmers’ contracts checked?

We have heard all sorts of utterances in the Christchurch Press, and I am pleased to see that David Carter thinks it is all OK, because he read the Press. I remember him moaning during the coalition that the Press never reported anything accurately; yet, here he is, telling us today that all is wonderful in Canterbury. I tell Minister Wilson that the contract those young people were required to sign says that they will work from 4.15 in the morning till 5.30 at night. Maybe a Minister who went to university for 3 years can work this out for me, but, by my reckoning, that is about a 13-hour day. Those people have claimed that they were working up to 11-day shifts with 3 days off. If the Minister works that out, she will see that $20,000—which was the salary offered here—does not cut it. The Minister is responsible and she should sort it out.

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General): The previous speaker, Ron Mark, exhibited what a short memory he has. His party was part of a Government that brought in the Employment Contracts Act, which enabled those sorts of practices by removing all restrictions on hours of work. I do not think his comments sit too well, if one wants to give his party any credibility in terms of consistency. Again, it just shows a cynical use of people’s situations by someone who is not at all concerned about their well-being.

However, I wish to refer to what we have seen in this past week. It is another example of the Leader of the Opposition—or, I suppose, the “Leader of Opportunity”—making an attempt to assert his leadership. He has done that yet again through an attack on the Treaty of Waitangi. He has done it in such a way as to try to characterise the treaty as something we as a people should fear. He has also done it in a way that says that he, as the Leader of the Opposition, does not accept that New Zealand is a place in which all peoples can live together in mutual cooperation and harmony. Through his attacks on the treaty, he is trying to discredit the document that gave us the legitimacy for colonisation in this country.

From reading his comments, particularly those around the fourth article—which he is probably one of the last people in New Zealand to discover—I have seen him exhibit an abysmal lack of understanding of the history of the country that he presumes to think he should be able to lead. If one goes through his comments, one sees that he has no understanding of the circumstances that surrounded the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. It was a treaty that ensured that two peoples would come together in mutual agreement, not through the conquest of one by the other. It enabled us to develop a society in which all peoples are respected. Hobson was sent here by the English Colonial Office to ensure that the people who inhabited New Zealand at that time gave their consent to those Europeans who wished to settle in this country. We were not settled as a country by conquest. It seems to me that that is a major, major achievement, for it provided for the foundation of a country that was based on mutual recognition that this is a place where we can all live in peace and harmony, without one people having to dominate another people.

It is cause for great concern that a person who puts himself up for leadership of this country should start to run his campaign on the basis of splits and divisions between the people, and, in particular, the exclusion of the indigenous people of this country. Instead of celebrating the fact that we as a country were founded on respect for the rights of others, we now find that a person who holds himself up to be a leader in this country is denying the very legitimacy of the basis upon which this country was founded. One has to ask oneself why he is trying to rewrite history at this stage. I am sure he does know something about the history of his own country, so the only answer can be that he is doing it solely for cynical, political benefit.

He called the fourth article the phantom article, but he is the only one who seems to think it is a phantom article. Anyone who has any understanding of the whole history and development of the treaty knows that it is an issue that has been constantly raised and referred to. It is a matter of record that the whole question of religious freedom was raised at the time that the treaty was signed. Why on earth can we not see that as a cause for celebration? Right from the founding of our country, we have been prepared to accept freedom of religion, whereas we now have the Leader of the Opposition casting doubt on whether there should be freedom of religion for the indigenous people of this country. He may not think that, but by raising this issue in the way he has, he has cast serious doubt upon whether he has the capability to lead a country in which he has to represent the interests of all people, not just those whom he finds convenient.

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave to table a series of documents. One is a letter containing a job description for assistant herd managers that was supplied to two Ukrainian people.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

RON MARK: The second document is a contractual agreement between an employer, an employee, and a company called LV—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We do not know what the company is called.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member had said enough.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I don’t know what it is called. Perhaps you can tell us? [Interruption]

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House is entitled to know what documents are being tabled by leave, whereupon members can give their consent, knowing what the documents are. Just a few letters from a company’s name is not a description. I have seen the documents, but the rest of my colleagues in this House have not. They still want to know what the document is that Mr Mark seeks to table. I know what you are trying to do; you think it might be political, so you are getting in first to stop him. But we will have the Standing Orders abided by, even by you as the person in the Chair. I want to know what those documents are, in a way fit for the House to understand what they are, with an adequate description of what they are. The member is entitled to read that out. [Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on a point of order; please be seated. Leave was sought to table, succinctly. The member had given an indication. I ask Mr Mark to carry on, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is no way that the senior Government whip is allowed to sit there and throw out the insult he did. He knows what he said. He should be asked to withdraw and apologise, wash his mouth out, and retire from the House.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear what the member said. Did the member say something?

Opposition Member: He did.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member withdraw, then.

David Benson-Pope: I referred to the previous speaker—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no.

David Benson-Pope: Madam Speaker, you have not asked me to withdraw and apologise. I am commenting on what I said.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is that the Rt Hon Winston Peters interjected on a point of order himself.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I might have interjected on a point of order, but I did not make an unparliamentary statement in the way that he did. That is the difference, and I am asking that he withdraw and apologise for it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have dealt with the matter.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have a difficulty inasmuch as the member Winston Peters took offence at a statement that was made by the senior Government whip—one that I heard and I myself thought was unparliamentary. We cannot have insults flung across the House, from members to other members. I think it would be appropriate in these circumstances for the member to be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. It has been dealt with. I ask Mr Ron Mark to continue.

RON MARK: The document is authorisation for $120-plus to be extracted from employees’ wages every week, from their base $20,000 salary. There are two documents of that sort.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

RON MARK: The third one is an individual employment agreement for a “farm employee—general”, not a herd manager, for a Ukrainian national employed by a farm in South Canterbury.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

RON MARK: There is one further document.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member asked to table three.

RON MARK: Yes, I have just decided to table this. I seek leave to table lists from the Immigration Service’s website that show there are no authorised jobs for farm labourers in Canterbury.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): Having listened to the Hon Margaret Wilson speak for the last 5 minutes, I have to say that I am still no clearer as to what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are and what the Government’s view is on the alleged fourth article. We continue to move along in the mist of illusions that this Minister throws around willy-nilly when she feels like it. She stood up and gave us what appeared to be a shortened sociology lecture on the movements of Governor Hobson. I am still unclear as to what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are. Perhaps she could take another call in order that we can have that issue clarified once and for all.

Was it not interesting that last week we did not see Margaret Wilson at the Knowledge Wave 2003 conference? There was no sign of her. There was no sign of the Minister at all. She saw none of those people who are innovative risk-takers, and who like to get out there and have challenges in the business world. She did not show. She was not interested one way or another. She is the arch-enemy of the knowledge wave, in fact—like the lack of wind for the America’s Cup. Her mission since she came to Parliament, in terms of her legislative agenda, has been to stop innovation, to stop risk, and to stop investment. Every single anti-business piece of legislation that has come through this House since 1999 has come from that Minister’s office.

My colleague Katherine Rich so often refers to the knowledge wave as the “knowledge ripple”, and what a ripple it was on the Government’s agenda! The Government packed a sad this time. This time the Government packed a sad at the Knowledge Wave Conference. We saw only the Prime Minister and Ministers Mallard and Hodgson there. Whatever happened to that band of ministerial followers who used to troop around the Prime Minister wherever she went? Whatever happened to all those MPs who used to stand behind her wherever she walked? There was not a sign of any of them at the Knowledge Wave Conference.

But I have to say that the high point for me at the conference—somewhat surprisingly, actually—was the Prime Minister’s speech. I would like to explain to the House why that was so. Halfway through the Prime Minister’s speech, she actually stopped. She physically stopped speaking and let out a loud, audible sigh. She was bored with having to give the speech. She was bored with the content of the speech. She is bored with domestic politics in New Zealand. As one of the people sitting at my table said during that speech: “You think you’re bored giving it; you want to listen to it.” It was an absolute shocker. This Prime Minister is now more concerned about her role at the UN, when she leaves this Parliament, than she is about domestic politics in New Zealand. The Government simply did not get its agenda across at all at the Knowledge Wave Conference, where those who are going to be the backbone and the future of this country were disagreeing with what the Government said.

At the last knowledge wave conference, Professor Michael Porter said that the Government, in order to create an innovation-driven economy, should not create policies that increase labour-market rigidity. Well, that is what the Government has done. That is what the Employment Relations Act does. It increases labour-market rigidity. Professor Porter said that the Government should not weaken national education standards. Well, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement has probably done that. He said that the Government should not create a Government-owned bank. Well, too late. He said that the Government should not eliminate a private pension system, and that there should not be any question at all about research and development incentives being made available.

One thing that struck me was how annoyed the Government was at the Knowledge Wave Conference, and how quickly it got annoyed. It was annoyed to the point where only Pete Hodgson bothered to turn up to the dinner. He was there on his own—no date, no troupe of ministerial or parliamentary colleagues behind him. I say that it is great to see academics and business people in this country actually fronting up to this Government and telling it what it has to do to catch the knowledge wave. I say that it is great to see academics and business realising that all the soothing noises they have heard from the Prime Minister over the last 4 years are nothing more than an extension of the bored sigh she gave halfway through her own speech to the Knowledge Wave Conference.

Mr Tamihere has swiped at Minister Maharey on welfare, making his third way look decidedly impractical and ineffective. What a pleasure it was to hear some of the young leaders during the break telling me how bad the Prime Minister’s speech was! They told me how disappointed they were with her, how uninterested she was in proceedings, and how disempowered they felt.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I remind Simon Power of the very salient points that the Minister of Finance made about the $3 billion surplus, and the increase. I wish to add some addenda to it—like the best rural upturn that has happened in this country in the last 17 years, and the projection out for 4 or 5 years. It does come back to land usage and so on and so forth. I remind the member of that.

It is quite fascinating that there is continued scratching by the Leader of the Opposition to upset people and incite differences between the peoples of this nation. He need not worry about the leader on this side of the House. We are very clear as to who the leader is. He needs to worry about who the leader is on his side of the House. I want to tell that member about the Treaty of Waitangi, the document that gave those members the right to come here. I do not necessarily have to worry about the treaty, because my ancestors were already living here as the tangata whenua. It is outrageous that we have these phantom work-ups by the Leader of the Opposition, suggesting that there was a clear fourth article in the treaty. It shows how much he knows. I am really encouraged that some people have learnt “Ka Mate! Ka Mate!”, they know that haka, and it inspires them. Certainly, the leader of those members has done that.

But I want to tell members quite clearly that the Treaty of Waitangi is a joint licence to progress this country and the partnership between the two peoples. Why is the Opposition so determined to bog it down in phantom clauses? The reason is quite clear. It is, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, to incite middle-class Pākehā in this country. If we determine the point of ceding, it is important to focus on that. Who ceded what, why did they cede it, and what was the general agreement between those people from England and the tangata whenua, who already belonged here? The problem is that we have a Leader of the Opposition who tries to incite racism, and turn the ceding into seeding of racist connotations and beliefs that Māori do not have a place in this country.

Let me put people’s minds at rest about this supposed article 4 of the treaty. Let me be quite clear about the jumble happening at that time. It was about religious incitement. It was about differences. [Interruption] I say to the member opposite, who is ranting, that at that time there was difference between the religious fraternity. What Bishop Pompallier did, what he wanted, was to straighten out the tensions that were happening between those great people who are Catholics, and other people. He was fearful because, at the time of the design and development of the treaty, the French were hovering. They wanted part of the action, too. So there was a clear determination between the British Government and the Māori people here. They reached a clear agreement that religious practice was to be a free choice of the tangata whenua and the people from England. It was nothing to do with a fourth article in the treaty. It was a jumble of bureaucrats of the time who wanted to make sure they stabilised their religious beliefs.

In the sense of the translation differentiation between the English version and the Māori version of the treaty, we talk about Himiona Hiko Hiko. Who was Himiona Hiko Hiko? You are quite clear on determining the Māori version of the Treaty of Waitangi. The gentleman opposite Simon Power—

Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This Minister has been in Parliament for some time. He keeps bringing the Chair into the debate, by saying “you”. I think you should ask him to change the way he is speaking.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will not bring the Chair into the speech.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I apologise, Madam Chair. I come from a tribe that recognises our female ancestors, who generally talk for generations on the paepae, and we are led by them. We have no shame, in this party, in understanding that.

Whose treaty is it? “Wiremu Pākehā” determined that he would do the haka. He determined that he would invent this phantom suggestion. Phantom had a horse called Hero. He had a short indigenous character, who used to run around with him. They had an agreement about being fair to the nation, and the apes, the lions, and the people in the forest.

R Doug Woolerton: This Minister has been reading too many comics.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: That is what the Phantom is about. Māoridom have moved on from comics to CDs.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): Yesterday I asked Dr Cullen a serious question: “Should New Zealanders be furiously saving for their own retirement, given that he wants the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to adopt the same investment strategy that caused the Government Superannuation Fund to lose $380 million in the last 14 months?” Dr Cullen gave a typically evasive and facetious answer. He had his usual swipe at the Green Futures Superannuation Fund, which I put down to jealousy, and he dismissed the losses as on par with other countries, which, I guess, is his way of getting over embarrassment. He will be even more embarrassed by today’s Tremain cartoon, which makes the obvious reference about Dr Cullen and Gamblers Anonymous.

What he said yesterday was not good enough. There is no excuse for the Government Superannuation Fund Authority to lose 22.5 percent of its international investments in 14 months. Why did the authority take over $3.5 billion of funds in October 2001, when it did not have a single cent on the sharemarket, and throw $1.6 billion at the sharemarket? Despite the fragility and volatility of the global economy, the authority started throwing money at the casino economy. Today the fund is worth less than $3.1 billion—$400 million less than when it was administered by a Government department. In the first half of this year, the fund has made a loss of $126 million—a long way from the profit projection of $272 million for the full year.

The Government Superannuation Fund’s performance is nothing short of disastrous, but it pales into insignificance when compared with its soon-to-be big brother—the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. This is Dr Cullen’s “think big” scheme, with a projected value of $58 billion at its peak. But I predict it will never get there, because if the New Zealand Superannuation Fund had invested the same proportion as the Government Superannuation Fund on the sharemarket, it would have lost not $63 million, not $630 million, but $6.3 billion in the last year. That is why New Zealanders should be saving furiously for their own retirement.

But at least we know the extent of the Government Superannuation Fund losses, because in answers to written questions in the last week, the Minister has come clean, which is more than I can say for the guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. They were extraordinarily evasive at the Finance and Expenditure Committee meeting this morning. The guardians are sitting on $2 billion and they do not have a clue what their asset allocation will be, what their forecast return on investment will be, or even whether they will make more than the cost of Government borrowing.

They have about as much clue as Broadcasting Minister Steve Maharey has about the impact of the current General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) round on his portfolio. Dr Cullen’s written answers were appalling because of their content; Mr Maharey’s answers on the GATS have been appalling because of their lack of content. Given his answers to oral questions today, the Minister’s lack of concern about the impact of GATS on audio-visual services is extraordinary. He confirmed that in the 1994 GATS round the then National Government traded away New Zealand’s ability to legislate a local content quota, and that that would now be illegal under GATS. Incidentally, that makes a nonsense of Labour’s 1999 election promise to do just that.

Mr Maharey then admitted that he did not know what was on the block this time. Let me tell him. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website is blunt: at least one country wants New Zealand to remove national treatment limitations for broadcasting services. If the Government agrees to that, we can kiss goodbye to funding for Māori broadcasting and Government assistance to the New Zealand film industry through the Film Production Fund. Wake up, Mr Maharey! Wake up, Māori television and radio broadcasters! Wake up, film makers! Wake up, New Zealand! This Labour Government is negotiating GATS in secret. It has to be stopped. The process has to be dragged into the public arena, and I do not just mean via a Canadian website. There needs to be an open, transparent, and democratic process that involves binding future Governments to rules set today. If Labour does not like what National did with broadcasting, then it should not do it to the rest of us.

I invite this Government to come clean on GATS. We should not have to rely on the European Commission’s demands being posted on the Polaris website—the same site that blew open the whole iniquitous Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). GATS is the MAI of this century. GATS needs to be exposed. Labour members on the other side, and particularly the Māori members of Labour, need to look into the implications of this GATS round on services, because countries like those of the EC are making extraordinary demands to expose our public services to transnational corporations.

DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour): Before I start, I just want to comment on some of the statements made by Mr Power in terms of the list of illusions. He was unclear about the principles and, in my view, that lack of clarity may be due to the divisions concerning support of the leadership in his party. Maybe if they sorted that out, he might find his path forward.

I want to refer to various statements made by the Opposition leader, Bill English, and particularly those surrounding National’s Māori policies. We learnt of his keynote speech to Gore Rotary, where he spoke of his concerns about the Treaty of Waitangi and raised the issue of the so-called fourth article. I find it odd that he has referred to that issue as a “Trojan Horse” for Māori indigenous beliefs. I am also mindful that it was backed up by a statement from him that the Waitangi Tribunal had received such a claim. I find that odd, but not out of character for the Opposition leader, because the tribunal manager, Ian Shearer—a former National Minister, I might add—said he did not know what the heck Mr English was talking about.

It is my view, therefore, that that was just another feeble attempt to grab the limelight, knowing that every day that passes, his leadership is in question. It also shows the Opposition’s typical attempt to further undermine and attack Māori, and we all know that it is because the National Party is absent in terms of genuine policy and structured pathways forward for Māori. Is it not easier to create a diversion from the true issue here? The true issue is that National has no policy, no support, and at this stage, absolutely no leadership.

If there were a genuine commitment to Māori issues, would not the National Party best foster that commitment by elevating its Māori member from Tuwharetoa, rather than demoting her in seniority? I look to the Opposition ranks and find it absolutely disappointing that although their leader pretends to promote Māori issues, it has only one representative. I wonder how the National Party can represent Māori issues with only one Māori on its benches. I also wonder if its Māori representative has been featuring in the recent developments surrounding the question of leadership change, or is National more concerned about elevating its European representation from the past? National’s Māori member has earned the opportunity to at least be associated with the rumours that are being bandied around this House in relation to the leadership change.

I still recall the statement made by the Hon Bill English that the new voters will be young and brown, and that if his party does not get their votes, it will not get into Parliament again. I again wonder whether National members understand the true principles of partnership. The Opposition’s accountability and performance on treaty issues is very poor.

Mr Brownlee has been in Bill English’s bad books ever since he gained public exposure at Mr English’s expense by writing newspaper articles advocating changes to Government policy on subjects outside his portfolio responsibilities. His Treaty of Waitangi article overshadowed coverage of Mr English’s visit to Waitangi. Is it not odd that political commentator Barry Gustafson pointed out that the treaty article in the New Zealand Herald suggested leadership aspirations because if the Christchurch MP wanted his constituents to know what he was talking about, why would he not use his local newspaper—unless he was trying to raise his National profile? So we do see what is going on from this side of the benches. We understand that National is experiencing a problem, and it is getting very close to the numbers coming down.

I want to share with the Opposition members some commitment surrounding the principles of the treaty. There is one obvious visual example that I can share with them, and that is the fact that the Labour Party has more—and we obviously know this—Māori representation.

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): Welfare is a word that has received a lot of attention over the last week, and it is a word that Labour, with its “old left” style of managing things, can barely say without spitting. Well, that word needs to change its meaning to become a positive one. It should mean health. It should mean happiness. It should mean prosperity. It should mean well-being in general. It should mean financial and other assistance given to people in need. If members do not buy that definition from me, then I suggest they take it up with Mr Collins, because that is the proper definition in the Collins dictionary.

The Knowledge Wave conference raised a lot of very interesting issues. First of all, it was very interesting to hear the presentation from John Martin, who presented a summary of OECD research. It was clear from his presentation that the carrot-and-stick methods of welfare delivery worked. His presentation was a glaring demonstration of why this Labour Government has it so wrong when it comes to welfare delivery. We also heard from Peter Saunders, who questioned why New Zealand and Australian academics go to such great lengths to overlook the success of the United States reforms. The same can be said of the Government, I might add. The results from the US are astounding, and they are worth evaluating.

Then we heard from Māori leader Mr John Tamihere who my colleague described as becoming a centre-right cult figure. There are websites being set up in his honour as we speak With his fearless demonstration of how it is always easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission, he exposed the concerns that many other Labour members have about welfare. So let us have a look at the sorts of things he said. He said of Mr Maharey: “He’s going to have to get away from statism and “blank” under the name of third wayism, because he is not practising third wayism; no, no, he is practising old left. Welfare in New Zealand is delivered in a charitable and benevolent way, and that charity and benevolence actually crushes you, because it just teaches you to put your hand out. All I need to do in terms of my community is to beat my caseload worker at WINZ and pull my $160 unemployment benefit ... That’s a wonderful lifestyle, but what values does it teach the children in that house?”. He is absolutely correct. It teaches the children in that house absolutely nothing.

John Tamihere is not the first Labour member to say that there is a problem. Let us remember Michael Bassett’s comments in North and South when he said: “I do believe in the welfare State, but the current model needs substantial reforms, or large numbers of people for whom it is meant to exist will continue to become its victims.” I could not have said it better myself. The Labour members have gone quiet over there!

With his speech, John Tamihere exposed the faults of Labour’s approach to welfare, and to those who listened to John Tamihere’s maiden speech, his comments will come as no surprise. He is not a career politician. He does not expect to be here in 20 years. He came here to make a difference, and then he will get out. He will not be the Ken Barlow of the New Zealand Parliament. He has no intention of coming here just to collect his pay and eat his lunch. He has foreshadowed that he intends to make many other statements about welfare and other issues.

John Tamihere speaks plainly about welfare, which is in direct contrast to Minister Maharey. When Minister Maharey speaks about “social capacity” and “joined-up Governments”, John Tamihere speaks of jobs, education, and training. In one fell swoop he has undermined Labour’s entire welfare policy. So no matter how the Prime Minister tries to shut him down and say that this matter is at an end, this is just the first instalment. I look forward to hearing more from Mr John Tamihere. The public now knows that as far as Labour’s welfare policies are concerned, the emperor has no clothes. It is not a matter of this issue being at an end.

John Tamihere raises issues of housing, and that will be an interesting one to watch. With income-related rents we have seen the numbers on the housing waiting list skyrocket to 11,000. What is even more concerning is that the turnover rates for those Housing New Zealand homes have dropped dramatically. When we were in Government, the turnover was well over 30 percent. In some areas of south Auckland, it is now as low as 8 percent. John Tamihere said that Housing New Zealand stock should be a respite facility for people who need that sort of support. He said it should not be a lifetime entitlement. There is no way that the Government can deliver housing services for those 11,000 people on the waiting list.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): On Wednesday last week Tim Barnett was talking about the Prostitution Reform Bill, and about an idea whose time has come. There is another issue that is a little more basic than that. It is an idea whose time has come and definitely gone, and that is to get politics out of our cultural violence and reach down for some solutions.

A letter has been circulated around all the parties, I presume, from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. It asks for our support and help to form a cross-party criminal justice interest group to meet with the Sensible Sentencing Trust on a regular basis “to develop ideas and policies that will lead to a safer country for all New Zealanders.” That is something that I think we could all agree with. The letter reads: “Sensible Sentencing is strictly a politically non-aligned organisation, and the intention is not to try and obtain a consensus on the best way forward on party lines, but on what is actually best for New Zealanders as a whole.” The simple fact of the matter is that crime does not affect just Labour Party supporters, National Party supporters, ACT supporters, and United Future supporters. It affects everybody in this country, and it is up to all of us to put our party political differences aside and actually start doing something about it. An understanding of how we interpret statistics, for example, can take us a long way along the road to a meaningful dialogue. On one side of the House, figures are thrown up at the expense of the other, and vice versa. We get no closer to any semblance of truth, or any semblance of an idea of the best possible way forward.

I am heartened that ACT has an open mind on this proposal and would like to see it pushed forward—assuming that there are reasonable grounds for an understanding. Looking at the statistics would be one of the ways we could do that. I am heartened that New Zealand First also has an open mind on it, and has given a cautious thumbs-up to at least seeing if the idea could be fruitful. I can ask for no more; neither can the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

To put things in perspective, let us look at some figures. Between 1991 and 2000, aggravated robbery increased by 53 percent, and there were 434 convictions in 2000 alone. Serious assault in the same time period increased by 129 percent, and there were 3,251 convictions in 2000 alone. Threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm increased 135 percent. Grievous assault increased by 91 percent for males and by 80 percent for females. Assaults on children increased by 85 percent. Wilful damage and property offences increased by 42 percent.

We have accepted a culture of violence, and we have to do something about it. Irrespective of political persuasion, every person in this country has a right to expect that the people they care about and love will come back to their homes unharmed at the end of the day, and we are doing very little about it. The 33 years non-parole period given to Bell recently is a step in the right direction, but we need to widen the scope. We need to go out and assure New Zealanders that we will put this problem at the forefront of our interests. This is not a party political thing; it is something that we should all be concerned about. We should be united to fight crime in this country. It is an all-out war. We talk about Iraq and terrorism, but we have it right here in this country. It is the violence that we are allowing to happen in our streets every single day.

I welcome any attempt by all members of this House to join together, put political differences aside, and be constructive for once. New Zealanders deserve that kind of commitment from all of us, and from each party. Alongside the Sensible Sentencing Trust, I invite every member of this House to join together to do something about the scourge that is running rampant throughout this country. We have police issues in Auckland, and as the case in Waitara has shown, we have problems with the ability to back up our police. We have to start doing something about it now.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): On the face of it, the recent incident regarding John Tamihere and his speech to the Knowledge Wave conference just looks like one Minister involving himself in another Minister’s business. But I believe it goes far deeper than that, and gives us an interesting insight into the reasoning of that member. Unlike Katherine Rich, I believe that member comes from the old school of dumb debate, where one keeps on yelling and does nothing. Far from being the capitalist he pretends to be, that member is the oldest style of socialist this House has ever seen. We have not seen a socialist of that order for many years. I have just about not seen one in my lifetime.

This member is not progressing Māori interests one jot. He is posturing. He is going around talking about his mana, about what he believes should be done, and about what John Tamihere has done. But when Helen Clark comes along, she may not be able to speak on a marae, but my God, she can certainly tell a Māori Minister what she thinks of him and shove him right back in the box from whence he came. Not only that, she demanded—and got—a full apology from John Tamihere. One can only imagine what that has done to the mana of this so-called urban warrior. This urban warrior thing with John Tamihere is a myth. Rightly or wrongly, that will not stop him, because we know that this guy does not learn too quickly. We can tell that by his list of convictions, and by the fact that his Waipareira Trust had to have accountants in there looking over the books. This guy does not learn too quickly, and Helen Clark should sack him forthwith.

I want to turn briefly to the speech that Labour said was not given at the Knowledge Wave conference. The thoughts within this speech are certainly not the thoughts of some new-age guy. As I said before, this Minister is old-time red socialist politics to his boots. I want those members who got a copy of his speech before it was wiped off the Internet by the Labour Party to look towards the bottom of page 4. Karl Marx would be really proud of the stuff in this speech. We are well and truly back into the collective. That is how it goes in John Tamihere land, and that is how it goes with old-time socialists.

I apologise for reading the recipe, but I must: “Step 1: Money from the Government.” This stuff always starts with money from the Government. “Step 2: Intervene between the Government and the recipient. On TV they call this putting yourself in the frame. The money flows through your hands, or the hands of your trust, to the recipient. It is very important to do that, because one cannot move on to Step 3. “Step 3: Arrange bulk discounts.” It is there in the speech: “Purchase things collectively, especially essentials—foods and medicines.” There is plenty of room here for a shrewd businessman, and he or she will be doing good for all those poor, impoverished, downtrodden people—especially, I suggest, the architect of such a scheme. “Step 4: Sell this to the people as new-age. This step is very important.”

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): I acknowledge the speech given by my New Zealand First colleague from Hamilton. I do not necessarily agree with all its contents, obviously. I think the issue in this debate is to look at the way in which Bill English, in the recent speech he gave in the South Island town of Gore—[Interruption] Indeed, people in Gore want to know who he is. Nearly 3 years ago Bill English gave a speech in Balclutha—

David Benson-Pope: He has closed his office in Balclutha.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: He closed his office in Balclutha, but he gave a very interesting speech there. I quote his message to the National Party at that time as reported in the Southland Times of 1 April 2000: “His address to the party faithful ... centred on winning back the punters and stopping the party decline. ‘The groups which vote for us are the ones who are shrinking fastest. We lose 1.5 seats each election just on demographics alone. The new voters will be young and brown. If we’re not getting their vote we’re not going to get into Parliament.’” The article went on to state: “Mr English said the young preferred to vote for smaller parties. Same with the old, he added. Only one in four of the over-60s had voted for National. ‘It’s a legacy of the mistrust older people now have for National.’”

I suggest to the House that the reason Mr English is focusing on New Zealand citizenship as it relates to this country’s founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi, has nothing whatsoever to do with developing a notion of citizenship. Rather, it has to do with the incredible hysteria and fear that we know are going on in this very room and in the backrooms of the National Party. National members’ fear is not so much that they are dealing with a Government that is dominant in poll after poll, and also in terms of the Prime Minister’s ratings. Rather, their fear is about what they now find on the Opposition front bench. If Mr McCully looks along the Opposition front bench, who does he see? He sees Mr Winston Peters and his band, New Zealand First, and he well knows, as the great tactician that he was at the last election, what that means. I think that Annabel Young had some nice things to say about Mr McCully in that little Ally McBeal tacticians’ room.

But Mr McCully knows what is in store; he knows who has arrived in the nest. The cuckoo, Winston Peters, is in the nest, and he is ready to gouge out the centre-right vote. Let us make no bones about it, Winston Peters’ game plan is to replace that lot as the dominant player in the declining centre-right of politics in this country. That is the reason, and the only reason, that Bill English is focusing on the Treaty of Waitangi. He is under threat not just from Mr Brownlee and, possibly, Dr Brash, but, as a long shot, from Simon Power. We are running odds on the Opposition side of the House being about Simon Power, with Katherine Rich as his deputy. Those are the odds. Some of us are betting people, in spite of the Responsible Gambling Bill, and we are running some sweepstakes. The odds are beginning to close. National members know that they have to move into the so-called fertile area, they think for them, of the Treaty of Waitangi, because they are—and I am not allowed to use the word for the bovine thing in this Parliament; the expletive is deleted—scared of New Zealand First and what Winston Peters wants to do to them.

Let us look at the record of National members when they were in Government. In 1995 in an urgent debate on the Waitangi Day protest, the Hon John Luxton said: “We can then address the other issues of underachievement in our society, as we are required to do under article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi, in relation to those in the lower socioeconomic parts of our society.” In 1999, the then Minister of Justice, the Hon Tony Ryall, said in response to an oral question: “Māori and the Crown enjoy a direct relationship under the Treaty of Waitangi.” Tony Ryall also said in 1999 that “The treaty plays an important role in all aspects of Government in New Zealand”.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2)

Instruction to Committee

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 109

Noes 8

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

ACT New Zealand 8.

Bills

Television New Zealand Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 25 February.

Part 3 Reporting (continued)

CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First): Before we were interrupted at the end of the sitting at nearly 10 p.m. last night, I was talking about looking over at the Minister in the chair at the time, the Hon Steve Maharey, and wondering what the Hon John Tamihere was thinking at that point. I still wonder what he is thinking while he sits in his office in Bowen House as this bill goes through the Committee. I wonder whether he is thinking about making certain comments about this bill, and whether they will be similar to those quoted in the New Zealand Herald on 24 February. The article I am referring to stated: “Junior minister Mr John Tamihere will today apologise to Cabinet colleague Steve Maharey after he publicly accused him of”—very unparliamentary statement—“about the welfare system.” I wonder whether the Hon John Tamihere is thinking the same thing about this Television New Zealand Bill. I also wonder—

David Benson-Pope: Come to the bill.

CRAIG McNAIR: The senior Government whip can try to be the big bully that he is, but I am getting to Part 3 of the bill. I want to bring out some of what is written there.

As reported back from the Commerce Committee, the bill states that statements of intent will have to include, in addition to the usual matters, qualitative and quantitative performance measures for measuring performance against the charter, and a statement of how the public will be involved in measuring performance against the charter. How will those measures be qualitative? How will they be quantitative? Who will measure what is qualitative and quantitative? Will Helen Clark measure that by the standard of her world view, and so on? Will the senior Government whip measure that? I certainly hope not, but will he measure what is qualitative and what is quantitative? Everybody has different points of view. I know that I would probably measure that quite differently from how it would be measured by the senior Government whip, by Nandor Tanczos and some other people in this Committee, by Helen Clark, and, probably, by the Minister, the Hon Steve Maharey. On behalf of New Zealand First, I ask the Committee what measures are in place to really back up what this bill states—that is, to really back up the performance measures, in terms of what is qualitative and what is quantitative.

I go back to the provisions of the bill that talk about featuring programming that contributes towards intellectual, scientific, cultural, spiritual, and ethical development, that reflects the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders, that promotes and informs, and so on. I say we all have different views on different things in different parts of life. For example, when my New Zealand First colleague Dail Jones put in an amendment regarding programming of a family nature that would support the family and the development of family life in New Zealand, our views were obviously quite different from those of the Labour Government.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): I just could not help rising at this point, to follow on from a member who, indeed, has a reputation in this Committee for blameless excellence. It is nice to have a member of that kind to follow on from.

I want to reflect just for a moment on Part 3, which largely deals with reporting. In reflecting on the member’s speech, I suggest to members who are taking part in this debate that the Government is very happy to answer questions that are put to it and that need to be answered during this debate. However, it is very hard to do so when a member spends most of his time labouring the issue of why we would have quantitative and qualitative measures of a charter when, of course, that is standard practice for every country that has a public service television channel and a charter. This is what the BBC, NHK in Japan, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation do. Those organisations have a charter and they have quantitative and qualitative measures that the organisations themselves are required by law to be able to put out there and to measure, in terms of what the public think about what they are doing and of measuring the effect of changes in their programming, and so on. It is very difficult to take part in the debate when members insist on asking questions that are so blindingly obvious. But I repeat that it was such a pleasure to talk after a man with such a reputation that I could not resist the opportunity to do so.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I am delighted that the Minister has undertaken to answer questions. My first question is in relation to clause 25(1)(a), where the financial report must state the “fees (including consultancy fees) received by board members in any capacity from TVNZG”. When we look at clause 25(1)(b) we see that the statement of remuneration for employees simply states: “remuneration and any other benefits in their capacity as employees”. Is that deliberate? Is that a result of an unhappy experience with the John Hawkesby affair? Is that deliberately intended to shelter employees who are also contracting as service providers in another capacity, which I understand is not uncommon in the television field? Is that intended to ensure that TVNZ does not have to be hounded, or will not be hounded, for meeting market rates?

The Minister will be well aware that the Prime Minister made capital 2½ years ago by joining the hue and cry against TVNZ, and by joining the uproar against what was called excessive incomes—incomes, of course, that would have barely been seen as competitive with those paid in Australia, let alone with the incomes for top professionals in this field anywhere else in the world. However, the Prime Minister joined the hue and cry. This Government essentially said that it would hit those fat cats where it hurts and cap their salaries, in order to make sure that they could not be paid like that.

I then find a sneaky little paragraph that states that we will only report income in the capacity of people as employees. To me as a lawyer, when I see something that is so clearly different between the two paragraphs, I know there must be intent in that. Here it appears to be a little device to make sure that the Government can get away with paying people their market value in TVNZ, but by doing so under the table. The Government will pretend to disclose people’s earnings, but will make sure that the disclosure is, essentially, a subterfuge. I am not surprised at that.

I have another question for the Minister in the chair, Mr Maharey. When we get into clause 25(2) we see that the annual report must report on the reconciliation of functions and objectives where they are in conflict or in competition, and it must tell us how it ensured those functions and objectives were given the “appropriate weight”. At first sight that looks to be Parliament simply ducking its responsibility. We have approved a charter full of politically correct nonsense, such as: “enable all New Zealanders to have access to material that promotes Māori language and culture”, without it telling us which bits are to be given weight—whether it is the Alan Duff bits, the Once Were Warriors bits, the historical bits, the contemporary bits, or the religious bits that other Ministers are now so keen to inflict on us all through our local authorities and elsewhere. Which bit has to be given weight, and how does Television New Zealand do that in competition with the fact that, for most New Zealanders, Television New Zealand will be so boring that they will turn to TV3? How does Television New Zealand decide to weigh up an objective of haranguing us all about Māori culture, and at the same time being commercially viable? Parliament should be telling Television New Zealand what priority is to be given to those things; instead, that is left up to TVNZ, through its hand-picked, politically correct directors. What is “appropriate”? Why would a drafter be obliged to use the term “appropriate” in a context like this if it was not to duck responsibility, and to hide?

Let us go over to another one. We see the same sort of thing in clause 26, which states that TVNZ will tell us that it has ensured that it has given the functions or objectives “appropriate weight”. What is, for example, the appropriate weight between—and I am looking at the charter; I refer to clause 10(2)(b)(ix) in Supplementary Order Paper 57—including in programming intended for a mass audience material that deals with minority interests? What is to be included in programming intended for mass audiences? Does the rugby now have to be interrupted to show us some ballet, or is that provision more sinister than that? Will the programming intended for the mass audience get so boring that it becomes the sort of Soviet, Pravda stuff? Will we get a little episode of how Hemi gets new shoes, whilst carefully studying the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? What exactly is meant by programming intended for a mass audience, and material that deals with minority interests?

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I have a number of questions for the Minister.

Hon Murray McCully: Good luck!

GERRY BROWNLEE: My colleague wishes me good luck; I guess it is the record of this Government that it simply does not answer questions. If one answers a question there is a chance that one’s life of blameless excellence may be brought into question, or, further, that one will get off side with the Prime Minister for not answering the question appropriately. I suspect that the current Minister is particularly sensitive to any criticism that might come from the Prime Minister or from others in the Labour caucus.

I now come back to the bill. I want to talk about clause 26, and in particular 26(a) of the bill. I am told that there is a Supplementary Order Paper here that amends that clause, so I will fish through and find that particular clause. Clause 26 refers to the duties that are put upon Television New Zealand when it comes to reporting. The statement that I am particularly concerned about—and the Minister may be able to indicate that it has been dealt with and changed—is clause 26(a) of the bill, which states: “TVNZG’s statement of intent must include a statement of the methods to be used and the principles to be taken into account to ensure that, in the event that the functions or objectives of the TVNZG subsidiaries are or may be in conflict or competition, it will give those functions or objectives the appropriate weight:”. What does that mean? If the officials concerned with the presentation of this bill have decided that that paragraph should come out and be replaced, I would be very pleased.

But there is a new clause 26 in Supplementary Order Paper 57, headed “Additional information requirements for statement of intent”, which is exactly the same heading, but which states “(1) In addition to the information required to be contained in the statement of intent under section 41D of the Public Finance Act 1989, TVNZ’s statement of intent must include the following information: (a) its functions;”—putting its functions is certainly a wise thing—“and (b) qualitative and quantitative performance measures for measuring performance against its Charter;”. The Minister needs to explain to the Committee exactly what that means. If we let a bill go through this House without a clear understanding of its intent, we leave a whole lot of subjective judgments, without much direction, to those who will be required to run the organisation.

Paragraph (c) of clause 26(1) goes on to state: “a statement of how it will involve the public in measuring performance against its Charter.” I would have thought that the public involvement is measured every day or night, or every hour, that the broadcaster is on air. If people are turning their sets on to that channel, that is a vote of confidence. If they are switching off, then surely it is not. I would be very, very keen to hear from the Minister exactly what those particular requirements are.

Clause 26(3) is the simple statement: “From the commencement of this Act to 30 June 2003”—getting this bill through by 30 June of this year might be optimistic—“TVNZ must continue to operate under its statement of corporate intent.” From the commencement of this legislation, it must continue to operate under its statement of corporate intent, so I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that there is no conflict between the statement of corporate intent and the requirements of the charter. Here we have a State asset with a current value that is something short of $400 million, which was obviously once much more valuable. TVNZ was worth anything up to $1 billion, but under this Government its shareholder equity and value has been falling on a regular basis. We need to know that this charter will not get in the road of the statement of corporate intent, which was delivered to MPs offices today—late in the piece, as usual, and well after we started discussing the bill—and that the commercial aspect of the statement of corporate intent will not be overridden by the requirements of the charter.

I ask the Minister, again, to stand up and tell us what he thinks “qualitative and quantitative performance measures for measuring performance against its Charter” actually means. Is it simply an indication that there has to be a formula somewhere?

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Transmission Holdings Ltd, as it will be known, will probably be the only State-owned enterprise that has ever been created as a stand-alone State-owned enterprise by an eleventh-hour amendment in the Committee stage of Parliament. The problem is that, by creating it in that very last-minute way, a rather great anomaly has arisen. Because Transmission Holdings Ltd has come about at the last minute after the select committee process, the Government has never been required to spell out the reasons for that quite radical change, which it most certainly would have had to do if that change had been included in the bill. The Minister has said he is happy to answer questions, but he has steadfastly refused to answer my questions. I will ask them one more time, because I want him or the Government to put on record, to explain, the reasons behind that last-minute change.

Why, at the very time that the Government is asking in this legislation for Television New Zealand to focus on programming instead of advertising, would it take away what the previous Minister of Broadcasting called the “golden goose” of TVNZ, the profitable transmission arm that has been quietly providing revenue for TVNZ? Why would that be taken away at the very time it is being asked to focus less on advertising and more on programming, leaving it even more vulnerable and dependent on advertising revenue?

We can predict that it will not earn enough advertising revenue. Members only have to look at the performance of TV3 until recent years to see how difficult it is for commercial free-to-air television to survive on advertising revenue alone—and we do not want it to, anyway, because we do not want TVNZ to be ratings-driven. That is what the bill is all about.

Will the Government then top it up and give it more direct funding to make up for the shortfall in advertising? What happens if there is a shortfall in advertising and a future Government refuses to give direct Government funding to Television New Zealand, as a future National Government almost certainly will do? What will TVNZ do then? What will happen to this charter? What will happen to all these pretty performance measures if there is no money to fund New Zealand television programmes, as there will not be because of the radical last-minute amendments to the bill?

It is a mystery as to why that has happened, and why the Minister will not tell us why it has happened, but I have just found out what I suspect is the reason. Marc Alexander said in the House yesterday that members of United Future, he and Peter Dunne, had gone off to Michael Cullen, who had agreed at the last minute to separate off the transmission arm. I said to Marc Alexander, “Hang on a minute, Michael Cullen is not the Minister of Broadcasting. He’s the Minister of Finance. Surely this is broadcasting policy. This is policy driven by the Minister of Broadcasting. Why would Michael Cullen make this decision with his friends from United Future, and why not the Minister of Broadcasting?”. Marc Alexander said to me a few moments ago that there is no way that Mr Maharey, the Minister of Broadcasting, would ever have agreed to such a stupid idea as separating off the golden goose from Television New Zealand in order to leave it cash-strapped and unable to implement his charter.

That is what Marc Alexander told me, and I can only assume that he is correct. If he is not, I would be very, very happy for the Minister of Broadcasting to stand up and take a call to tell us whether that is true. It is important to know whether the Minister of Broadcasting is opposed to the last-minute changes in this bill. If he is not opposed to them, why on earth would he support changes that will kneecap Television New Zealand and that will prevent the charter from being implemented? Those are important questions and they deserve an answer. The Minister said he is happy to answer questions. Let him answer that.

I have another issue on reporting, because that is what we are talking about here. The memorandum of understanding, which I have obtained under the Official Information Act, between the Minister and TVNZ on the $10 million or $11 million that will be directly funded to TVNZ states that there will be no obligation on TVNZ for any additional charter performance reports.

DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays): At the outset, having asked some questions of the Minister yesterday, I am delighted to have this opportunity again to put some questions to him. I will take him at face value and hope that he will answer them. I note that in clause 28 there is provision for the annual reports of the new State-owned enterprise and the new Crown-owned company to be packaged together. If one then looks at the statement of corporate intent, which has, as someone commented previously in this debate, been made available to members in the last 24 hours, one can see that there is a forecast of profit surplus of $17.9 million or thereabouts for the year ahead. It goes down to $17.8 million for the 2004 year. I ask the Minister whether he would break down that number, assuming that the $12 million or $13 million that the Government is giving the company to offset some charter costs is included, because the notes to the statement of corporate intent suggest that.

Could the Minister tell us precisely what sort of profit or loss those figures indicate as being forecast for the State-owned enterprise that is going to own the transmission arm on one hand, and for the television company on the other hand? I think it is important, if members are to vote intelligently on this bill, that the Minister should make that sort of information available to members.

I ask the Minister, in relation to clause 26, which is part of Part 3, where there is provision for qualitative and quantitative performance measures to be done—obviously to look at the charter, and the measure of success against the charter—who will have access to those qualitative and quantitative measures? Will all members of Parliament have access to them? The Minister is either asleep or looking at the floor.

Hon Steve Maharey: I’m studying.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Good. The Minister should do some studying. The Prime Minister will be very pleased to hear that. I ask the Minister those questions, and I would be pleased if he took some advice from officials on this. It is a matter of frustration to members on this side that in the other organisation of a similar type that he has responsibility for—Radio New Zealand—that same qualitative and quantitative work is being done. It is not made available to members of the House. I would like to know whether it is available to the Minister; if so, what does the Minister do with it, who does he get his advice from, and will it be made available to the select committee that does an examination of these entities on an annual basis so that they can do their work intelligently? If not, how can they do their work on the select committee assessing the performance of the State-owned enterprise and the Crown-owned company if they do not have this information made available to them? If it is going to be made available to them, will he then do something about the fact that Radio New Zealand does not make it available, because it would be appreciated if that could be attended to, as well?

Finally, I want to raise very interesting issues in regard to clause 29, which is headed “Protection from disclosure of sensitive information”. It always makes one’s nostrils twitch a bit when one sees a heading like that. That clause states: “Nothing in this Act must be construed as requiring in any statement of intent, annual report, or financial statement”—those are the documents referred to in the rest of this part—“any information that could be properly withheld if a request for that information were made under the Official Information Act 1982.” In other words, it is a blanket provision that says that none of the documents that are referred to in Part 3 as being the accountability documents require the company or the State-owned enterprise to provide any information that they might normally be able to withhold under the Official Information Act.

The first question I have to ask the Minister is whether that is a new provision. I have asked around, and nobody else can tell me that they have seen a blanket protection of that sort in a statute before this Parliament before. They would like to know whether that is a new precedent-setting clause. Secondly, I would like to know how it will work.

Members of this Committee will be familiar with the provision by which they can go to the Ombudsman to seek information that has been declined under the Official Information Act. Am I to take it from this clause that they are supposed to have the Ombudsman interposed as some sort of policeman in the reporting measures of this bill when it becomes the law of the land?

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore): I was listening last night very carefully to the debate on this bill. It is actually one of the Government’s flagship bills. It is one of the big things that it was elected to government for—to reform New Zealand’s public television system. In fact, it is why the Prime Minister is also the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. The Government puts great store and pride in all of this, but when I read Part 2 I noted that essentially it has turned parts of the organisation into a Crown entity, and other parts into a State-owned enterprise. Part 3 is about the reporting of those entities. I have asked my colleagues who are far more learned than me on television matters—Ms Katherine Rich and Murray McCully—when the Government is going to put more money into public broadcasting. Their answer is that, no, the Government is not going to put any more money into television. So what is the point of all of this?

The ambition of the Government is to reform public broadcasting, and some legislative changes are needed to do that. It says it wants to take off some of the commercial focus, so therefore the broadcasting parts will not be a State-owned enterprise, only the transmission part will be. Then I hear that there will be no mechanism, other than the charter, to achieve those goals. Clause 25 talks about the kinds of information that are required to be reported under the financial provisions and also in connection with the charter. I refer in particular to clause 25(2)(b) in regard to that. “So what?”, is what I say. What is the point of all of this if there is no extra money? Do they really think that television is essentially made free?

Opposition Members:Yes.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: There we are. They think it will be made free. I have not seen any change in Television One or TV2 in the 3 years that the Government has been in office. It seems to be exactly the same as it was prior, and I assume that the Minister will take a call and explain the fundamental changes there will be in Television One and TV2 in particular, or else why are we doing this? What is the point of passing all this legislation unless some basic changes are expected to be achieved? Why change the broadcasting parts from a State-owned enterprise to a Crown entity? I believe that the public deserves an explanation. Otherwise, what we are really doing here today is passing legislation for literally no purpose. If there is no difference in the outcome, why are we even debating this legislation? That is the fundamental test that this legislation has to go through. I am prepared to bet that next year, or later this year, when the legislation is fully in force, there will be no difference from what the viewer sees on Television One and TV2 currently.

Many people around the Chamber would say: “Well if you look at Television One news and at TV3 news, they are two entities going literally head to head, competing for the viewers by the quality of their service, and in many instances TV3 is now getting a bigger audience share.” Therefore it must be being more relevant and more effective. At least the Government could not realistically argue that TV3 is an appalling service and that the only service that could really be relied on is Television One. The Government would not have the temerity to argue that, I presume, because it would know that that simply would not be true. Under the private market model offered fundamentally by TV3, one gets a genuinely competitive, up-to-date, informative news service. One has a whole range of programmes on TV3 funded through NZ on Air. Presumably some of that service will continue after this legislation, so I come back to the basic point and ask why we are even here passing this legislation.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. At the beginning of the debate today on this part, the Minister indicated that he would answer questions. He invited our questions and said they would be taken seriously. I ask, before we are called upon to vote, that the Minister be invited to address the questions that I put in good faith.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It is entirely up to the Minister whether he takes a call. He has taken two calls, and perhaps the next part, Part 4, has greater reference to the Minister than Part 3.

HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

Noes 57

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to the amendment to clause 26(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to:

to add the following paragraph:

(d) a statement of how much locally produced programming is intended to be screened.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

Noes 60

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to the amendment to clause 26(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to:

to amend subclause (2) by omitting the words “1 July 2003”, and substituting the words “1 March 2003 ”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

Noes 60

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to the amendment to clause 26(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to:

to amend subclause (2) by omitting the words “1 July 2003”, and substituting the words “1 July 2007”.

That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 57

Noes 60

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 3 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Noes 57

Amendments agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 69

Noes 48

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Part 4 Ministers and editorial independence

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): This is a quite important part because it deals with the issues of Ministers and editorial independence. If there was one part of the Government’s plan that really upset Television New Zealand and many in the broadcasting industry, it was the feeling they had that part of this bill was designed to interfere with the nation’s broadcaster. There is a feeling that this bill is just a cunning plan to ensure that Ministers and the Prime Minister can have greater involvement in programming, greater involvement in the way they are depicted on television, and greater involvement in determining what New Zealanders watch on screen.

Interestingly, the sponsors of the bill are people who have said they do not watch much television. Marian Hobbs stood in this Chamber and said that she is not a person who watches much television. It is the same with Dr Michael Cullen, and I suspect it is the same with Helen Clark. It is ironic that a bill determining what the rest of New Zealand should watch on television has come from people who do not really enjoy it as a medium.

With regard to the whole issue of editorial independence, I would like to spend a moment going back to the statement of corporate intent, which was distributed to our offices today. I would like to read from a section in that statement of corporate intent that is headed “Editorial independence”: “The company’s editorial protocol places obligations on the board and management. While this protocol’s primary focus is news, current affairs, and information programmes, its provisions extend to all editorial content produced or transmitted by TVNZ. It is intended each year that TVNZ’s chief executive and head of news and current affairs will provide a certificate to the company’s board of directors that, in their view, the company has during the previous year complied with the protocol. It will be their responsibility to obtain similar certificates from other company executives as they consider appropriate, to enable them to provide such a certificate.”

So staff are going to be bullied into endorsing this idea that they are not heavied in any way when it comes to the stories they put on screen. One of the questions I have for the Minister is whether he thinks Paul Cutler would ever have signed such a certificate, putting his name to a piece of paper that suggested that TVNZ had maintained its editorial independence. I suspect not. Would Heaton Dyer have put his name to such a certificate, indicating that TVNZ had maintained its editorial independence? I think not. Both those gentlemen know the grim reality of working within TVNZ at the moment. We all know the stories about the interference by the chairman when it came to talking about news stories that are appropriate on television. He openly discussed the sorts of programmes that he would personally like to see on air. We have all heard the stories about the development of the Late Edition concept, and how there was interference there. We have all heard the stories about the Prime Minister’s staff making calls to the TVNZ newsroom to discuss issues on the news and to discuss certain complaints.

That makes this part of the bill an absolute joke. Ministers will be ensuring that they have greater involvement in television than ever before. Editorial independence is something we hold very dear in this country. This part of the bill does nothing to put aside the concerns of National. That is why we are going to put some significant amendments.

Certainly, when I look at the whole issue of “corngate’ and the coverage that it received, I suspect that TVNZ would never have run a story of that nature. I suspect it would never have had the courage to interview the Prime Minister in that way. That is because of concerns that, I think, are embodied in this part; concerns that if TVNZ steps out of line, its funding is going to be at issue, now that it has to go cap in hand to the Government.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): As Katherine Rich has just pointed out, Part 4 is an important part of the bill. It deals with what Ministers can do and what editorial independence will mean. As her comments have highlighted, this is one of the major issues for broadcasters all around the world, whether they are publicly or privately owned. How do they ensure that, on a day-by-day basis, they maintain their independence from the people who own them, if they are private businesses, or, if they are publicly owned, their independence from the direction, inevitably, of whatever administration happens to be in power at a particular time? I guess they do their best, and that is what this bill does in relation to public broadcasting in this country.

This bill does what we find in any country, in relation to public broadcasting. First of all, we establish a charter under which the organisation operates. That charter does not contain any direction whatsoever in relation to programme content. It does not allow for any interference from anybody outside the organisation. In fact, it gives the organisation the space to be able to say it will not respond to its advertisers who might want to direct it in terms of what programmes they want to see, in terms of their trying to get an audience for their advertisements, and neither will it respond to anybody who comes from a Government department, or a politician, because it has a charter that defines its role, and therefore it has independence.

Secondly, of course, we do what happens in this bill. If anybody does not get the message that the charter is giving independence to this organisation, the law says explicitly that Ministers have clearly proscribed and prescribed powers. They are never, in any circumstances, able to interfere in anything to do with choosing programmes, the content of those programmes, criticising those programmes, etc. More than that, nobody in the organisation, nobody on the board or a servant of that organisation, can be interfered with at all by a politician, can be told that he or she no longer has a job or a position, because of something that person might have done in relation to this organisation.

I know we are going to have a vigorous debate now, as we ought to, on the independence of public service broadcasting, but I think what we have done here is exactly what would be found in any public broadcasting organisation around the world. It is clearly set out in law that this is an independent organisation, and that it has a charter in law that guides its behaviour. Although we may discuss this over the next little while, I reassure members that what they have here is what would be found in any jurisdiction that has stand-up public broadcasting.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I had hoped the Minister of Broadcasting would wait until people had asked questions, so that when he did take a call there would be an opportunity for him to answer them. However, he got in first. He has already answered the question that I want to pose. He has just told us that in no circumstance ever will a Minister be allowed to do anything to interfere in programming. He claims that this bill is the Government’s best effort at this.

Clause 33 states: “Nothing in this Act authorises any shareholding Minister to give a direction to TVNZG or to any of its subsidiaries, or to any director or officer or employee of TVNZG or of any of its subsidiaries, in respect of—(a) a particular programme or programmes ... (2) the gathering or presentation of news ... or (c) programme standards.” Is it deliberate, is it just cute, or is it simply incompetence that the whole clause begins with the words: “Nothing in this Act”? TVNZ is a company, and the Companies Act has a whole set of provisions allowing shareholders to interfere with the control of companies, for very good reason. It has provisions allowing shareholders to pass resolutions telling the company how they want it to be run. It has provisions allowing the removal of directors at will. It has provisions allowing the passing of resolutions to govern financial policy. The Companies Act—and this organisation is going to be a company—has everything that any Minister could ever want in order to control TVNZ. I ask the Minister whether it is deliberate that this clause starts with the words: “Nothing in this Act”. It could have said: “No minister shall”; it could have said: “Nothing in this Act or any other law”; or it could have said: “Nothing in this Act or the constitution of the company”. There are other places in this bill that refer to the constitution of the company. There are other places that contemplate the company requiring the Minister to do things, and to recognise that company law governs. But clause 33 states very explicitly “Nothing in this Act”.

It then goes on with some fairly limited things: “No director of TVNZG ... may be removed for any reason relating to—(a) a particular programme or a particular allegation”. What about a stream of allegations? What about a general tenor of programmes? What about a persistent series of complaints that the Minister or Cabinet has about promotion? What about appointments that are not popular? What about people who are responsible not for programme standards or the gathering or presentation of news, but media commentary? None of those things are covered. If this was a charter for independence, if the Minister was not deliberately misleading this Committee in saying, as he did in his last speech, that in no circumstances would a Minister ever be allowed to do anything to interfere, those provisions would be very different from what they are.

I can only say that the Minister is either deliberately misconstruing this, or is utterly incompetent. Clause 33 is no charter of independence. The very first thing that any lawyer wanting to interfere with TVNZ would ask is whether it has performed satisfactorily commercially, whether it has observed the charter standard, for example, to “provide shared experiences that contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity;”. If someone wants to attack its new standards, that person just has to tell it that it has not been upholding New Zealand’s shared citizenship and sense of national identity. I certainly do not feel very identified with New Zealand when I have had a whole stream of news pointing out how incompetently something is being managed or run. It is very easy to decide to sack a director because he or she has not upheld one of these vacuous charter standards.

This clause is not a standard for independence. Katherine Rich has some modifications. If I had been more aware of this bill earlier, I might have tried drafting some myself. I will vote for them. They make a very minor improvement. But I tell Ms Rich that I am afraid they do not deal with the fundamental problem, which is that this provision, very cutely, refers only to the powers exercisable under this Act, when TVNZ is actually controlled under the Companies Act. TVNZ actually is under control, because it will no longer have its own independent budget. When it loses the bit that is being carved out, TVNZ will go cap in hand to the Government every year, or every 6 months, depending on how much it gives it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Before I call the next speaker, I point out that the speaker who has just ended his speech implied that the Minister had deliberately misled the Committee. All members should take note that that is not permitted in debate.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It was expressed as an alternative. I said he either deliberately misled, or is incompetent.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, you did say “if”, but still the implication could be there. I just mention it for everyone.

PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for acknowledging seniority. Members can see the concern steaming from my eyes about Part 4, “Ministers and editorial independence”. I am angry and the Chair can see that, and I am enthusiastically taking the call.

Part 4 is all about Helen Clark looking good on television, although the good news—and members should pay attention—is that this State control is not as serious as that in Zimbabwe by Mugabe. It is not as bad as that, and that is good news. Members should celebrate that, and we do. This is not as bad as what Mugabe has in Zimbabwe.

I am very interested in what I would call circular accountability. I am interested in clause 31, “Powers of shareholding Ministers in relation to TVNZG”, which states “(1) The shareholding Ministers may, by written notice to the TVNZG board,—(a) direct the board to include in ... its statement of intent any provision or provisions of a kind referred to in section 26;”. So the Minister may direct the board on issues to do with section 26. When one goes to section 26, one finds it is all about the functions or objectives of the TVNZG subsidiaries. When I go back to clause 31, I notice that in subclause (3) there is accountability for Ministers who interfere. It states: “Before giving any notice ... the shareholding Ministers must have regard to the objectives and functions”. In other words, the Ministers may change the objectives and functions, as outlined in clause 26, but must also have regard to them when they do that. It is a sort of circular accountability. They can change them with regard to them; with regard to them, they can change them. I want to know what type of accountability that is.

Hon Murray McCully: That’s the question.

PHIL HEATLEY: That is what Murray McCully wants to know. Clause 33 is interesting. It is headed: “Shareholding Ministers must not give certain directions”, and states that nothing in this Act authorises any shareholding Minister to give a direction to a board member with regard to programming, or gathering or presenting news, or programming standards. Yet subclause (2) states that no director of TVNZG can be removed for any reason relating to programming, or gathering or presenting news, or programming standards. I bet that he can be removed if he takes direction from a Minister. Surely, if a Minister breaks the rules outlined in clause 33(1) and gets his or her head chopped off—if a Minister’s speeches have to be read by the Prime Minister, and he or she is muscled—and a board member responds to him or her, surely that board member can be removed. I would like the Minister to take a call on that. If that first rule is broken by a Minister giving direction to a board member, then, surely, a board member responding to that direction can be removed.

I am concerned about Ministers and editorial independence. I know that this is all about Helen Clark looking good on television. There is a message here: soft lenses and soft lighting will not help—one cannot airbrush television. The Minister in the chair may very well laugh, but New Zealanders are very concerned about the independence that we get through our televisions, hear through our radios, and read in our newspapers. The Minister needs to answer some serious questions, firstly, about circular accountability, and, secondly, about the accountability of directors who take direction from Ministers unlawfully.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): Part 4 is really important as it deals with Ministers and editorial independence. New Zealand First will not be supporting this part of the bill. There is a general public belief that the Government will manage the content of what we see on television. We just wonder whether television will now be all smoke and mirrors, and we will not really know what we see. Will history dim our memories?

In particular, I want to look at clause 31(1)(b), which states that the shareholding Ministers may “determine the amount of dividend payable by TVNZG to the Crown in respect of any financial year or years.” We heard from previous speakers that Television New Zealand has a declining dividend. Of course, this clause will impact directly on programmes.

Members of New Zealand First, like most people on this side of the Chamber, believe that dividends should be invested back into the company. In particular, we would like to see quality programmes that assist the educational, scientific, and cultural development of New Zealanders, and I think we heard that phrase used last night. The bottom line is that the Government dividends impact directly on programme quality. If we have not got the money, we will not get the quality programmes we want to see. Some of the programmes that were really educational, which we like to see, were for children. Suzy Kato’s programme that was on in the afternoon was a really worthwhile programme for children. I know that the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith talked last night about his quiz programmes. Perhaps we should have a more modern, up-to-date version of that type of programme. His version may even be able to be retained.

The bottom line is that those types of quality programmes are preferable by far to the violent, cartoon-type programmes that are the diet of many of New Zealand’s children at the moment. They see programmes like that day after day. We appreciate that television violence is not the only source of aggressive and violent behaviour in children. However, all the research appears to indicate that it is a significant contributor.

This bill states that the Minister is to determine how much Television New Zealand will pay to the Crown. There is absolutely no requirement for a substantial dividend from Television New Zealand to be taken by the Government, even though it could be used to make quality programmes, if that is what Television New Zealand should be doing.

I will also look at clause 34, which talks about compliance costs. With a charter as broad and as far-reaching as this one for Television New Zealand, compliance costs will be large. The charter itself is philosophically cloudy, which means measurement challenges. Measuring the outcome of the charter statements will be a really important factor in the overall success of this bill. Television New Zealand will need to develop some measurements so that issues of compliance can be resolved. I know that the Minister said there are already external agencies that do this for Television New Zealand, but it is not sufficient to rely solely on an external agency for regular auditing of this particular charter. We all know that regular auditing will ensure that the result at the end of the year meets the requirements of this bill.

Under this bill, we expect that the compliance costs in the first few years of operation will be really high, until effective measures are locked in place. As the Minister has pointed out, there are already some measures in place, so perhaps he will tell us that we will be getting more of the same. That is a real concern to New Zealand First, because we know that the new structure will create a lot of opportunities for consultants and external agencies continually to audit Television New Zealand. There will also be many opportunities for interference by the Minister.

JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville): It has been a long and lonely road to getting an opportunity to debate Part 4 of the bill. I will now use my 5 minutes to make what I am sure will be a very valuable contribution. I have a very heavy heart indeed as I debate this bill today, because Part 4, which is the guts of this bill, essentially condemns to destruction one of New Zealand’s better corporations. Under a National Government, that corporation had a value of $1 billion. It earned $295 million in advertising, and paid a dividend of $60 million. Clause 31, “Powers of shareholding Ministers in relation to TVNZG”, will render all that good work lost. I have a very, very heavy heart. If ever I have seen an organisation in our country that has led a life of blameless excellence, it has been Television New Zealand. In particular, I find it very ironic and sad that the Minister, who has led his life under the same conditions, is now shepherding this through the Committee. It is a very, very sad day.

I will turn to clause 31 in particular, which talks about the power of shareholding Ministers, and what they may and may not do. It states that the shareholding Ministers may, by written notice to the Television New Zealand board, direct the board to include or omit a whole load of things in the statement of intent. That refers to section 26, which really talks about qualitative and quantitative performance. That is all about ministerial excuses for the failure and destruction of shareholder value. The Minister will be able to write on his ministerial notepad to the Television New Zealand board, and commission the further destruction of one of New Zealand’s finest companies. That is what will happen.

I find it somewhat amusing that in clause 33 we have had to legislate that shareholding Ministers have to write down and talk about the things they want or do not want in the statement of intent. There is then a whole list of rules ensuring that the shareholding Ministers cannot give certain directions to programming. What I find ironic is the very fact that we have to legislate for it. Clause 33 tells this Committee there is a real risk that that will happen. When Television New Zealand was run as a proper company under a National Government, we put on television what mum and dad wanted to watch. We did not put the Labour minority Government’s socialist agenda on television, which is exactly what will happen under clause 31 of this bill. It is very, very sad. No one on this side of the Committee believes that clause 33 will be observed, because we know that when this Government did not like the way the “little creep”—as the Prime Minister called John Campbell—conducted an interview, it commissioned a couple of senior Ministers to take out members of the press and talk to them about what can and cannot be recorded. None of us should believe that clause 33 will be followed. It has not been followed in the past, and it will not be followed now. It is a very sad day.

I will raise a question for the Minister. I was not on the Commerce Committee, so I guess I really have to refer to this as both a member of the public and a member of Parliament. One of the things the select committee has recommended within the charter is that programmes should contribute towards the intellectual, scientific, cultural, spiritual, and ethnic development that reflects the diverse beliefs of New Zealanders. Where does Coronation Street fit in within that? Where does Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? fit in with that? Where does Friends fit in with that? No one has any millionaire friends in Coronation Street—that is for real! The real reason I asked those questions is that they are the programmes that sell the advertising that runs the network, and none of them will be on television when the socialist agenda is rammed down our throats. The Minister may want to take a call to tell us what we will be watching. It will not be Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, Friends, or Coronation Street. It will be a whole lot of programmes from a socialist agenda. That is what we will be watching.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier): I move, That the question be now put.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Part 4, which deals with editorial independence, is an extremely important part. We are talking about the fourth estate, and television is probably the most powerful medium of communication, so there is always the temptation to somehow influence the direction of a television station, particularly when one owns it. So this part is crucially important, and we are very pleased that it is here. But we do think that it needs some strengthening.

I note that Katherine Rich has an amendment spelling out, for the avoidance of doubt, that no direction can be given, etc.—and that, I think, does strengthen the clause somewhat. So we will support that amendment and withdraw our amendment in that particular area. We are worried, however, that nothing in here prohibits the board of Television New Zealand from interfering in the editorial content of a programme or programmes. This, I think, should be spelt out. We are also concerned that, as Stephen Franks has said, although nothing in the bill enables a Minister to give directions, the Companies Act will enable him or her to give directions. So I think that perhaps we ought to be covering that, as well, because it really is crucially important that we do not have a perception of interference in our State-owned broadcasting channel.

We are concerned, of course, that there should not be interference with editorial content or direct programmes, but I am equally concerned about the fact that now that there is a direct Government grant, that may be always at the back of the mind of the people who run Television New Zealand, the chief executive and so on. My concern is that it may always be a little bit of a nagging worry for them that if they were to do something that the Government of the day did not like, maybe they would not get the same amount of funding the next year.

That, of course, is exactly what happened in 1975 when the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, refused to raise the licence fee, as a way, quite explicitly, of punishing the broadcaster for what he thought was expressing independent or dissident views. So it would not be impossible at all for a future Prime Minister who was irritated, perhaps, by something that happened on television—its election coverage, for example—to suggest that the next year the direct Government funding would somehow be reduced.

The Government does not need to interfere directly in a programme for that sort of implicit threat to have a very specific effect on the board of Television New Zealand. That is one of the reasons that the Green Party would so much prefer, instead of direct Government funding—which makes the organisation beholden to the Government and to annual grants—to simply relax the dividend. Why could the Government not say that it does not require a dividend? Why not have the existing arrangement in the bill, which said that the transmission arm could make a transparent cross-subsidy to the other section of TVNZ, the programming section?

That, in our view, is far preferable because it would avoid the fact that every year the board, the chair, and the chief executive of TVNZ will be worrying about whether the following year they are going to get that $10 million or $11 million grant. That, to my mind, is the greatest threat to the editorial independence of TVNZ, and it is why the financial arrangements that underpin Television New Zealand are so crucial, and it is why we are so passionately opposed to this eleventh-hour splitting of the golden goose from Television New Zealand, particularly since the Minister has yet to answer our question. The Government has never publicly stated why it is doing this, other than to get the transmission arm of Television New Zealand ready for sale—putting it into a separate State-owned enterprise to ready it for sale.

So I think that this is a very important part. We are very glad it is in the bill; we will be supporting it, and we will be supporting various amendments that seek to strengthen these provisions. But, ultimately, the real editorial independence of Television New Zealand would have been guaranteed if TVNZ was financially independent and had a number of ways of generating its own revenue without having to go cap in hand to the Government every year.

LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays): I am not surprised that members opposite are so anxious to shut this debate down before it has even started. I am delighted that we have several hours yet at our disposal before Part 4 is voted upon. This is a very important part. It is not physically a large part but it is a very important part, as Ms Kedgley has just told the Committee. This is the part that provides the vehicle for political interference, and it deserves proper scrutiny, and, might I say, the courtesy of some answers to questions from the Minister in the chair, Steve Maharey, who, I assume, is still awake.

I start by referring to the wording of clause 33, which is headed: “Shareholding Ministers must not give certain directions”. If we look at that, we think that it is probably a replication of the provision that was in the previous legislation. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us whether it is, because I would have been more convinced if that clause had started off with words like: “The Minister shall not” or “The Minister shall not under any circumstances”. But instead, clause 33(1) starts off by stating: “Nothing in this Act authorises any shareholding Minister”. In other words, it does not prohibit the shareholding Minister from interfering in news or current affairs. It simply states that no authority is conferred on the Minister to interfere in news or current affairs in relation to the television company.

I ask the Minister why we have that distinction. Why do we have a provision that does not prohibit such interference but merely stops short of providing any authority for such interference? The only explanation I can take from this is that the Minister actually has some intentions that he should disclose to the Committee before we vote on Part 4. Mr Franks gave the Committee the benefit of his very considerable expertise in relation to the Companies Act disciplines, which would give the Minister a role to play in working some of the strings in relation to the television company. But I want to go a step further and look at some of the less formal opportunities.

Before the Minister for State Owned Enterprises gets too excited about this, I just say to him that this is by no means conjecture on my part. I am looking at things that have actually happened on that Minister’s watch in the last couple of years. The former chairman of Television New Zealand, Dr Armstrong, decided to go interfering informally in the newsroom, driving the former head of news and current affairs overseas to a job at CNN. When challenged, Dr Armstrong got a most expensive Queen’s Counsel—one of the most expensive in New Zealand—the favoured Kristy McDonald QC, whose name has featured prominently in recent events. He also got an Oxford don who is a specialist in these areas to, at vast expense to the company, write opinions about how the board could find a way into the newsroom, and about the propriety of the chairman and his fellow board members deciding to impose their own framework on the editorial shape of news and current affairs.

That is the same chairman whom we have seen, in the public arena, interfering in the affairs of the company. What assurance can the Minister give that we will not see, as a result of the open door provided by clause 33, a chairman of the type of Dr Armstrong deciding to issue his informal directions to the staff of Television New Zealand? What assurance can the Minister give? We have already seen the previous chairman of Television New Zealand initiate a complaint against the political staff of Television New Zealand resident in the gallery in this building, and we all know that there were all sorts of levers working behind the scenes to try to find a technical means of upholding a small part of that complaint in order to try to find some sort of favour with the chairman. But I want to know from the Minister whether he can tell me of any part of clause 33, or any other clause in Part 4, that should give members of the Committee any comfort about the ability of any future chairman to work that same track.

I am concerned that we have an open door for a board and a chairman to take private directions from a Minister of the Crown, then go and put pressure on the editorial staff of Television New Zealand to deliver a product that meets the needs of their political masters. I challenge the Minister to stand and tell me how that is going to be prohibited by this bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato): Undoubtedly Part 4 of the Television New Zealand Bill deals with one of the most important aspects—“Ministers and editorial independence”. What we hear time and time again from reporters is that they are interfered with, in terms of what they say, by their Government. We hear that, time and time again. It is worthwhile looking at the commentary on the bill and just re-going over the words that both ACT and National had to say in this respect. They said: “We are concerned that the new structure allows less independence from ministerial direction and a greater opportunity for ministerial interference.” Once the company is a Crown entity, the Minister will be answerable to Parliament for the actions of the Television New Zealand Group, and, although not expected to manage the organisation, the Minister will have a constitutional obligation to investigate and solve perceived problems, with the company. The new structure will mean a greater amount of ministerial involvement and political interference in broadcasting than has been seen in this country for a very long time. Hence the appropriate name for this bill—“Ministerial Interference Television Bill”.

It is important to realise the genesis of this bill—the sort of thinking that came about to have it encompass the various aspects that it does. I think it was probably from none other than the “mother of all control freaks”—the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. Because in this bill we have a structure— first of all, never before seen in this country; not a simple Crown entity, but one that is sort of divided into three. We have a charter that affects all channels, breathing down the neck of all sense of freedom and expression; and, finally, a signal of ministerial interference. No matter what is said in clause 31, giving the powers of the shareholding Minister in relation to Television New Zealand Group, there can always be informal influences, and I guess we have had that example with Dr Ross Armstrong, who, undoubtedly, during the period of this Government went straight into the newsroom. So here we have a Government that on the surface has in clause 33 quite overt suggestions that there will be no formal influences. There is no way that informal influences from the board, from board members, from the chairman, could not occur.

In clause 34 there is really an example of just how ridiculous this bill has become in terms of the directions and the compliance costs. It states in clause 34(1): “Every direction given under section 31 or section 32 ... must be accompanied by a statement of the estimated expenditure to be incurred and revenue to be forgone by TVNZG or any of its subsidiaries.” That means that quantitative and qualitative performance measures must be incurred in looking at how well the charter is adhered to. When we think of the various combinations and permutations that are required by the charter to be quantitatively and qualitatively measured, then the costs are almost infinite. If we take just one example, the statement of intent requires that Television New Zealand will “provide independent, comprehensive, impartial, and in-depth coverage and analysis of news and current affairs in New Zealand and throughout the world and of the activities of public and private institutions;”.

GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa): I move, That the question be now put.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): I appreciate the call and I recognise there has been a considerable amount of debate on this matter. I wanted to explain the amendment I have proposed to clause 31, and the way in which it relates to the amendment proposed to clause 33. I recognise that the Minister in the chair inherited this portfolio some way through the progress in the development of this matter It is obvious that the bill has a series of prohibitions, constraints, and procedures built around the idea that there is political impartiality or neutrality in the State broadcaster. But there is nothing that actually states that the State broadcaster should be impartial or neutral, and there is nothing that states that there is a positive role for, or a positive responsibility on, the political masters of this body to protect its integrity and its reputation for neutrality and impartiality.

So what I have tried to do with that amendment is to pick up on some of the passages in the parts of the bill that we have already gone past and, in particular, the references to the charter, to the functions and objectives, where the board of Television New Zealand is given the role of deciding what the appropriate weighting is, and to indicate that, so far as politicians are involved, they can positively uphold neutrality and impartiality. So the proposed amendments to clause 31 are two new subclauses, which are simply general directions. If they are agreed in those terms, they will be the only places in this bill where the words “impartial”, “political impartiality”, and “political neutrality” appear. They should not constrain the board. They should not be a problem, because the Minister was at pains to assure us before the break for dinner that he expected and intended this body not to be subject to political direction or influence. Those words would be a signal and a statement of the objective that the State broadcaster should be impartial and should be politically neutral. So the idea in those two subclauses is to state what others may see as implicit, to be a safeguard.

For example, in appointing board members, I would see there to be no reason not to appoint someone who has a strong political background, but it would be wrong to do that where the person was appointed to a board where there was no counter to that. So the idea would be to make sure that we had strong, vigorous characters with firm ideas about where to go, but that a balance was created. That should be an instruction. I admit that it is imperfect. It is very hard to enforce. It is patching at the last minute, but there would be an indication that the Minister’s exercise of powers would uphold the tradition that we really need for an enduring arrangement for State broadcasting. It must be seen to have political neutrality.

If it is to endure past the next change of Government, then we need to give it this kind of surrounding. At this stage in this bill, putting it into a qualification to the Minister’s powers is a statement of what is intended. I do not know whether there has been enough time for the Minister to consider it. I would very much appreciate if the Minister had amendments to it or if the Minister wanted to qualify the wording, because there has been so little time. I would be very happy to accept amendments. But political neutrality and impartiality should have been built into this bill. They do not appear anywhere. This is a very late fix for it, but it is a fix. If there are problems with that fix, we should hear what they are, because it is a statement of what I think most New Zealanders would think is the obvious. The references in subclause (5) and draft subclause (5) to the functions and objectives, and to the weighting, reflect parts in subclause (3), where at the moment it is left up to the board to weight the various conflicting or competing objectives as it likes. All it has to do is try to tell Parliament, and the people, how it has decided to weight them. There is no reason the board could not weight them in favour of a strong pacifist party; or if it wishes, it could choose to weight them in favour of an anti-abortion party, or any other current ism, because at the moment there is nothing that requires the board to be objective and neutral.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

Noes 55

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 7.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 31 be agreed to:

to amend subclause (1) by omitting paragraph (b).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

Noes 67

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 31 be agreed to:

to amend subclause (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(c) inform the board how the Government intends to give effect to Labour’s 1999 broadcasting policy to work towards TVNZ retaining a greater proportion of its dividend so that it might fund a greater amount of local content.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

Noes 60

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 7.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 31 be agreed to:

to amend subclause (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(c) provide advice on future ownership options.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed.

Ayes 48

Noes 67

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There is considerable confusion around here about which of the many amendments we are voting on. I really would appreciate if you could read out at least the first sentence of any amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Could I just remind the member that the amendments are all on the Table. Members have had ample time to look at the amendments, and there is no provision for me to read out all of the amendments. I invite the member to come to the Table if she so wishes.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 31 be agreed to:

to add the following subclauses:

(4) Any notice given under this section must be tabled in the House of Representatives within 5 days of dispatch.

(5) For the avoidance of doubt, no direction can be given to the board on any matters of programming or editorial content.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

Noes 60

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 7.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 31 be agreed to:

to add the following subclauses:

(4) Shareholding Ministers must in the exercise or purported exercise of their powers under this or any other law in relation to TVNZ protect and uphold the political neutrality and impartiality of TVNZ and its subsidiaries.

(5) Shareholding Ministers must not do, or so far as it is within their lawful power permit to be done, anything that will allow any statement of intent, or the weighting of conflicting or competing functions or objectives, or any other application of the Charter, to prejudice the political impartiality and neutrality of TVNZ and its subsidiaries.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 60

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 8.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 33 be agreed to:

to amend subclause (1) by omitting the words “Nothing in this Act authorises any shareholding Minister to”, and substituting the words “No shareholding Minister or any other Minister, and no person acting by on behalf of or at the direction of a shareholding Minister or any other Minister, may”.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Before I put the next amendment, I need to inform members that Katherine Rich had put an amendment to clause 33(1) to insert words after “the shareholding Minister”. That amendment is now out of order because the amendment from Stephen Franks has been agreed to, so the amendment is inconsistent with the previous decision.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 33 be agreed to:

to amend subclause (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(d) performance of any employee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

Noes 68

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 33 be agreed to:

to add the following subclause:

(3) It will be an offence against this section for any shareholding Minister to discuss any matter detailed in subsection (1) with any director or officer of TVNZ.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 60

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 8.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 34 be agreed to:

to insert, after subclause (1), the following subclause:

(1A) Every direction or statement under subsection (1) must be accompanied by a statement detailing the reason and purpose of the direction.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

Noes 68

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 34 be agreed to:

to amend subclause (2) by omitting the expression “12”, and substituting the expression “5”

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

Noes 68

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to insert new clause 34A be agreed to:

to insert, after clause 34, the following clause:

34A The shareholding Ministers may not direct the board or officers of THL on any matter of service performance or customer relationships.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 60

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 8.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Noes 56

Amendments agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 8.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

Noes 48

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Part 5 Miscellaneous

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): I stand to speak about Part 5, which is euphemistically called “Miscellaneous”. In other words, everything in the bill that did not quite fit anywhere else has been lumped into this particular part. I will start off with a few questions for the Minister, and I would like to pick up on an issue that has been brought up previously by Sue Kedgley. I would like to ask the Minister again why we are going through the massive change that is in this legislation. This bill has been through a select committee process in which many, many thoughtful submissions from various industry groups were heard. We heard about the structure. Most people did not agree with the structure. As I recall the situation, Jane Wrightson from the Screen Production and Development Association called it clumsy and unworkable. But why this sudden change? The Minister did say that the structure was set in stone, that it would not be changed—BCL would not be split from TVNZ—and that that was basically a done deal, never to be revisited. It is quite interesting that suddenly the Government has agreed with the Opposition that that would never have worked, and has put these changes in place.

The next question is why we should go through the change of renaming BCL. If BCL is to be split off from TVNZ and turned into a State-owned enterprise, as a definite organisation on its own, why go through the rebranding process, given that more money will have to be spent on the development of a brand, and new letterheads and signage? That just seems to be a waste of money when BCL was always running separately. It was always running as an entity on its own.

This part also refers to the statement of corporate intent, so I would like to make a few comments about that. The introduction to that document states that on or about 1 March 2003, TVNZ will become a Crown-owned company, and then the television business will begin to implement its proposed charter. Now we know that, but it also states that on or about 1 July 2003, TVNZ will transfer its transmission business to the Crown, and that that business will then become a stand-alone State-owned enterprise. I ask the Minister what is to happen in the 4 months between those two dates to BCL, which is supposed to be totally commercial and motivated to generate a profit under the umbrella of a Crown-owned company. The whole argument for not having BCL under the TVNZ structure was that there were conflicting objectives—that it would not work. Yet, for 4 months, we are to see that structure actually working in practice. So what is to happen? How are BCL staff members supposed to manage their business in that interim period?

The next point I would like to raise is about what it is to be a good employer. There are some bits to this part that I feel are quite outdated, and I have some more questions for the Minister about them. One provision states that as a good employer TVNZ has to recognise the aims and aspirations, employment requirements, and need for greater involvement of Māori employees. It then goes on to state that TVNZ should demonstrate equal opportunities practices that will both enable the development of women, ethnic or minority groups, and people with disabilities, and also firmly discourage discrimination. If all the groups I have just mentioned are totalled up, we will find that that pretty much equates to a significant part of the population. In fact, I think that it covers almost every group except European males.

So I ask the Minister, if TVNZ is to be a good employer, where Mark Sainsbury fits into those criteria. What about John McDermott in Dunedin, where I am from? What about Ewart Barnsley? Even Richard Long does not fit into that category. What about Stuart Dennison, whom we remember from Nice One on television when I was growing up? He is in the sports section. He does not fit into any of those categories. Even Ian Fraser himself does not fit into any of those categories. So it seems that Television New Zealand is trying to be a good employer for almost everybody except the poor group of much-maligned pale males.

My final point about this part is that it repeals the State-owned Enterprises Amendment Act (No 4) 1988. That is one of the sad things about this legislation. TVNZ will no longer act as a State-owned enterprise.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I took care when going over Part 5, and I refer to new clause 41, “Savings of certain transactions” on Supplementary Order Paper 57, which has changed a little from the original clause. I cannot find any offence provisions anywhere else in the legislation. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and point them out, if I have missed them. But new clause 41 seems to be the only clause that touches on any consequences of a breach of the legislation and, in essence, it states that it does not actually matter if there is a breach. So I ask the Government where the guts of its convictions are, if it is to have a clause 10 in this legislation. New clause 41 states: “A failure by TVNZ to comply with section 10, section 12, or section 22”. Basically, if TVNZ does not comply with those provisions, it does not matter. So why have clause 10, which covers this absolutely abhorrent charter that deals with things like having to feature programming that supports the learning and personal development of New Zealanders? How can we have public broadcasting, which is what this is trying to be—it is actually not public broadcasting but a sort of hybrid; it is a clone from a State-owned enterprise and is not real public broadcasting, because it still has to depend on advertising and try to return a dividend to the Crown—that deals with the personal development of New Zealanders? How abhorrent that is! That could mean anything. It could mean the sexual development of New Zealanders. What business is it of the State to deal with the sexual development—the personal development—of New Zealanders?

Members might laugh at that, but this is a serious matter. I would have thought that the United Future party would be seriously concerned about provisions like that. What if TVNZ breaches the charter, by not concerning itself with personal development? Well, it does not matter, anyway. So why does this Government have such a charter in the bill, if it does not have some sort of consequence for breaching it? I come back to clause 41, because that exempts TVNZ from sticking to any of the conditions it has in the charter. New clause 41 on Supplementary Order Paper 57 cites sections 10, 12, and 22. I am dealing with the consequences, which are nil, of a breach of part of that clause. I refer to the provision in the charter about programming that is intended for a mass audience and material that deals with minority interests. What will be the consequences if TVNZ breaches that part of the clause? The consequences will be zilch, so why put that in there?

I see that the Minister in the chair is restless. Could he please explain why clause 41, “Savings of certain transactions”, has been tacked on at the end of the bill in Part 5, “Miscellaneous”—the clause that deals with the consequences of a breach of the legislation. Why have a clause that is ineffective and that basically states that if it is breached, that will not affect the validity or enforceability of any deed, etc.? Why have that, if it will not mean anything? Why insist on programming for a mass audience? Presumably, the news should be intended for a mass audience. If a news item does not include in it material that deals with a minority interest, what will happen?

Hon Member: The effect on whales.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Exactly, the effect on whales—the whale-saving brigade. The term “qualitative and quantitative” is used in clause 26, meaning how much and how effective. How many times does material to cater for a minority interest have to be there? If it is not there once a week, is that a breach of the charter? If it is not there every day, is that a breach? I call on the Minister to take a call and explain why we have clause 41 at all.

JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland): I want to follow that speech made by Deborah Coddington, because there is an issue around clause 41 that needs to be broadened. I have been a member of this House for longer than any of the members who are sitting in the Chamber, other than the Chairperson himself. I think he has been here for the same length of time as me. I often wonder, when we pass legislation such as this, why we are doing it at all. I have read through the bill tonight, and I am perplexed about what we are trying to achieve. What is the purpose of this bill? When I look at the current Act, and then at this bill—Part 5 in particular, and clause 41 specifically—I wonder why we are passing it. This Parliament has a bad habit—not just this Government but past Governments, as well—of passing legislation because that is what we do, and there does not seem to be any real reason for us to pass this bill. I have not heard the Minister take a call in the Committee stage of this bill—although he may have done, when I was not in the Chamber—to explain to us the need for, and the purposes of, this legislation. Obviously it has purposes, but there does not seem to be any absolute rhyme or reason for us to pass it.

The only thing that I can think of when I look at clause 35 in Part 5, which enacts the amendments to the enactments listed in Schedule 1—and that schedule pretty much covers the whole of the bill—is that that allows, if a Government wanted to exercise it, the opportunity for there to be political direction of TVNZ. I know the Minister would say that that is not the Government’s intention, and in his mind that may very well not be the intention. However, I would love the Minister to take a call and say that is not what is intended—

Hon Steve Maharey: That’s not what’s intended.

JOHN CARTER: The Minister should take a call and say that so that we can actually have it on the record, not just as a little wee interjection. If the Minister will not take a call we will have to get Mr Tamihere to make a speech to tell us what the Minister is thinking. That may be a way round it. Mr Tamihere might say it more directly, or perhaps he might agree with me on this bill—that is, that the bill does not achieve much, at all. Mr Tamihere has some quite eloquent terms with which to describe legislation such as this. I am sure the Minister would not want Mr Tamihere to talk about this bill in the way that he has spoken about other bills and other various policy matters that this Minister is in charge of.

When I look at some of the things that are already in the legislation, I see that there already seems to be some political interference with TVNZ, so one then wonders whether this bill is not a wider opportunity for that to occur. Other members have already commented about the possibility that a party with some influence may ask for a particular direction to be taken by TVNZ. As has been said, it could be that somebody will decide it is the State’s duty to use TVNZ as a way in which to pass information around to young people about the consequences of sexual activity, and so on. That could be a possibility under this legislation. I am sure that is not what is intended, but a whole number of things could happen as a consequence of that. We could get a party that has some influence on the Government asking for a particular direction to be taken. We must not forget that at the end of the day, every year TVNZ will have to come to the Government for funding, and there could be some tags tied to that. That really does concern me.

When I looked at the issue that relates to the schedules and the bill itself, I wondered why the Minister was not prepared to accept the amendments put in the previous part by Stephen Franks. Those seemed to be logical amendments.

CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First): It has been very interesting to partake in this debate. In speaking to Part 5 Katherine Rich took the words right out of my mouth when she talked about this being the miscellaneous part of the bill; obviously, everything that could not fit into the other parts has been thrown into Part 5.

She also made a very good point when she talked about, as far as equal employment opportunities are concerned, the aims and aspirations of Māori, the employment requirements of Māori, and the need for greater involvement of Māori as employees of the employer operating the policy. The bill goes on to talk about other parts of society, such as opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees, and recognition—and it goes on and on. Katherine Rich made a very interesting and very good point, which basically underpinned what I was saying when I spoke earlier in this debate. It is very important that we realise that this bill is trying to be all things to all people. That is the problem with it.

We all laughed, and I must admit I had a bit of a chuckle myself, when Deborah Coddington talked about the personal development of people. She also talked about the sexual development of people. I must admit that I did laugh because it was quite funny and she was quite amusing. But, at the end of the day she had an interesting point. The bill is too expansive. It is trying to be all things to all people. That is really what we are talking about.

Mr Carter, a National MP, had a very interesting point, as well: is there any reason to pass this legislation? We all know that, basically, under this set-up a Government will be able to flog off, to sell off, part of this business. That is a concern to New Zealand First. One of the 15 fundamental founding principles of New Zealand First is to make sure that New Zealand assets stay in the hands of New Zealanders. We can see this business getting into the hands of a party that does not have those philosophies and does not have the best interests of New Zealanders at heart, and it will just flog it off. In New Zealand First we are very concerned about that issue.

At the end of the day, we have a bill that is far too politically correct for it to be of use. In one of my earlier speeches I mentioned that this is the exact same wording that is used in the State Sector Act. This is the same kind of stuff that we saw when I was a young lad, in the David Lange years—that is, the same politically correct mumbo-jumbo, as my leader would say. This is one of the many reasons that New Zealand First asks whether there is any need to pass legislation such as this. Katherine Rich over in National agrees with me, and I am glad that she does. That is exactly what parties like New Zealand First and members like Katherine Rich are saying. We are saying that there is no need for this legislation to be passed. It is far too politically correct. It enables the flogging off of parts of this business in the future.

DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East): I move, That the question be now put.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): At least we are to be allowed some small debate on this part, which is a relief, instead of it just being rammed through. Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving me the opportunity.

I have a couple of points. First of all, I would like to mention the fact that one of the consequences of this bill is that TVNZ will be cash-strapped because it will no longer have the transmission arm. The golden goose will have been split off. Therefore, TVNZ will have to get direct funding from the Government. The Government has already indicated that it will give about $11 million to TVNZ. I would like to make it clear that I am all in favour of State funding of TVNZ, but I would like it to be indirect, not direct so that it can be used for political purposes.

My concern is that the memorandum of understanding—which I have obtained under the Official Information Act—that discusses how this $10 million will be allocated, and the reporting mechanisms, makes it clear that TVNZ will not have to report on the per programme expenditure. In other words, the Government will be giving $10 million or $11 million, and, whereas the money that TVNZ receives through New Zealand On Air is transparent, and has to be accounted for on a programme by programme basis—the public can read about it every quarter—that $10 million or $11 million will just go to TVNZ, and it will have no obligation to say how much money it has allocated to particular programmes, and how it has been spent. Effectively, the money can go into a black hole. Why should money going directly to TVNZ, rather than going indirectly to it through New Zealand On Air, be in any way less transparent? Why should there be different reporting mechanisms? Why should one be lax and the other transparent?

That is one of many concerns I have about this bill and the fact that we will now see a cash-strapped TVNZ go with its begging bowl to the Government every year for funding. Every single chief executive and programmer will worry whether, if he or she speaks out or if TVNZ does a difficult current affairs programme that really puts the Prime Minister or someone else on the mat, it will find the allocation of direct funding reduced in the next year. Nothing needs to be said, and there does not need to be any direct political interference; there just needs to be that constant threat to keep TVNZ in line and stop it from being a truly independent entity—a fourth estate whose independence we should be jealously guarding. I believe that the new financial arrangements will erode that independence.

The most extraordinary thing about this bill is that with its passage we are creating a new State-owned enterprise. The new transmission arm will be separated out into a stand-alone State-owned enterprise. Not only has it been created at the last minute, after all the select committee hearings have been completed, but no reason has ever been given as to why we are, at the last minute, separating off the transmission arm of TVNZ into a State-owned enterprise. No explanation has been given.

Brent Catchpole: To sell it off.

SUE KEDGLEY: The member for New Zealand First has pointed out that the only reason that would be done would be to prepare it for sale—to sell it off. So why does the Government not come clean and tell us that that is the reason the Minister of Finance, Mr Cullen, intervened at the last minute, with the assistance of United Future, and suddenly decided that we should split it off into a State-owned enterprise? It is because the Government wants to sell it. It wants to make it a nice, separate little entity that is ready for sale. Why does the Government not come clean and tell us, instead of a hidden agenda being buried in the bill, and an amendment coming out of the blue at the last minute?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

Noes 56

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 8.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to clause 38 be agreed to:

to add the following subclause:

(4) (a) The directors of TVNZ and its subsidiaries will provide shareholding Ministers with a report on the number of employees affected by subsection (1) within 12 months of the commencement of this Act.

(b) The shareholding Ministers will table in the House the report required under paragraph (a) above within one month of receipt.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

Noes 60

Amendment not agreed to.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 8.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 5 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Noes 56

Amendments agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 8.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended stand part.

Ayes 68

Noes 48

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Schedules

KATHERINE RICH (NZ National): Now we move to one of the most gripping parts of this bill, and that is the schedules and the consequential amendments. Since so much has been deleted, schedule 1 is a lot shorter than was originally intended. It makes reference to the Broadcasting Act, so it seems timely, once again, to discuss political interference, which is one of the key things that really worries TVNZ staff. They know that under the present regime they are already under pressure to put on the air stories that show the Government in a good light. They tell me that much pressure was put on during the editing of the Ella Henry story, and that much pressure was put on reporters when they were covering the Susan Bathgate double-dipping story.

Rodney Hide: Triple-dipping!

KATHERINE RICH: I apologise to Mr Hide. It was triple-dipping.

Rodney Hide: Don’t sell me short.

KATHERINE RICH: Yes; I underestimated that. Pressure was put on when TVNZ was covering Tariana Turia’s holocaust comments. Quite clearly, there have been situations where journalists feel that they have been very much constrained when it comes to providing objective news reports, and in particular, news reports that are critical of the present Government. The last thing a journalist wants is a call from the ninth floor after a story—and the calls are not just from the ninth floor. Reporters talk about getting calls from Dr Armstrong after particular pieces.

I am sure that members can imagine how reporters feel when, after they have put hard work into a particular story, checked their facts and got their clips, and the story has been screened, they suddenly get a call from the chairman to ask them why they ran that particular story. It has happened. I would like to know why, for example, TVNZ took until today to run the John Tamihere story. That story ran on Friday on TV3. I say that TVNZ is already very cautious. It is already pretty worried about how it represents the Government, and it is already pretty nervous about complaints from the ninth floor and, in particular, the press secretaries who work for the Prime Minister. All of that constrains a democratic use of media. This bill is really designed to constrain TVNZ further. If anything, there will be less objective media coverage and a far more sanitised version of the sort of coverage we get of the Government.

In the second schedule there is a long list of land to be transferred from TVNZ to the new entity, Transmission Holdings Ltd. It is quite interesting to look down the list. There are two references to Waipareira. What does that remind members of?

Dail Jones: Good old “John-Boy”.

KATHERINE RICH: Yes. I am wondering whether John Tamihere has had a look at this bill. I wonder what his view of it is and what he thinks it will do for his people. I am sure that he has a view. I am sure that he plans to share a number of his views with the House over the next few months because he has made a conscious decision—he has not come here to eat his lunch; he is going to make a difference to the people he purports to represent.

Schedule 2 also mentions the city of Wanganui. I wonder whether Jill Pettis has checked out whether the transferral of 2.2763 hectares is a positive move for her city. I suspect she is not even aware that reference is made to the city of Wanganui in this bill. I am sure that Mr Benson-Pope has not noticed that there is a transfer of land from Otago. When we look at the total amount of land that is being transferred, one of the big questions, of course, is: “Why are we transferring all this land, anyway?” Obviously the Government plans to sell BCL. Obviously the Government is packaging the land. It wants to put it across to a new entity and, finally, sell the lot. A lot of this, arguably, is part of the infrastructure of the country. If we look down the list we see that there are lots of very recognisable spots. There are some very recognisable areas of the country that, given that we now have the Resource Management Act, we would never be able to re-establish.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): I rise to speak on schedule 2 in particular, which deals with the land transfer from TVNZ to Transmission Holdings Ltd. The list of assets is a list of the land holdings of TVNZ. TVNZ will no longer have the asset that constitutes its transmission arm—its properties and its land.

I would like to give the Committee an indication of how much land is in those substantial holdings. There is a valuable amount of land in the North Auckland land district, in the south Auckland district, and in the Hawke’s Bay district. In the Wellington district there are two huge areas—and they are prime real estate, as well. The list also includes the city of Wanganui, Masterton, Nelson, Westland, Canterbury, Otago, and Southland.

There is a huge amount of valuable land that can be prime real estate. When I look out of the window in my office, I look straight at a beautiful lump of land with houses almost to the top of it, but once that land is in that holding company, it will be a prime target for selling off. This Government has set up this bill to sell off those assets. Here we go again. We are back to the 1980s. The Labour Government of the 1980s set out to sell all the assets that New Zealand owned—the Crown jewels; the family silver—and we are about to see it happen again. Those assets and that land will be placed into a holding company—and it is not bound by the charter, so there is no requirement to keep them in Government hands or in the public purse.

That land is most desirable real estate. It is in prime positions and on prime vantage spots—

Jill Pettis: It’s 2 hectares at Whiritoa.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: There we go! Jill Pettis is squawking over there, trying to tell us that it is not so. That gives us a clear indication that it is what will actually happen.

Dail Jones: She’s in the know.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: She is in the know, and she does not want the rest of New Zealand to know that that is what is going to happen. We saw it happen in the 1980s when the Labour Government of the time carried out its social experiment. It sold off all our assets under the pretext that there would be a trickle-down effect. Well, we never saw a drop reach down to the general public. It all went off to the big corporates, who made a killing.

TVNZ will be left totally without assets and reliant on the public purse to continue in operation. Schedule 2 lists all the landholdings of TVNZ that are to be transferred into a lovely, convenient package that, in the future, will be sold. There is no doubt that this Government has that intention. It is heading in the same direction as the Labour Government of the 1980s. Under Roger Douglas, we saw every asset that New Zealand held sold off. As my colleague Craig McNair mentioned, one of New Zealand First’s founding principles is to stop the sale of land and to stop the sale of New Zealand’s assets. This bill is a clear example of the fact that this Government is about to do the same as the 1980s Labour Government. Government members are jittery. They are all squawking. Mr Hawkins is squawking. Clayton Cosgrove is squawking. They know that I am right—this land is going to be sold. It is in the perfect position to be sold off. This is a disaster.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I call Stephen Franks.

Jill Pettis: Where have you been for the last 20 years? You want to get out more.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Order!

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am picking up on your point, Madam Chairperson, in support of you. If Jill Pettis would like to know where you have been for 20 years, she could ask you appropriately and in a private place, rather than scream it out in a way that takes the varnish off the walls of this great Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for his point of order. I have called for order, and I have called Stephen Franks.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): The first schedule of the bill as reported back from the select committee states, under “State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986”: “Omit from the First Schedule the words ‘Television New Zealand Limited’. Omit from the Second Schedule the words ‘Television New Zealand Limited’.” This bill takes TVNZ out of a reasonably thoughtful, well-developed, identifiable corporate structure and makes it what the select committee agreed was a hybrid. In a very plaintive rebuttal in advance, the select committee stated: “the majority of us believe that shareholding Ministers’ ability to direct the TVNZG subsidiaries is sufficiently provided for ... TVNZG should therefore have the direct link to the TVNZG subsidiaries.” The committee went through the dividend-paying provisions and then said that it thought what was being proposed would work. It said: “Government members believe that the structure proposed is a workable hybrid model.” That is like saying it is neither fish nor fowl, but we think it might work; or saying that although it is a sort of karaoke company lip-syncing its way through the system, it might work.

The State-Owned Enterprises Act, of course, suddenly became more appropriate for Transmission Holdings Ltd, and after the select committee had reported, that company went back into the State-owned enterprises regime. Only Television New Zealand sits out in this lonely, “unusual hybrid”, as Treasury referred to it. Schedule 1 is the part that implements the legislation, taking Television New Zealand out of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. What is the effect of that? First, we lose the benefit of section 4. Many might say that that does not matter. Section 4 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act states that companies under that Act must be as profitable as comparable private businesses. That may be anathema to those on the left, who hate the idea of commercial success, profit, or return on assets, but it is really a problem for the competitors of, and the suppliers to, Television New Zealand. Once this company is out of the State-owned enterprise regime, as this schedule provides, it can essentially crush the independent producers. This company is no longer required to get a normal return on its investments. It can do anything it likes in the so-called pursuit of its charter, and it does not matter what happens to those it trades with or competes with. The legislation takes this company out of a regime that was supposed to intend that New Zealanders got a proper return on assets, and therefore that boards could not excuse poor performance, failure, or no returns by saying that they were pursuing higher objectives.

What else does it do? It takes Television New Zealand out of the section 7 regime, which means that Ross Armstrong’s little jaunt to Paris might well be something that he could justify without having to show that there was a normal commercial return. Section 7 states that State-owned enterprises can only contract for the delivery of social purposes if they do so on an arms-length basis and get proper consideration. It is a discipline so that Government cannot extract little benefits for its mates from State-owned companies without accounting for them. Taking the section out, and not replacing it with anything, means that when Ross Armstrong was off investigating Bulgarian—[Interruption]—programmes, dubbed in English, which he was exploring in Paris, he could say that those social services, or that particular advance, was something that the Government wanted him to do. He did not have to show a proper return on those endeavours; it was merely enough that the Government had expressed a desire to do them.

Taking Television New Zealand out of the State-Owned Enterprises Act makes that sort of conduct much easier, because there is no longer a section 7 to comply with. There is no longer a requirement that any of those so-called social services have to be paid for transparently by Government appropriation, or by payment from the other organisations that get the benefit. So maybe it was another Government organisation Dr Ross Armstrong had been appointed to—perhaps fishing—that was going to get the benefit.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): There is an expression: “The devil is in the detail”, and it is certainly true in these two very boring-looking schedules. The exact detail, as the representative of New Zealand First outlined, is all of those assets that will be transferred into this stand-alone State-owned enterprise called Transmission Holdings Ltd—the transmission arm of Television New Zealand. There was a great eruption on the other side of the Chamber when Mr Catchpole suggested that the intention was to ready that company for sale. The Labour members shrieked “What rubbish!”, but not one single member from the Labour Party has spoken in this debate to tell us why the Government, at the last minute and in the eleventh hour, is separating off the transmission arm of Television New Zealand into a State-owned enterprise. The reason is not in the explanatory note. There is no explanation, and frankly, that is quite astonishing. This must be the only stand-alone State-owned enterprise that is being set up without even an explanatory note, or without one member of the Government bothering to tell us why they are doing it. It is quite scandalous, frankly.

The Green Party is very sad at having to take such a strong line, because we strongly support public service television. We were great supporters of the charter, because we think it is crucial that we have a broadcaster committed to promoting a New Zealand identity, New Zealand voices, and so forth. We want to see a Television New Zealand as strong, financially independent, and robust as possible, with a healthy income stream, with the ability to earn revenues from various activities, and be a politically independent member of the fourth estate. So we are very sad, because on the one hand we strongly support that, but on the other hand we believe that the eleventh-hour amendment to separate off the transmission arm of Television New Zealand—which has never been explained—will undermine the intention of this bill to make Television New Zealand editorially driven and no longer totally preoccupied with advertising and revenue. That is its whole goal.

What will it do, now that the golden goose—the dividends from the transmission arm—have gone? Where will the revenue come from? Obviously, Television New Zealand will have to chase advertising, so that will undermine the very objectives of this bill. When it is not chasing advertising, it will be worrying whether its political masters will be giving it $10, $11, or $12 million for the next year, or whether some programme it has made has annoyed or offended a Minister, a Prime Minister, or someone in Government to such an extent that that revenue or direct Government funding will no longer come the following year. If it is not this Government, then it will be the next Government, and if is that next Government, it will not be giving any direct funding to Television New Zealand. So what will that company do then? Where will it get its revenue from then? Will it be just from advertising? Well, that is in direct contradiction to the aims and objectives of this bill.

Marc Alexander said that this is the “Thank God for United Future Bill!” because that party had stepped in to force the separation of the transmission arm. I can tell members that there is not one member in the independent industry I have spoken to who supports what United Future and Labour have done. Not one person I know understands why on earth, at the eleventh hour, those parties have done this, and why they are going to undermine the very noble objectives of this charter and this bill. I think it is very sad, and New Zealand First is absolutely right. The Minister of Finance intervened with the help of United Future so that we could ready the transmission arm—the 540-odd transmission sites around New Zealand—for sale. There is no other possible explanation for why this would have happened. No explanation has ever been given by Government members for this odd action.

PANSY WONG (NZ National): Madam Chair, I thank you for taking affirmative action to award the call to me—an Asian, ethnic minority, female MP—over a handsome young Pākehā MP like Phil Heatley. This type of speech is good for bonding between our team members.

I rushed back from the airport to take a call in this very important debate, because the taxi driver who drove me from the airport to Parliament asked me a series of questions that I had no answer to. I promised him that I would pose the questions, and I assured him that the Labour MPs would surely take a call to answer his queries. He said: “Mrs Wong, ask the Labour Ministers or MPs why they are passing this bill in Parliament. Isn’t Television New Zealand doing very well? Is their hidden agenda to sell off Television New Zealand?” The taxi driver continued: “Mrs Wong, ask the Labour Ministers or MPs why they are always hell-bound to pass legislation that invariably doesn’t work in practice, and whenever there is a challenge in court, then everything gets tangled up in legal niceties?” He talks a lot of common sense. Taxi drivers understand. Television New Zealand was doing very well, and what did this Labour Government do? Once again, it has interfered in a State-owned enterprise that used to work very well. I am very concerned that the schedule removes Television New Zealand from the State-owned enterprises category. It means that TVNZ no longer has to operate as a professional, successful company.

I want to recall an incident that happened in the Commerce Committee about 2 years ago. Television New Zealand appeared in front of that committee during a financial review. I remember the newly appointed, but now ex-Chairman of Television New Zealand, Dr Ross Armstrong, saying that every time he turned on TVNZ, he seemed to see these American programmes, and that was why he was a bit concerned about its delivery on local content. At that stage, I said: “But Dr Ross Armstrong, in your 6-monthly report as the Chairman of TVNZ you actually stated that you were very proud that local content had exceeded 67 percent.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask the member to stick to the schedules.

PANSY WONG: This is to do with removing Television New Zealand from schedule 1, which is about State-owned enterprises. I said: “How can you claim in your statement that Television New Zealand is delivering 67 percent local content, and then complain?” He said he must have turned on the television at the wrong time.

I am trying to say that it worries me—and it should worry the public—that Television New Zealand is to be removed from the State-Owned Enterprises Act. That really means that it does not have to operate in a very businesslike, competent manner. It also implies that there is lots of room for interference from the Labour Government. As my colleague Katherine Rich said in the same schedule debate, what if the Labour Government says: “Hey, we really don’t want this State-owned enterprise to broadcast answers, or whatever, by the Hon John Tamihere.” He appears to be the only one in the Labour caucus who can think and speak for himself. The rest apparently have to check with advisers to Prime Minister Clark.

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

Noes 56

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 8.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to the schedules be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Noes 56

Amendments agreed to.

Labour 52; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 8.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the schedules as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

Noes 48

Schedules as amended agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Bill reported with amendment.

Bills

Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

PANSY WONG (NZ National): This bill passed unanimously in the select committee. With that, I think the title itself probably to a certain extent did not quite inform the public as to what is in the bill. All the parties in the select committee agree to this amendment. It is to correct a situation to properly reflect the changing of time, in terms of recognising that people who subscribed to the Government Superannuation Fund in the past should not have been disadvantaged when there was a change in the marital status of the surviving spouse. The fact that the amendment is in the year 2002 is quite appropriate, because time has moved on. The social conditions and the public expectation of an individual’s arrangement of his or her private life should not have been disadvantaged.

We are glad to say that the National Party also supports the passage of this bill. The only question we want to raise, and we want to raise it quite a bit, concerns the lack of consultation on this particular bill, particularly when we consider that the title is only the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill was distributed to a few relevant organisations. One of those organisations, the National Council of Women, wrote back and complained quite bitterly about the lack of consultation that was accorded this bill. The council said in its submissions to the select committee that it regretted it was not given that time, and also that there was no invitation to the parties who are party to the consultation to make oral representations to the select committee.

So I guess the point I raise is that if we are passing a bill through the Parliament that has the word “amendment” in its title it is quite a significant change, in a positive way. Maybe in future the Parliament should consider allowing submissioners a much longer time frame and the opportunity for them to appear in person before the select committee to make their views known. In future maybe a title such as the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) might have a subtitle to let potential submissioners know a little bit more with regard to what the bill is about. It could be helpful in terms of indicating whether submissioners want to make substantial submissions to the bill, or otherwise.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I guess the bill could be called the “Government Superannuation (And Other Things) Amendment Bill”.

Hon Richard Prebble: It could be called the “Government Superannuation Gamble Bill”.

RODNEY HIDE: Yes, it could be the “Government Superannuation Gamble Bill”, when we consider just how much money this fund has lost.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The scope of bills these days is quite narrow. The member would know that, if he had consulted the Clerk’s Office. In the Committee stage when we are debating the title of a bill that has been to a select committee, we cannot discuss matters that would be relevant perhaps to a general Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. The bill we are debating is confined solely to the issue of widows and widowers who remarry. In fact, I would be out of order in moving any other amendments that went beyond that particular matter. So to get into that dual issue, I am afraid, is totally out of order.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. One thing a member is allowed to do in a debate on the title, is discuss whether it is appropriate. That is exactly what was being done by Mr Hide. In fact, he might have been getting to the point of even moving an amendment. To say with regard to the Government Superannuation Fund that it is a gamble, is perfectly reasonable. The fact that it only applies to widows, probably makes the fact that it is a gamble even more shameful.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): This is a small bill. I would ask the member to come back to the point.

RODNEY HIDE: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for your advice. I am talking exactly about the title of this bill. As I pointed out, the bill is the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2), and we are discussing the title. I suggest the title is something of a misnomer. In the last 14 months we have discovered that this fund, operated under the Act that this bill seeks to amend, has lost a staggering $380 million in 14 months. What I suggest with the new title—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The investment record of the Government Superannuation Fund is simply not relevant to this debate, in the slightest. Indeed, the member would have difficulty in justifying a reference to this issue in a second reading debate. We are debating the title of a bill that has been to a select committee. I suggest that he will have to confine himself to debating whether the title reflects the content of the bill itself, not something else that he might want to refer to.

RODNEY HIDE: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I want to rule on this point of order. During the second reading debate Dr Cullen’s point of order on the same point was ruled in favour. I have asked the member to come to the point.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are debating the title of the bill. If the title was the “Government Superannuation Fund (Spouses) Amendment Bill (No 2) there would be no problem, because it would be quite clear what the bill is about. When we are debating the title, we are not at liberty to go into other parts of the bill. The debate on the title is general. The debate on this title could cover anything to do with the Government Superannuation Fund, because the bill specifies nothing beyond the fact that it is an amendment bill and that its principal Act is the Government Superannuation Fund Act. Although we are debating the title, as distinct from the other parts, I am afraid your ruling is not consistent with the Standing Orders.

RODNEY HIDE: Speaking to the point of order, I remind the Chair that we do get to debate the title. That is set down in the Standing Orders. We are doing that. The question then is whether the title is appropriate. That is precisely what I want to debate. If the Chair is going to rule out that debate, then why have the debate on the title in the first place?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: More precisely, is the title appropriate in relation to the content of the bill, not to some other matter the member might want to discuss? This bill is solely about widows and widowers remarrying.

Hon Richard Prebble: If I take what Dr Cullen says, it may well be that the bill is about spouses and widows. The point Mr Rodney Hide was making was that he was discussing whether the title was correct. I thought that I heard him say that he thought that instead of the bill being called the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2), it should be called the “Government Superannuation Gamble Bill”, or words to that effect, and he started to explain why he thought that should be the title. If he is right that it is a complete gamble, it may well be that no widow or spouse will receive any money. In that case, Parliament probably should change the name of the bill to the “Government Superannuation Gamble Amendment Bill”. Mr Cullen may not like the fact that the Government Superannuation Fund under his stewardship has lost more money than it has ever done before, and no doubt wants to close it down. But this is Parliament, it is a debate, and we should be allowed to say those words. Provided that members direct their words to the title, there has never been a Chair who has said that we cannot discuss whether a bill should be called something different.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That was not the point. The scope of the debate on the title is whether it adequately describes the bill. As I said before, this is a narrow bill and deals with specific issues. Members should confine themselves to debating whether the title adequately describes such a narrow bill.

RODNEY HIDE: Thank you for that guidance, Madam Chairperson. What I am saying in this debate is that the title does not adequately convey what the bill is about in respect of spouses who remarry. This bill is saying that those spouses will come under the Government Superannuation Fund. My point is that the title should be pointing out to spouses who remarry what a risky fund it is. The experience, and this is factual, is that the Government Superannuation Fund—as much as Dr Cullen does not like this fact to be pointed out in Parliament, or in public, or in the media—has lost $380 million in 14 months. That is why I say that the title of this bill, which deals with spouses who remarry, does not adequately convey what the fund is all about. Because it is a gamble.

I make this point in all seriousness. When one sees the words “Government Superannuation Fund” one has a sense of some certitude, some certainty, but there is none. The fund has lost 10 percent of its value in a little over a year. That is a staggering loss. I say to the Committee that we should consider renaming the bill. I look across at Dr Lockwood Smith. We know that markets go up and markets go down. Why do we not convey that fact in the title? The bill could be called the “Government Superannuation Fund (Let’s Risk Money on Overseas Markets) Amendment Bill (No 2)”. Dr Cullen does not like that title. I would be interested to know why he does not like it. He can take a call and explain. I suggest that it would be far better for him to contribute to the debate, rather than trying to take pointless points of order to close it down. I tell Mr Cullen that the point of having a Parliament is to have precisely this debate, even though the Government might find it uncomfortable. [Interruption]

Steve Chadwick yells out about looking after widows. How can the widows be looked after when this fund loses $380 million? I ask the member how many widows would it look after. How does she feel about the widows who lost $380 million in this fund? Does she think that is not important? The Minister shakes his head. He says: “It’s only $380 million; so what?”. He is saying it is 10 percent in a year. If it was his big fund, it would be $6,000 million. [Interruption] Given that Dr Cullen cannot shut Parliament down, we have David Benson-Pope calling from the sidelines. He is not prepared to take a call, because the ninth floor has shut him down, like it has shut down John Tamihere. He flies all the way up from his electorate in Dunedin, and all he does is chip—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please come back to the title of the bill?

RODNEY HIDE: I would love to, if David Benson-Pope would pipe down and let me explain what this title should be saying. This bill is designed to help spouses who remarry. Under the old rules—and the ACT party says that is wrong—if they remarry, they lose their pension. How about a bit of truth in the title of bills? [Interruption] David Benson-Pope is allowed to whip, whine, and groan away in this Chamber, but he is not allowed to give a proper speech.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): That speech on the title was unfortunate for two reasons. First, what Mr Hide was saying about spouses missing out on entitlements because of losses on the sharemarket is totally untrue. As the one person who has campaigned against the Government Superannuation Fund being invested on the sharemarket, rather than staying in Government stocks, I have always made it very clear to any beneficiaries of the Government Superannuation Fund—whether a retired public servant, or a spouse of a deceased public servant—that their entitlements are not at risk. As taxpayers, everyone in this room and everyone listening in this country will have to make up for that loss. But there is absolutely no risk of the Government’s ridiculous investment policy affecting the beneficiaries of the Government Superannuation Fund.

The second unfortunate point about Mr Hide’s speech on the title is that he was not prepared to listen to my concerns back in the year 2000. He actually voted for the change in investment policy for the Government Superannuation Fund. I congratulate him on waking up 2 years after the event, but I do wish that he had joined the Greens at the time in pointing out what a ridiculous strategy it was to take money out of Government bonds, and gamble it on the international sharemarket.

I do not think there are any grounds at all for Mr Hide to call for any of the changes to the title that he was asking for. In hindsight, it might have been better to have a clearer title that read: “Government Superannuation Fund (Spouses, Annuities, and Children’s Allowances) Amendment Bill”, as we would have then had a much narrower title debate. But given the nature of the title, I simply take the opportunity to say that the partners of deceased public servants, whom this bill benefits, do not need to worry about future entitlements. They are entitled to be concerned about their deceased partners’ hard-earned savings being squandered on the sharemarket, but they can rest assured that the fact that the Government Superannuation Fund has lost $380 million over the last 14 months on the sharemarket—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come to the title.

ROD DONALD: —I am coming to the point—will not in any way affect their expectation of benefits under this bill. I look forward to this bill becoming an Act in the very near future. I am happy to leave the title as it is.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney): The Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) is a small bill, of no more than three pages. It affects a very limited number of people—about 800 adults and some 19 children. However, that does not mean to say it is not an important bill. It affects the very lives of those few people in a very significant way.

The Government should realise that the title of the bill is not very helpful. If one looks at the development of the titles of bills in recent years, one will see there has been a movement to try to make sure that the titles are helpful to those scanning them to try to understand what they are about. If, for example, one looks at the titles of taxation amendment bills, one will see they have helpful words in them, to help people understand what the bills are about. There is an income tax bill in front of the House at the moment that has tax rates for Māori in it, and the title says that; it talks about tax rates for Māori, among other things. But this bill is called the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2). That gives us no guide as to what this bill is about.

I understand that what Rodney Hide has just been telling the Committee is absolutely correct: the Government Superannuation Fund has lost $380 million in the last 14 months. What Rod Donald has just told the Committee is absolutely true: beneficiaries of the Government Superannuation Fund do not have to be particularly worried about that, because their entitlements are guaranteed. It is the taxpayers of New Zealand who should be saying to this Government: “What the hell are you doing, losing all this money that we taxpayers then have to make up?”. That is a hugely important issue, but the title of this bill should make it clear that, for example, the bill is not designed to remedy that problem. Given the fact that the fund has lost $380 million in the last 14 months, anyone could assume this is a bill designed to remedy that. Why would someone not assume that? It is the most significant issue affecting the Government Superannuation Fund in the last 12 months, and if people see that there is an amendment bill, maybe they will assume that it is designed to remedy that problem, but it is not. If I recollect correctly, there was an amendment bill to the Government Superannuation Fund within the last 2 years that actually freed up the investment of funds in the Government Superannuation Fund.

That is the problem with this title. It does not remotely indicate what the bill is about, and that is not good enough. I think Rod Donald had a fairly useful recommendation for the title. It should be the “Government Superannuation Fund (Spouses, Annuities, and Children’s Allowances) Amendment Bill”. That would be a useful title, because it would help those who use Acts of Parliament in their professional work, and the citizens of this country who need to refer to the laws of the land, to find legislation that is important to a limited number of people. Anyone searching titles in future will have no idea what on earth this title means. There is nothing in either subclause (1) or subclause (2) of the title clause that says what this bill is about.

Rather than Dr Cullen standing up and protesting about Rodney Hide mentioning that the Government Superannuation Fund has lost more money under his stewardship than under that of any other Minister of Finance in, probably, all time, rather than his being embarrassed by that and getting testy about it, I would have thought that, as Minister, it would be useful for Dr Cullen to propose an amendment to identify the bill. It would not be very difficult. It would have been quite simple to amend the title, to make the bill readily identifiable, and to make it more useful to those who may need to read it in the future. I suggest that, instead of raising points of order, the Minister should be doing that.

The difficulty of a title like this in the short term—apart from the fact that, in the long term, people will not know what the legislation is all about—is that the Government cannot close down what members say about it, because it is a totally general title. We are not permitted to debate Parts 1 and 2 of the bill in the debate on the title—that would be outside the Standing Orders—so we are debating what is probably the most general title I have ever seen. There will be a lot of debate on it.

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour please say “Aye”—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member cannot raise a point of order on the closure motion.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Who said, Madam Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The closure is my call. Would the member please be seated.

Hon Richard Prebble: You don’t know what the point of order will be about yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I say to Mr Prebble that points of order will be heard in silence. I will not warn again.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Madam Chair, I accept absolutely your right to accept a closure motion. What I do want to raise with you is that I gave the last contribution to this debate, and in that contribution I pointed out the fact that this title is probably as broad a title as can be conceived for an amendment bill. I have not seen a more broad title. Therefore, to accept a closure motion on a very broad title, after a very limited number of speeches, is provocative. I accept totally your right to accept that closure, but it is provocative, and as Chair you invite difficulty when you do that.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I have, on a number of occasions before, raised in this Chamber this approach of bullying the Chair by implying, as that last sentence did, that if you, Madam Chair, continue to do what you have decided to do, some kind of retribution is going to follow from members opposite. That is the only understanding that can be applied to a term like being “provocative”. We have had this ruled on many times by Mr Speaker; the Chair is the final judge and the decision cannot be questioned.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It better not be on this; I am going to rule on this point of order.

Rodney Hide: Who’s threatening whom?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated. It is very clear. Standing Order 139 requires that the question on the closure motion be put forthwith, without amendment or debate, once accepted by the chairperson. The chairperson is the sole judge. [Interruption] I say to Dr Lockwood Smith that I did warn that there would be silence while we were dealing with points of order. Would the member please now leave the Chamber.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The chairperson is the sole judge of whether the closure motion should be put and accepted. That has been ruled on by the Speaker several times, and it cannot be debated. The question is that the question be now put.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is the point of order on what I have ruled on?

Hon Richard Prebble: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): All right; a new point of order, not on the closure.

Hon Richard Prebble: No, not on the closure. It is completely out of order for a member of Parliament to suggest that the Chair is being bullied and that the Chair is being intimidated. You have had a point of order raised by Dr Cullen, where he has suggested that. He has put across the impression to the public of New Zealand that you are in some way being intimidated, and I say to you that you should now rule on that question. If you do feel that you were intimidated by Mr Lockwood Smith, then I think you had better have him back and ask him to withdraw and apologise. But if you do not, then you should ask Dr Cullen to withdraw that very outrageous suggestion that you are being intimidated by the Opposition.

I put it to you that that cannot be so, because I have not seen a chairperson decide to close down a debate faster than you have. You clearly have no regard for the Opposition, and you cannot possibly be being intimidated by us, because if you were, you would have allowed us to have a reasonable debate. You did not; you closed it all down. The Government must be very happy with you. In fact, you must be the model chairperson from a Government’s point of view. So at that point I think you should ask Dr Cullen to withdraw the suggestion that anybody on this side of the Chamber has any influence on you at all—because, clearly, we do not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member continued then to speak to the closure motion.

Dail Jones: The point that the Hon Richard Prebble has raised does have some validity in the sense that the Hon Dr Cullen gave the impression that members opposite were bullying the Chair. Any member opposite may have given that impression, but not members opposite, and I ask that Dr Cullen be asked to withdraw and apologise in so far as an implication was given that any members opposite—other than the member who raised the point of order—may have been bullying you. That is absolutely incorrect, and it reflects on other members of the Committee. That is the point that the Hon Richard Prebble was making.

Hon Roger Sowry: I was sitting just one row back, and in the direct line of sight of Dr Cullen, who is sitting on your right. As soon as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith raised a point of order—when you indicated that you had accepted the closure motion after, I think, three speeches—Dr Cullen started waving his hands around towards Dr Smith, sort of insisting that he sit down. Dr Cullen also started interjecting—and I am sure that that would have come over your microphone, because you did not have your finger on the microphone at the time—that the Opposition should not be bullying the Chair. At that point, Dr Lockwood Smith had only raised a point of order; you had yet even to call him. I do not think that you are being bullied, at all. I think that the reverse is actually happening in the Chamber. I agree with the Hon Richard Prebble. What is happening, though—and we saw it happen during the sitting before Christmas—is that any time someone takes a point of order against you when you are in the Chair, it is deemed by the Government that you are being bullied, or targeted, or picked on. That is not the case at all. I think that your role as an officer of Parliament in the Chair is undermined if the Government is going to adopt this attitude every time you face a point of order.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That would be a perfectly fair point if it were under a general point of order. But a point of order that is questioning a closure motion is itself out of order right from the beginning, and is an attempt to persuade you to change your mind. To say that your ruling was provocative is, in my view, clearly to suggest that some consequences may flow from your exercising your discretion as Chair. I cannot think of any other term, except “bullying”, to apply. But I accept Mr Jones’ point; I was merely making that reference to Dr Smith, not to any other member of the Committee.

Rodney Hide: I certainly accept Dr Cullen’s apology to the rest of us, but I do think that we have a problem, and it is this: Dr Cullen used the device of a point of order to accuse Dr Lockwood Smith—he has identified him specifically—of bullying, or attempting to bully and intimidate, the Chair. That is a breach of privilege. [Interruption] Yes, it is; I can read it if members would like. Standing Order 397(i) states that it is a clear breach of privilege to assault, threaten, or intimidate a member or an officer of the House acting in the discharge of the member’s or the officer’s duty. What we had then was Dr Michael Cullen in the Minister’s chair, sitting beside the chairperson, standing up and using the device of a point of order to accuse Dr Lockwood Smith of breaching privilege. That cannot be allowed. Every time I have been in this House when anyone has done that by a point of order or by a speech, the Speaker quite rightly has sat them down and said that there is a proper procedure for that. Dr Michael Cullen can take a breach of privilege to the Speaker, but he certainly cannot raise one as a point of order. I suggest, Madam Chair, that you should have Dr Lockwood Smith back now—he has been out for 10 minutes, although you did not specify a time—but, more particularly, you should ask Dr Cullen to withdraw and apologise for his accusation, which is clearly false, by the way.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank members for their comments. I certainly am confident in my decision on the closure. It was properly put. It was properly dealt with. The points of order were properly dealt with, and now I will put the question.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You have not ruled.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated. I have ruled that Dr Cullen raised his point of order correctly. I have ruled on that.

Rodney Hide: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am warning the member; I am on my feet. I have ruled correctly on that matter, and we will now proceed.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. Is the point of order continuing this argument? If it is, it is out of order because I have ruled.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I would like you to rule on whether it is acceptable, under a point of order, to accuse another member of Parliament of intimidating the Chair. Yes or no.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): A matter of privilege is not raised on the floor of the House. The member knows that. As far as I saw it, in the Chair, Dr Cullen properly pointed out that the closure motion had been taken. There was not any debate on the closure motion—that was the point—and there should not be any debate, and members have brought up that debate. I have ruled on that, and we will continue.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order?

Hon Roger Sowry: It is following on from that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have given my ruling on this point of order, and we will now continue.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it the same point of order?

Hon Roger Sowry: It is following on from your ruling

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. Once I have ruled on a point of order, the member knows that it cannot be disputed.

Hon Roger Sowry: That is right. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It has to be a new point of order.

Hon Roger Sowry: The point of order that Dr Cullen took was in two parts. The first part was seeking to state to the Committee that your decision to take the closure could not be challenged. You have ruled on that; I accept that. The second part, you have not ruled on. The second part of Dr Cullen’s point of order, which was the part he spent the most time on, was where he accused Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, in using the word “provocative”, of bullying the Chair. If one stands in the Chamber and accuses someone of bullying the Chair, that by its very nature, under the Standing Orders, is accusing someone of a breach of privilege. Dr Cullen went to some lengths and showed a degree of anger in that part of the point of order. What I am seeking, and what the Committee is seeking from you, is whether you are going to accept members making accusations about other people having an influence over the Chair. Is that acceptable or not? That is the ruling we are seeking.

Hon Richard Prebble: I think the Committee is going to get into a lot of difficulty when a senior member of the Opposition is thrown out by the Chair, which the Chair of course can do, for a matter that Chairs do rule on but is relatively minor—having spoken during a point of order—and then we discover that, in relation to a member who made statements during a point of order that were very serious, alleging a matter that by itself, if correct, would be a breach of privilege, because intimidating the Chair is a breach of privilege, and the whole Committee heard him make the accusation that there had been an attempt at intimidating you, you are not going to rule on it because you were not worried. No doubt you were not intimidated, but that is not the point. The point is it is a reflection on the whole of the Committee when a Minister in the chair can suggest that a senior Opposition member is, in effect, committing a breach of privilege. It is not for you to pass it over; it is for you to be consistent. Indeed, I believe that you have not treated fairly Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who, of course—not of his choice—is no longer in the Chamber. I believe that he ought to be apologised to by Dr Cullen, and, frankly, I also think—but it is completely within your discretion—that he should be allowed to return to the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): On the matter of Dr Lockwood Smith, I made that judgment and I made that call, and it was properly given. Dr Cullen made certain comments. They are not for me to judge, but I certainly did not judge that they were offensive. As far as I was concerned, the call was properly given. Dr Smith made his comments. It is not acceptable to reflect on the Chair, and I did not consider them to be such, and I do not consider that this matter needs to be pursued any further. If there is a matter of privilege, there is a proper way to deal with it. The closure motion—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. Are you going to still discuss this point of order that I have ruled on? I will rule it out of order if you are.

Rodney Hide: Might I suggest, Madam Chair, that you hear it. I took a point of order where I asked for a ruling. Dr Cullen in the Chamber—and no one has contested this—accused Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, under a point of order, of intimidating you. My question to you is simple. I put it to you before. You keep telling me that you have ruled. What I want is clarification on that ruling. Is it acceptable to stand up in this Chamber, under a point of order, and accuse a member of Parliament of intimidating the Chair? Yes or no.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As I clearly said before, Dr Lockwood Smith made certain comments. There was a point of order raised by Dr Cullen. I have made my ruling, and I do not consider that there is any further matter to pursue. We will now have the—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I warn the member that I have ruled on this matter. I am warning him now that I will not take his point of order on the same matter.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I ask you, Madam Chair, to rule.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I have ruled on the matter. That is the end of the matter.

Rodney Hide: Point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The ruling is very clear, as I said. Dr Cullen made his point of order in response to some comments relating to the closure that had been made by Dr Lockwood Smith. I certainly ruled that I did not need those comments. I made my ruling very clear, and I stand by that ruling, which is the original ruling on the closure. I said I did not need the comments made by either Dr Cullen or Dr Lockwood Smith. The closure was given correctly.

Rodney Hide: Point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. We are now going to continue because I have made that ruling.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Point of order on the same point?

Rodney Hide: My point of order is this. I asked for you to rule whether it is acceptable under the guise of a point of order to accuse another member of intimidating the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have made my ruling on that.

Rodney Hide: Madam Chair you have not made your ruling on this. You have burbled on about what Dr Cullen might or might not have said. You have not ruled on whether that is acceptable behaviour in the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment to the Chair.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The ruling has been given. The question will now be put.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Is it OK for me to stand in the Chamber on this point of order and say that Dr Cullen is intimidating you constantly tonight?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. I have accepted the closure, and I have ruled several times on the point of order.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I will repeat the ruling. I considered the comments made by Dr Cullen and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. I considered that no further action needed to be taken on them, and I have moved on to the question.

Hon Richard Prebble: We take exception to them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated, Mr Hide. I have ruled on the point of order. The member cannot raise that matter again.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a new point of order. I have grave concern over how this debate has been going. It is very obvious to members sitting here that the Chair is being intimidated by Dr Michael Cullen sitting beside her. He is intimidating the Chair and giving the Chair instructions about how to behave tonight, so much so that the Chair will not take the simple action of asking the Minister in the chair, Dr Michael Cullen, to apologise for accusing a senior member of this Committee of a breach of privilege. It is very clear to me that you are being bullied and intimidated by the member sitting beside you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I should warn Mr Hide that the Chair is not being bullied and intimidated. That is not acceptable, and I have ruled on that.

Rodney Hide: Well, you just ruled it was OK. I raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will desist from a reflection on the Chair. The member will now be seated.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated. I am warning the member now that raising constant points of order on matters that I have ruled on is in itself disorderly. If the member persists with that line I will have no choice but to ask him to leave the Chamber. That in itself is disorderly.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have given the member a warning.

Rodney Hide: Yes. You said in your last ruling that it is unacceptable, on a point of order, to accuse a member of intimidating the Chair. But that was when I did it. What you have not been prepared to rule on is that it is unacceptable for Dr Michael Cullen to do it, but that is exactly what he did. My point is that if you allow that to stand we will have a disorderly Parliament, because at any time anyone can take a point of order and accuse a member of a breach of privilege. I do not think Dr Cullen wants the Committee to go down that chute, either.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated. I am trying to rule on this matter. Dr Cullen made certain comments, and this is my final comment because I have ruled on it before. I did not consider Dr Cullen’s comments offensive. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith made certain comments. I ruled that I did not consider them offensive, and I continued. I ask members to desist from reflections on the Chair generally. It is not acceptable. I do not need any further assistance on this matter. That is the end of this point of order.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is this a new point of order?

Hon Richard Prebble: Yes it is, actually.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the points of order, and I would remind the member—

Hon Richard Prebble: I appreciate that, but I suggest to you that we cannot let the matter stay where it now is. I believe that Mr Hide, as strongly as he feels, was still wrong to suggest that you are being intimidated. I do not think it is for you just to say you are not intimidated. I think that comment requires him to withdraw and apologise. Even if you are not going to require that of Government members, I think Mr Hide should be asked to withdraw and apologise for suggesting the Chair is being intimidated. We cannot allow that to happen. I suggest to you that, even though you have ruled on the earlier point, I do believe that with regard to the remarks Mr Hide made, even though he feels very strongly about the matter, he should be asked to withdraw and apologise for suggesting that the Chair is being intimidated.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Are you speaking to Mr Prebble’s point of order?

Hon Roger Sowry: Yes, I am. I tried to raise this before the Hon Richard Prebble got to his feet, because I certainly found Mr Hide’s comments grossly offensive. To stand in the Chamber and accuse the Chair of being intimidated by Dr Cullen is not a position that any member should find himself or herself in, just as I found Dr Cullen’s waving and yelling to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to sit down, and that he was bullying the Chair, equally grossly offensive.

I ask you to consider this. You are one of a small group of officers of Parliament charged with the responsibility of keeping order in this Chamber. To do that, not only do you require the confidence of the major party in the Chamber, you require the confidence of all parties. To carry out your role effectively, you must also ensure that you are protecting the role of deputy chair and Chair. It is just not acceptable for any member of any party, be it the Minister sitting beside you or Mr Hide down the other end of the Chamber, or anyone else by way of interjection, to carry on and imply that the Chair is being bullied or put under undue influence. If we allow this to happen tonight, it will, by its nature, creep into the parliamentary process. We will find another Chair sitting here tomorrow, and we will have speeches where people start to talk about whether the Chair is being influenced.

I put it to you that that is clearly covered in the Standing Orders and that it would be grossly out of order. Mr Speaker would not allow someone to give a speech and, during that speech, talk about whether he or she was being influenced by other members of this Parliament, and we should not allow it to creep into this House by way of point of order. It has happened twice now, once by Dr Cullen and once by Mr Hide. Both of the comments were offensive.

I take the point that you are strong enough to say you are not offended and you will let it wash over your head. But it brings your position into disrepute—not you as an individual, but the position. My appeal to you tonight is to uphold the principles around the position, and to require both members who have engaged in that behaviour to cease, and to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for his assistance. He does make some correct points, but I go back to the original point that I ruled on. Dr Cullen raised a point and Dr Lockwood Smith raised a point, which I did not feel I needed and I did not accept. As to the point that Mr Hide raised—yes, in retrospect I think he should withdraw and apologise. Speaker’s ruling 15/1 is very clear on this matter: “(1) It is out of order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government—such a statement must be withdrawn unreservedly; (2) or that the Speaker has endeavoured to curtail the reply of a member; (3) or to bring the Speaker’s name and opinions into a debate.” That has happened. I think it is a point that Mr Hide should withdraw and apologise on, and that is the end of the matter.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. To the person who took offence, I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 67

Noes 48

Motion agreed to.

Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It has been nearly half an hour since you required one of our members to leave the Chamber. I am just wondering whether we can have an indication as to whether he will be able to come back into the Chamber now to speak on this legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, the whip knows the procedure, Mr Sowry. He can come back.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National): I rise with a degree of surprise to speak to Part 1. I start by saying that the Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, really has presided over a shambles on this bill. I say to him that in Bill Birch’s day this situation would never have occurred. In Bill Birch’s day, this bill would have been rammed through the House under urgency, and the people who are the beneficiaries—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do feel I need to point out that Bill Birch refused to introduce this bill into the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, that is not a point of order. It is a debatable matter.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: In Bill Birch’s day, any bill in his name was put through under urgency, and people such as those who are to benefit—because we agree with this bill; it is a good bill and we are going to vote in favour of it—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I seek leave that the Committee return to the House so that leave can be sought for the bill to be given urgency.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. Leave is not granted.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I had considered raising a point of order when Dr Cullen broke up Mr Sowry’s speech the first time by making a frivolous point of order, but now Dr Cullen, the Minister in the chair, has raised, I think, seven points of order on a bill that he says is not controversial. When anybody is trying to speak to it he raises points of order. It seems to me that we are getting very close to the point where you ought to be asking him to leave the Chamber. If we are to have that applied to Opposition members who raise just one interjection under provocation and are thrown out, then we should have it applied to a Minister in the chair who is disobeying all the Standing Orders but against whom no action is being taken by the chairperson. I think he should be asked not only to withdraw and apologise but also to leave the Chamber and have someone else sit in the chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ruled against Dr Cullen’s previous point of order. There have been constant points of order tonight that have been disorderly, as I have pointed out.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: I make the point to Dr Cullen that one would have thought that he, as Leader of the House, could organise to get this bill through pretty quickly. After all, it was introduced on 29 May last year. It had only about 13 minutes in the select committee. It has a commencement date of 1 July of last year, and he introduced it a month or two before it was due to come into force. I was making the point that previous Ministers of Finance, such as the Rt Hon Bill Birch, would have got this bill through and got the job done, and they would not have found the House debating Part 1 the following year—a part that includes a commencement date that is now retrospective. I say to Dr Cullen that we have people waiting in our area who want to see this bill passed and who have been writing to me asking why the Government does not get on with passing it. Now we find ourselves here not being able to get it passed tonight, because the Government has been hopelessly organised.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member but it is time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the Chair had actually left the chair, Dr Lockwood Smith had raised a point of order. I know that you were striding back, but I do not believe that the Chair had acknowledged that point of order. I happen to know what it was in relation to. It is a serious matter that reflects the honour of a member, and it appears to me that the Chair should not leave the chair if a point of order is being raised at the time.

Mr SPEAKER: The Chair had announced that the time had come to leave the chair, and she had left the chair.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.