Thursday, 20 March 2003

Thursday, 20 March 2003

Thursday, 20 March 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House, it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill, the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2), the Wine Makers Amendment Bill, and the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I wonder whether the Leader of the House might just tell the House when he expects that we might be in urgency. I understand it is not next week but the week after, but it would help us with our planning if he could confirm that. And is it likely just to go until 6 o’clock Friday?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I confirm that it is the Government’s intention at this point to take urgency the week after next. The House will lift by 6 p.m. Friday.

Points of Order

Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a serious question, on which I would like a considered ruling, in respect of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), which is to be dealt with as the first matter of business following question time. Your key function in Parliament is the protection of the rights of members and of the Opposition.

My concern is that we have a bill that, by its terms, is “virtually identical to the Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill (313-2)”. The same explanatory note states: “This new Bill is required to make sure the passage of the amendments through the House is as efficient as possible.”—that is, the Government does not wish to have the original bill, with 18 parts, which has been before the House for over 3 years, but prefers a new bill that has about 18 subparts. That seems to me just a technique for the Government to avoid proper scrutiny of a bill. It seems to me that a long-established principle of Parliament is that we cannot have two identical motions. If a member moves one motion, another member cannot move an identical motion. What we effectively have on the Order Paper now is two items on the agenda of the House that are identical. By the Government’s own words they are identical. If we are to allow the parliamentary process to be subverted in this way, we might as well have Saddam Hussein as our President.

Mr SPEAKER: The last comment, I think, is offensive and should be withdrawn. I want the last comment withdrawn.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: I intend to rule on the matter now, because I do not think the member will in any way be disadvantaged by what I say. I can rule on the point regarding Standing Order 100 at once, because this was briefly discussed at the Business Committee on Tuesday. The No. 2 bill is not the same in substance as the No. 1 bill when that bill received its first and second readings. The bill has been considerably changed since it went through those stages. However, the member has raised a very serious point. He has asked me to give a considered ruling, and I will give that consideration, and will rule in the House in due course.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to hear that you are doing that, but I think you should also, when you are doing it, realise what the opinions of other members of the House are. I just say that you have an obligation as Speaker to protect the rights of the minority. That is your oath.

Mr SPEAKER: Could the member please be seated for a moment. I advise members that I will give this 2 or 3 days before I rule. Any member can come and see me and give me his or her opinion about this matter. I do not think it needs to take up the time of the House, though, because members can write to me about it, and they will have every opportunity when I present my ruling.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Well, you have allowed me to complete my point, Mr Speaker, but I am afraid that waiting 3 days will not do. My understanding is that this matter is down on the Order Paper for today. It is the first item up. It is a direct challenge to the way in which business in this House is done. We are all aware of what has happened. The Government got a bill, then looked at it and realised that it had 18 parts. It decided to put the same bill forward, going through a travesty of pretending that it was a different bill, sending it to a select committee to come back within a week. It is now saying that it wants to debate that bill this afternoon. That bill has only two parts. In other words, it is not a halving of the discussion; it is bringing it down to about one-eighth of the discussion that we would otherwise have had. No doubt Mr Cullen was very angry when he realised that Parliament would have this opportunity to discuss it, but I think it would be appropriate for you, Mr Speaker, to suggest to the Government that it might like to put off the new Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) until you have had the 3 days that you need to decide that it is a travesty of this House for the Government to do such a thing.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): The actual issue that you are being asked to rule on, Mr Speaker, is more specific—that is, the question of Standing Order 100.

Hon Richard Prebble: No.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, that was the issue raised by Dr Smith. The primary issue was the question of whether the same motion was being moved. I suggest that he looks at his Hansard and see what he talked about for most of his point of order. That is the actual issue that involves the Standing Orders. The issue of the drafting of a bill, the way it is drafted, is not a matter for the Standing Orders; the matter of the motion is an issue for the Standing Orders. That Standing Order refers to a matter being proposed in the same calendar year—that is, in relation to a bill, a bill that received, or was defeated on, a first, second, or third reading. The bill that is on the Order Paper at present that is being superseded has not had a motion moved in relation to it this calendar year. It received its first reading—which is the motion being moved this afternoon in relation to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)—some considerable time ago. It was not even last year or the year before; I think it was in 1999. Therefore, Standing Order 100 does not apply. The motion being moved this afternoon is in relation to the first reading of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). No such motion has been moved this calendar year.

Mr SPEAKER: There are two issues here. In answer to the Hon Richard Prebble, I want to say that the Standing Orders do have some drafting requirements, and I will examine the bill to see whether they have been complied with, and I think the member wants me to do that. As far as the other issue is concerned, we are concerned with the first reading of a bill. We have not got anywhere near the Committee stage yet—that is somewhat further down the line—so I do not have to give an immediate ruling on this. I want to give it a bit of thought. The No. 2 bill may be similar now to the No. 1 bill, but the latter bill has been considerably changed since it was read a first time. Therefore, there is no prohibition on the No. 2 bill proceeding through its first reading. But members have raised those points about the drafting; I will have a look at them and come back to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want this to continue, because I have ruled on the matter and I will be coming back to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: But the fact remains, Mr Speaker, that the first item of business following question time is the first reading—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. I wonder whether the member listened to what I said. The first item of business is the first reading. It does not in any way connect itself with the Committee stage, which is somewhat considerably down the track. As far as the first reading is concerned, there is no Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling that prevents that from proceeding as the Government has set it down.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to both the comments made by Dr Cullen, and those made by yourself in your ruling. My point is that I do not believe it is proper for Parliament to debate this, but I just want to make clear that the bill did receive its second reading, according to the Parliamentary Bulletin. According to that official document of Parliament, the bill has had its second reading. The bill that is currently before Parliament is described as 313-2, and has been deemed, by the Government’s own admission, to be “virtually identical” to the other bill. So my question to you again is how this Parliament can debate a second bill that, by the Government’s own admission, is virtually identical to an item that is already on the Order Paper.

Mr SPEAKER: The second reading debate was 4 years ago, and the bill was amended thereafter. The bill was introduced under the old Standing Orders, before the new Standing Orders came in. It is a different bill now. I have no difficulty at all with the first part of the ruling, and that is that the first reading can proceed, and will.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this about the same matter?

JOHN CARTER: It is, but a different issue.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is a senior whip. I will let him have his point of order.

JOHN CARTER: I just wonder. You tell us that you are looking to rule on it in 3 or 4 days, and we thank you very much for that. It raises this issue: if your ruling is that what is happening is actually out of order, then the bill will not proceed, and the question that comes to my mind is why we would allow the bill to proceed now if, in due course, you may say that the Government’s action is inappropriate and the bill should not proceed. For that reason, I would suggest to you again that it might be appropriate for us to defer even the first reading until we find out what decision you take about it, because otherwise we will have gone halfway down and wasted the House’s time.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me say that that is perfectly correct, but that is the Government’s decision. It takes the decision as to whether it proceeds. It is entitled to proceed.

Questions for Written Answer

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to raise a serious issue that is continuing to get worse in this Parliament, in my view. It is the nature of answers to questions. I would like to take the time of the House to raise this with you, because it is illustrative of a terrible trend. I refer to my question for written answer No. 1663 to the Attorney-General, and it asks this—

Mr SPEAKER: I am perfectly happy for the member to come and see me about the matter, and then I can have a look at it. But this is Parliament’s time, and that is a written question. If the member has not had the answer on time, it is perfectly proper to raise that, and I will make sure it is on time.

RODNEY HIDE: It is a point of order of this House. It is a written question, but it is a parliamentary written question, and there is only one place that one can raise—

Mr SPEAKER: Carry on, then.

RODNEY HIDE: The question asks: “ … what court room experience did Judges Glazebrook, Keith, Blanchard and Hammond have before their appointment, and what were the dates of their appointments?”. That is a very straightforward question for the Attorney-General to answer. But the answer that came back through Parliament is this: “The information requested in this question is part of the public record.” That is it. The Attorney-General does not even advise what the public record is that tells people a judge’s courtroom experience. I would have thought that that was a totally inadequate answer. Maybe the Attorney-General does not know that there is no public record of judges’ courtroom experience.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has had his moment. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 130/4, which is going right back to Speaker Harrison in 1983: “A written answer is primarily a matter between the Minister and the member.” If the member has consulted the Minister, OK, then he can certainly consult me, and I will do my very best to make sure that he has a proper and accurate answer given.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very important matter. We will be moving to a new type of judiciary where the Government wants to appoint the whole of our new Court of Appeal. It is a matter of great interest to members of Parliament. So we have a perfectly respectable question put down to the Minister, asking what is a court record. There is no public record of attendance by lawyers. Maybe the Attorney-General, because she herself does not have much court experience, does not know that. But where else can we raise it but here? The only power that MPs really have is the ability to question the executive, but if the executive gives answers that are nonsense, what is the point of our having written questions at all?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two points. Firstly, we do have a weekly general debate where members can debate replies. That was how that debate originally came about. Secondly, I shall look at the point the member has raised, and I will come back to the House.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I said that I would look at the question.

RODNEY HIDE: Yes, but I raised this difficulty, you have assisted me many, many times before with written questions, you have always assisted me in a positive and helpful way, and I appreciate that, but it takes time. The reason Ministers dodge questions is to avoid time—

Mr SPEAKER: No, now the member is going too wide. I will give him every assistance. I always do.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Secretary to the Treasury—Appointment

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of State Services: When did the present Governor of the Reserve Bank leave the office of Secretary to the Treasury and why has the position of Secretary to the Treasury not been filled?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services): I am advised by the State Services Commissioner that Dr Bollard left the position of Secretary to the Treasury on 20 September 2002. The position was advertised the following month. I am advised by the commissioner that he will shortly be making a recommendation to fill that position.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that interviews in respect of that position were done some weeks ago, that one of the leading contenders is a former deputy director of the Labour Party research unit, and that is one of the reasons—[Interruption] Yes, he is. I have it all here in the CV. One of the contenders is a former deputy director of the Labour Party research unit. And is that one of the reasons the appointment has been so outrageously delayed?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am advised by the Minister of Finance that the person named may have at some stage been seconded to the Leader of the Opposition. However, I am not aware yet of the timing of the appointment. I am told that it will be shortly. I am certainly not aware of the name of any leading contender.

Dianne Yates: What steps were taken to attract applicants for the job?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The position was advertised in major New Zealand newspapers, the Australian Financial Review, and in The Economist. A search consultant was used to identify possible applicants, both here and overseas. I am advised by the State Services Commission that the time taken is not exceptional, particularly where filling a vacancy involves an international search.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister telling me that he and his colleagues are not aware that the present Acting Secretary to the Treasury was a former director of the Labour Party research unit, and is that the reason there has been such an extraordinary delay from September last year?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am somewhat at a disadvantage. I am not aware, and I will not become aware, until the State Services Commissioner advises me whom he intends to recommend.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the CV of Mr Whitehead, which sets out that he was a former deputy director of the Labour Party research unit.

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

Early Childhood Education—Funding

2. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Education: Why does the Government provide $8 million in equity funding to some community-based early childhood education providers, but not to privately-owned early childhood education providers?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): The purpose of equity funding is to compensate centres in areas of the highest need for the additional education requirements and the lower capacity for fund-raising in their communities. Funding is available only to community-based centres, as the Government can then be sure that all the extra funding is spent on children, and not used towards the profit of private individuals. In addition, where funding is used to improve the assets of an early childhood service, those assets belong to the community if the service closes.

Metiria Turei: While I strongly agree with the Minister’s answer, I must ask the Minister how he can justify the preferential funding of community-owned early childhood education, when this is clearly in breach of New Zealand’s current General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commitments made by the previous National Government.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is my understanding that it is not.

Jill Pettis: What additional funding is available to support parents from low-income families whose children attend early childhood services, including private centres?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The childcare subsidy provided through the Ministry of Social Development targets $55 million a year to parents in work with study, to help them offset costs of education and care.

Phil Heatley: Why does he not take the advice of his colleague John Tamihere, who says that status policies are wrong and foolish, and, instead, fund early childhood education on the basis of quality, not on who owns the centre?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Because this Government cares about quality of service, not about lining the pockets of individuals who want to take advantage of “Kentucky Fried Childcare”.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that rate 2 non-profit community-based early childhood providers are being funded at a rate of $3.07 per child per hour, while kindergartens are funded at a rate of $3.76, even though they teach the same curriculum, operate under the same Desirable Objectives and Practices, and may have equivalently qualified personnel; and does he believe this difference is fair?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There is a differential. Probably the most important factor is around the qualifications of the staff, and the payment that has been made for that.

Deborah Coddington: Why does the Minister not just concede that he has an ideological prejudice against private providers, and this Government cannot allow mums and dads to choose which early childhood centre they send their children to, just like they choose their general practitioners?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think the first part of the member’s question is accurate: I do have a preference for community-based childcare.

Metiria Turei: Further to the Minister’s answer to my first supplementary question, does the Minister not understand that our GATS commitments in private primary education services include early childhood, and mean that we are required to treat foreign-owned corporate early childhood education providers exactly the same as locally owned, community-owned providers?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, I do, and no, it does not.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but we have a difficult situation down this end of the House. Several times through the questions that have been asked Mr Mark Peck has shouted out abuse. I am sure you have not heard it, but in both cases it has interrupted the flow of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: When it gets to my attention the member will be leaving.

Rodney Hide: Well, I am bringing it to your attention.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, you have now, and I will be listening very carefully.

Metiria Turei: Will the Minister ensure that at Monday’s Cabinet GATS decision meeting, that decision will give effect to his statement made at the Hui Taumata Matauranga, just 2 weeks ago, that the Government intends to pull back New Zealand’s commitments in education so that community-owned early childhood education providers can be protected from foreign pillage?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I stand by the statement I made at the Hui Taumata Matauranga, and that is that this Government is involved in clarification of GATS commitments made by the previous Government to make it clear that both State and community education are protected.

Electricity—Supply

3. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: In light of reports that there is an electricity supply crisis in New Zealand, does he agree that a failure to act by the Government could result in significant damage to the economy; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes, but it is important not to jump at shadows. It is premature and unhelpful to talk of a crisis at this point.

Hon Bill English: What does the Minister say to the Engineers Union when Andrew Little, the national secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, put out a statement today saying: “We’ve got 350 workers at Pacific Steel mills sitting around twiddling their thumbs, and millions of dollars of plant sitting idle, because the spot prices are so erratic.”; and why is that not a crisis?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I always thank the Engineers Union for its strong and loyal support for the Labour Party whenever I am talking to its members. Secondly, I would be asking them whether this raises any questions about the nature of the electricity market, which, of course, is an interesting question to ask the members opposite.

David Parker: What steps is the Government taking in relation to the security of electricity supply?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Obviously it is monitoring the situation closely, and certainly trying to work out the likely shape of the supply situation, particularly for the coming winter, which relates largely to projected inflows to the southern lakes. The Minister of Energy is working closely with industry to be prepared to put in place options in the event of a shortage continuing through the winter.

Rod Donald: Does the Minister intend to act on the advice of the National Party energy spokesperson, Gerry Brownlee, who called last Monday for projects to develop renewable energy to be abandoned; if so, can he explain the logic of this approach, given the current shortage of gas?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, indeed I do not. As shareholding Minister in three of the State-owned enterprises, I can say that the Government is extremely keen on renewable energy projects. Indeed, projects ranging from Project Aqua through to wind energy give some of the highest prospects for meeting our energy needs over the next 3-year to 5-year period.

Hon Ken Shirley: What steps is the Minister and his Government taking to address the barriers posed by the Resource Management Act and the Department of Conservation for projects such as the expansion of the Arnold River project on the West Coast?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Apart from that project it would be hard to find any significant projects that have been held up, in the last 5 years or so, by anything relating to the Resource Management Act. Of course, that was not the matter of the Resource Management Act; that related more to the decision taken by a consenting authority that had to be involved—the Department of Conservation. I think what has to be said in that respect is that the nature of the modern energy market tends to lead to a situation where there is, perhaps, insufficient reserve capacity maintained, because commercially orientated producers do not wish to employ large amounts of excess capital most of the time. There is therefore a trade-off we have to consider, between somewhat higher average prices and higher security of supply.

Larry Baldock: Is the Minister concerned at the effect electricity blackouts or price hikes could have on New Zealand families this winter, such as, for example, elderly people who may have to limit their heating requirements; if so, what plans does the Government have to address it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, obviously that is a concern, but it is true to say that if one looks at the last 2 dry years, particularly 2001, and what is happening at the present time with Otahuhu B down for a few days and Huntly on half power, the primary impact is on business, because of the nature of the way the electricity market works. It actually works primarily to affect those large users of energy, rather than domestic consumers. Domestic consumers will be faced with requests for savings of the sort that occurred in 2001, should the dry year eventuate—which looks possible at this point.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm his earlier answer that the Government believes that electricity prices need to rise, to solve this problem?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is better not to paraphrase what I said, in what is a complex and difficult area of public policy. If we wish to maintain more reserve capacity—say, a one in 20 dry-year capacity—that inevitably means maintaining a higher level of capital invested with the industry than would otherwise occur, and that means, on average, somewhat higher prices than would otherwise be the case. But the lower prices are bought at the expense of very high volatility of prices, as we have seen in the last 48 hours.

Iraq—Emergency Assistance

4. MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: What, if any, emergency assistance will New Zealand make available to alleviate the human consequences of war in Iraq?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): New Zealand has today committed $3.3 million in emergency humanitarian relief, through United Nations agencies and other relief organisations, to address the human cost of a war with Iraq. The United Nations has warned that without immediate assistance from the international community, thousands of lives will be lost, not simply through war but through its consequences in preventing civilian access to food, clean water, sanitation, shelter, and medical assistance. Our initial commitment is aimed at addressing those concerns.

Martin Gallagher: How specifically has that money been allocated?

Hon PHIL GOFF: As indicated, the key needs of Iraqi people will be emergency shelter, food, and medical care, in an environment where, according to the United Nations, hundreds of thousands of people may be displaced, and infrastructure and services are likely to be destroyed. To help meet those needs New Zealand will be providing $1 million to the World Food Programme immediately, and half a million dollars each to the Red Cross, the United Nations Commission for Refugees, and the United Nations Children’s Fund. The balance of the initial funding will go to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the UN agency for demining, and to selected non-government agencies operating within Iraq.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Why has the New Zealand Government not considered providing the Army’s field hospital, which is trained for deployment and which did superb work in East Timor, to the “coalition of the willing” so they can now provide that essential humanitarian assistance?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Government has considered that, and it is a possibility at a later date. The first assistance that we will be giving will be emergency relief assistance. That is best provided by agencies already operating in and around Iraq that have a proven track record at delivering that assistance. Other forms of assistance will be considered subsequently by the Government.

Hon Richard Prebble: Can the Minister explain to the House why it is acceptable for the New Zealand Government to offer assistance to the people of Iraq after the war, but it is not acceptable to offer assistance to those same citizens to be liberated from a dictator who has killed 3 million people; and why is it not acceptable to join the 45 countries that are providing military, logistic, or public support to the US-led effort to enforce UN Resolution 1441?

Hon PHIL GOFF: We will be providing the assistance that I have outlined because the immediate consequence of the war will be that innocent people, who cannot be held responsible for the excesses of the Saddam regime, will suffer the consequences of such a war. Given the nature of the Saddam regime, this Government has been active in providing refuge in New Zealand to people from Iraq who have tried to escape that regime. Of course, the member is aware that there are many countries around the world with unacceptable human rights records. I am not aware that the world is going to war with all of those countries.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister expect that some of the human consequences referred to could be the result of the explicit targeting of the civilian infrastructure he just referred to, such as power stations or broadcasting facilities; if so, what is the Government doing to caution the United States against such targeting?

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is my understanding of the intentions of the countries that may be in conflict with Iraq that they will try to do minimum damage to key infrastructure, but, clearly, no matter how smart weapons are, they are not smart enough to stop human casualties and the subsequent cost of casualties. The United Nations estimate is that 600,000 to 1.4 million people may be made refugees, and another 2 million on a medium-level scenario of the war would be internally displaced. Clearly, that will involve huge human costs. We, and we hope the Americans and others involved, will be trying to minimise those costs.

Question No. 3 to Minister

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As soon as I am able I want the House to go back to the question previously to do with the issue of electricity. I seek leave to table a statement by Mr Gerry Brownlee, of 16 March, that was referred to in comments made by Rod Donald when Rod Donald quite inaccurately referred to the statement put out by Gerry Brownlee.

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

Question No. 4 to Minister

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I saw Mr Martin Gallagher go for a call. If it is acceptable for the National Party and other parties to take many calls, why are you limiting a Labour member?

Mr SPEAKER: Labour members are allocated one supplementary question per question, and that is the understanding they have. They do not have any other. If they seek leave to have one now, then they will miss one out in the future.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Some member of the Labour Party may have said that to you, but if an MP rises and goes for the call, then I think you are obliged to take that member. For all we know, Mr Gallagher may have a new view on Iraq and he should not be suppressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I decide who gets supplementary questions. It is done in a manner that has been established with each of the parties by way of discussion that I have had with them. Some members provide me with lists on how many supplementary questions they want on a particular question, and they can do it that way, but the general rule stands, and that is the way it is.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I want to contest what you have just said. You are now saying that you are in charge of discipline where the Labour Party is concerned. That is not the case. If that member wishes to rise and jeopardise the rest of question time by being undisciplined, that, nevertheless, is his entitlement.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to be seated. I will not have this way of dealing with questions. There is a standard way of dealing with questions, which I have adopted and discussed with each whip of each party. The member knows that I have discussed it with his whip and with the Labour whips. A pattern was established, and that is the way the pattern remains.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact remains that if an arrangement has been arrived at, in my view it is unofficial, it is not the way Parliament conducts democracy in Western society, anyway, and if that member seeks to raise a call, then he is entitled to it. He jeopardises his whole party arrangement; but it is not something that should be controlled by you but, rather, by the party itself. That is what happened here.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Gallagher is perfectly competent to raise a point of order about his non-call if he wishes. It is not for other members to intervene in this way.

Mori Sportscasting International—Function

ā

5. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Did any of his Ministerial staff attend the awards dinner on 6 July 2002 in their role as commentators for Māori Sportscasting International; if so, what action has he taken, given that he told this House yesterday that he did not believe Te Puni Kōkiri’s expenditure on the dinner acceptable?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes, one of my staff attended the awards dinner in a private capacity. As signalled yesterday in the House, I have communicated in writing my concerns to the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri.

Rodney Hide: Has the Minister any concerns over how Mr Hemana Waaka has been paying back civil servants, politicians, and their staff—especially as he pays his “volunteer sportscasters” under the counter, through TAB accounts, to dodge tax—or will Miss Gail Parata be pushed out of the Minister’s office, just like Mr Te Rangi was, to save the skins of those higher up the food chain?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: No.

Mita Ririnui: What was the purpose of the training development wānanga held by Māori Sportscasting International Ltd?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am advised that the purpose of the wānanga was to train staff in the use of the different broadcasting equipment, and in commentating and reporting techniques. A lot of those members who attended did so in a voluntary capacity, like several other Māori around the country.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister think it is appropriate that Te Puni Kōkiri should undertake the review of Te Māngai Pāho’s funding of Māori Sportscasting International, when it has also funded the same organisation to the material benefit of three Ministers and their staff, and why does he not call in the Auditor-General and have a proper clean-up?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There will be a proper clean-up. There is an independent person in the make-up of the three-party group that will review this whole exercise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister spoken to the Minister about his performance on this and other issues, or is it the case that in her administration there is one standard for certain Ministers, and any old standard where Māori Ministers are concerned?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Prime Minister talked to me on several occasions. I am not afraid of being Māori, unlike some other Māori in this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister of Māori Affairs describe or name those Māori members to whom he refers?

Mr SPEAKER: Did the member want a supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought he was raising a point of order. I should have called another member ahead of him, but as he is on his feet, I will allow him to ask a supplementary question.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought the member was raising a point of order, because it is absolutely out of order to reflect on the character of any member. I am not aware of which Māori member the Minister of Māori Affairs was referring to, but to say that someone is afraid to be Māori is, clearly, a grossly insulting statement. I object on behalf of whoever the member is whom the Minister referred to.

Mr SPEAKER: Objection has been taken. I ask the Minister to withdraw his comment.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister had any cause to talk to the Minister about this particular issue; if so, what was the comment she left with him as to his performance on it?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I remind the member that this is an operational matter at this stage. I have responsibilities here that I manage like every other responsibility in this portfolio.

Rodney Hide: When did the Minister find out that his executive assistant was working for Māori Sportscasters International as a commentator, and that she had been flown to Auckland for the old-fashioned booze-up at the expense of Māori Sportscasters International, via Te Puni Kōkiri, and what did he do when he found out about it?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I found that out recently, but details regarding all the people whose airfares were paid for were tabled in a public report on 6-8 July 2002. The staff member in question continually does that, along with a whole lot of other volunteers.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] They do not like it, do they?

Mr SPEAKER: That is one all, and that is where it stops.

Hon Dover Samuels: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I raise an issue to do with the supplementary question that was asked by Rodney Hide, implying that some politicians have been paid in terms of the original question? I believe that impacts on all politicians in this House, and I challenge Rodney Hide to get up and name the politicians whom he is implying were paid.

Mr SPEAKER: I am ready to help the member. The meaning of the word “politician” is much wider than just members of Parliament, but if Rodney Hide was making any comment about any current member of Parliament, he will stand and withdraw that comment.

Rodney Hide: What am I withdrawing and apologising for?

Mr SPEAKER: I said that if the member had made any comment denigrating any member of Parliament, in the supplementary question he asked—and I am not talking about the use of the word “politician”, because that term has a wider meaning than just a member of Parliament—

Rodney Hide: I didn’t.

Mr SPEAKER: He did not? Right.

Hon Dover Samuels: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually wrote down what the member said, and he referred to politicians, and, in terms of the supplementary question, he was referring to the politicians in this House. I am asking Rodney Hide whether he is telling the truth, and, if he has got the guts, to name the politicians.

Mr SPEAKER: First of all, the member made an offensive reference to another member of this House. He will now stand and withdraw and apologise for that comment.

Hon Dover Samuels: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Secondly, I have been told by Mr Hide, quite specifically, that he was not referring to a member of this—

Rodney Hide: No, I didn’t say that.

Mr SPEAKER: This is just trifling with me now. I asked the member a particular question. The word “politician” goes much wider than members of this House. I asked the member whether he had been referring to any particular member of this House. Did he say yes or—

Rodney Hide: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I want the member to answer my question.

Rodney Hide: I am not answering a yes or no question, because you have changed the question. The question you asked me, Mr Speaker, as Hansard will reflect, was whether I was denigrating any MP. No. My question was this, and let me read it to the House for Mr Samuels’ benefit: “ ... how Mr Hemana Waaka has been paying back civil servants, politicians, and their staff”. “Paying back” does not mean just money; it means having a dinner and a booze-up.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member has made that comment. He has assured me that he meant it in that way, and, of course, the member’s word will be accepted. Did the member want to ask a supplementary question?

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When Mr Dover Samuels sat down, he suggested that one of the people who had gone to the booze-up was Richard Prebble. I most certainly did not. I understand that Dover Samuels went, but I certainly did not.

Hon Dover Samuels: Mr Speaker, I know that you have wide interpretations about the description that was made, in terms of the implication by Rodney Hide in his identification of politicians, but I ask you to think again. In the context of his supplementary question he was talking about politicians being paid. I think it is incumbent upon that member, if he is actually telling the truth to this House, to identify who the politicians are in terms of his question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have—

Rodney Hide: I am happy to.

Hon Dover Samuels: The member should get up or shut up.

Rodney Hide: I am very happy to name the politicians. The ones who have been paid back are Mr Dover Samuels, who was invited along for a knock-up dinner and a booze-up, and his entourage; Mr John Tamihere, who was invited for dinner and a booze-up, along with his entourage; and then we find out today that staff members of the Minister, Parekura Horomia—whose department oversaw the $10,000 grant—also got a knock-up dinner and a booze-up. I am sorry, but in common parlance that is referred to as the payback.

Hon Dover Samuels: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask for your considered ruling in terms of the very wide, loose, gruesome explanation or interpretation that Rodney Hide has placed on that. When one is responding and saying that somebody is being paid, I take that as meaning remuneration in the form of money, and not in the fact that we were invited to a dinner, so I ask for—[Interruption] Absolutely I was there, and I will front up.

Mr SPEAKER: I have called for order. Please be seated. The member has asked me to look at the transcript—well, I presume he has asked me to have a look at the words. I will certainly examine the transcript.

Rodney Hide: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: A supplementary question?

Rodney Hide: I am just trying to work it out. I have lost count. Have I had two supplementary questions yet, Mr Speaker? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I have now had enough, and I am going to impose a lot stricter discipline than I have done. I do not like doing this, but I am going to impose it from now on, today. The member may, of course, have up to three or four more supplementary questions, and then for the rest of question time his party would get none. He has had two supplementary questions. If he wants a third then he is, of course, entitled to take it.

Supreme Court—Judicial System

6. MURRAY SMITH (United Future) to the Attorney-General: Does she consider the proposed Supreme Court will improve the quality of New Zealand’s judicial system?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General): Yes.

Murray Smith: Given that the proposed Supreme Court is going to comprise five senior New Zealand judges, who presumably are, or could have become, Court of Appeal judges, with the Court of Appeal reduced from five to three judges, is her proposal not simply a renaming of the Court of Appeal and the creation of a new, intermediate appeal court; if so, how will that improve the quality of our judicial system?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: There is no proposal to reduce the number of members on the Court of Appeal at this stage. My understanding is that it will remain exactly the same as it is.

Russell Fairbrother: Has the Minister received any reports on the quality of the proposed Supreme Court?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Yes. Senior law lord Lord Steyn, in his talk at Victoria University, said: “The Privy Council is going to be replaced by a Supreme Court of the highest calibre, a court capable of delivering justice in accordance with the law at the highest level.”

Richard Worth: How can the Attorney-General possibly claim that her new local court will improve our judicial system when the legal profession does not agree with her—which is why the Auckland District Law Society recently passed a unanimous motion calling for appeals to the Privy Council to be retained—and when the Privy Council has proved the Court of Appeal wrong in seven out of the last 11 cases?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The Auckland District Law Society recently had its annual general meeting, which 55 members out of 3,600, or 1.5 percent, attended; they passed the resolution. So, in effect, 1.5 percent of those members passed that resolution.

Opposition Member: It was unanimous.

Hon MARGARET WILSON: It was unanimous for 1.5 percent.

Mr SPEAKER: I have said that there will now be a lot fewer interjections. The Minister is giving an answer, and unless she gets strictly political, when, of course, comments can be made, I want the answer to be heard in relative silence.

Dail Jones: In the light of the fact that the Attorney-General is the principal law officer of this Parliament, can she tell the House how many years of legal practice in court she has had, and what type of cases she undertook in court?

Mr SPEAKER: No. That question is wide of the mark and does not need to be answered.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely we are talking about the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council, which are court-based. This is the principal law officer of Parliament, and the House and the country are entitled to know what experience this person has to make this type of decision. It is a very simple question based on the important factors of appeals to the Privy Council and practice in court.

Mr SPEAKER: No. That is a different question and should be put down as such.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Why does the Minister not let the people of New Zealand decide whether the change will improve or damage our judicial system, by a referendum on this vital constitutional matter?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: This matter has been decided in similar jurisdictions. There has never been a referendum. The matter has been one of debate and discussion in New Zealand for over 30 years. Part of the process at the moment was that in December 2000 a discussion paper was put out, and since then debate and discussion have been going on, as is happening at the moment, with the matter being referred to the select committee, which I think is the most qualified body to be able to make a recommendation on that.

Murray Smith: How does transferring our judges from the first tier of our appellate structure into the second, leaving the Court of Appeal under-resourced for its heavier workload, somehow improve the quality of our judicial system?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The Court of Appeal will not be left under-resourced.

Dail Jones: In view of her answer that the Justice and Electoral Committee is the group that is qualified to make this decision, is she saying that she herself has no qualifications to make it?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: No, I am merely following correct parliamentary process. As you know, as a member of that committee, the bill has been referred to that committee for submissions to be heard. I know you will hear them with an open mind, and will then debate the matter and report it back here.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will hear them with an open mind, not me.

Murray Smith: If New Zealand and the Caribbean countries withdraw from the Privy Council, removing 60 percent of its workload, what consideration has the Minister given to the fate of all the other small Commonwealth countries that continue to be dependent on the Privy Council for the final right of appeal; or does she not care about them?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Of course we care. We are a very caring Government. But they are independent, sovereign countries. I think there will be four left. They very rarely use their access to the Privy Council, but I am sure they are quite capable of speaking for themselves and addressing that issue with the Lord Chancellor.

Question time interrupted.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I have received reports, which other members may be getting, that apparently hostilities may have broken out. That is not confirmed yet. President Bush is addressing the United States in about half an hour. I anticipate the Prime Minister coming down to the House to make a ministerial statement once those matters are confirmed.

Question time resumed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Slightly Offbeat Productions—Debt

7. KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What information has he received regarding allegations that Slightly Offbeat Productions, a company which has received $400,000 from Te Māngai Pāho to dub Canadian cartoons into Māori, has unpaid bills of between $70,000 and $80,000, and what assurances can he give this House that Te Māngai Pāho is effectively monitoring the expenditure of taxpayers’ money?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I have been advised by Te Māngai Pāho that it is currently reviewing this matter. I have also been advised by my officials that Te Māngai Pāho’s funding agreements specifically for the production of radio and television programmes contain terms and conditions for monitoring and evaluating expenditure on agreed contractual outputs.

Katherine Rich: Is the Minister aware that a number of people involved in the production of the TV programme Te Wero, produced by Dreamtime Entertainment for the Māori Television Service, are still waiting for payment for services 4 months after they finished work on production; and given that this is another example of a company receiving Te Māngai Pāho funding that has not paid all its bills, will the Minister be investigating just what is going on with accountability?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Yes, most certainly.

Dr Muriel Newman: What weight can we give to the Minister’s assurances that Te Māngai Pāho is effectively monitoring the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, in the light of a string of disasters like the John Davy affair, the “stop the Māori party” Derek Fox appointment, the convicted fraudster sportscaster scandal, and now the spending of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on converting Canadian cartoons into Māori?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I think this very exciting, innovative progress is something that member should learn about. Certainly I can assure the member that accountabilities are being pushed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the thousands of Māori who suffer from ill health and bad housing, does he think it is a sensible use of taxpayers’ money to have $400,000 and sums like that spent on converting cartoons, when there is so much real need out in the Māori world; and why does he not do something about that?

Mr SPEAKER: The first two questions can be answered.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I assure the member that I want to do something about it. I also remind him that 40 percent of our people are under the age of 15, and 70 percent are under the age of 25 years. He never cared about those people when he was in Government for 9 years. I can assure the House that this Government is doing a good job about caring about Māori people.

Katherine Rich: After a week when we have heard about the employment and resignation of a convicted fraudster, staff kickbacks, training money that was spent on flash dinners where the only capacity building seemed to be to Minister’s waistlines—

Mr SPEAKER: No, that question will not be allowed. The member has gone too far. I am ruling out that question. It is a personal reflection on members.

Hon Dover Samuels: I seek leave to re-table a statement made by the director of Māori Sportscasting International in which he states that no donations whatsoever were received from MPs—myself or the Hon John Tamihere—in relation to that function.

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

Katherine Rich: I seek leave to put my question again.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection? There is.

Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table a series of pictures of the drinks and other things enjoyed by Mr Dover Samuels and Mr John Tamihere on 6 July 2002.

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

Katherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. It is not usual that questions I have delivered in this House are ruled out of order. May I seek another call? I will certainly rephrase the question in a way that is parliamentary.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will have an opportunity on another day. I agree that the member is very rarely out of order in this regard, but on this occasion I had given a warning, the member was out of order, and I ruled accordingly.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw to your attention that the National Party did not seek a call on question No. 1. Therefore, we have not used the allocation. According to your own approach to allocating questions, Katherine Rich could take a call.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised an interesting point. I have consulted my chart and he is correct. Therefore, the question can proceed as another supplementary question, but it is the third one on this question, and that, of course, means that there will be only one supplementary question on the other questions.

Katherine Rich: After a week when we have heard about the employment and resignation of a convicted fraudster, staff kickbacks, training money being spent on flash dinners, and Te Māngai Pāho – funded companies not paying their bills, does the Minister still have confidence in the chief executive of Te Māngai Pāho; if so, why?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: At this stage, yes, and everything is under review.

Imports—Irradiated Fruit

8. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for Food Safety: Why did New Zealand accept a variation to the Australian New Zealand Food Standard code that will allow irradiated mango, papaya, mangosteen, litchi, breadfruit, carambola, custard apple and rambutan to be imported into New Zealand? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I warn members that my patience has ended and there will be no interjections during question time when a member is asking a question. In our society, members are perfectly entitled to ask a question and to be heard.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety): The decision was made for phytosanitary purposes. Food safety was the prime factor in the assessment process. The process was very thorough and included a Food Standards Australia New Zealand project team, a reference group of stakeholders, and access to experts in the area of food irradiation. It was a lengthy process over a number of years.

Sue Kedgley: Did the lengthy and considered process take into account the recent French-German research that found that chemicals formed during irradiation of certain foods, including tropical fruit like mango, may cause colon cancer and DNA damage; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It looked at a variety of research, particularly by the World Health Organization, which said that irradiation was an acceptable means to improve food safety.

Dave Hereora: How are decisions such as the decision to support the irradiation standard reached?

Hon ANNETTE KING: When the Government accepts a standard, it takes account of robust, science-based advice when making those decisions.

Shane Ardern: Does the Minister think that banning all exports and imports into New Zealand, banning any contact with the World Trade Organization, and stopping all other major transactions either domestically or internationally, as is promoted by the Green Party, would improve food safety in New Zealand?

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has made an incorrect statement suggesting that I am calling for the banning of all exports and imports into New Zealand and suchlike, which I have never done.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s word will be accepted. The rest of the question can be answered.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I do not think there is a question if that is taken away.

Sue Kedgley: Why is the Government trying to change the international standard on food irradiation at a Codex meeting in Tanzania today, to try to remove any limits on the dose of irradiation that may be applied to food so that food producers will be able to irradiate food, such as tropical fruit, as much as they like, with no questions asked?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The New Zealand position on the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants is to support a proposal to replace a maximum dose, currently at 10 kilogreys, with permission to use a minimum dose, to be able to achieve microbial decontamination. For example, for tropical fruit it will be 1 kilogrey—not endless, but 1 kilogrey—but for herbs and spices the use is 30 kilogreys, and that dose would be sufficient for the treatment, but it would be less than anything that could affect wholesomeness and quality. Along with Codex we are asking to enable the right level to be used. Of course, if we do not use irradiation, I presume the member continues to support the use of ethylene oxide and methyl bromide, both of which have very bad effects, not only on the environment but also on the health of the people who eat the food that have been treated by such chemicals.

Shane Ardern: Does the Minister think that if we were to consume nothing but New Zealand grown organic food we would improve food safety in New Zealand?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I would suspect that if we had to rely on New Zealand organic-grown food we would probably starve. There would not be enough of it.

State Sector—Employees

9. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Minister of State Services: Is he satisfied that all State sector employees are treated in an equal manner with respect to employment issues?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services): State servants’ employment conditions are a matter for their individual employer. I would expect employers to treat their employees according to the conditions set out in individual or collective agreements.

Pita Paraone: Is the Minister concerned that we could feasibly have 180 repeats of the situation currently facing the Taranaki District Health Board, where the chief executive officer, John O’Neill, is taking unlimited sick leave at a cost of over $5,000 per week to the district health board, which is receiving no extra funding as a result; or does he deny any responsibility over the matter, as his colleague the Minister of Health has done on several occasions?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Trevor Mallard can deal with the matters for which he, as Minister, is responsible.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The provision in question has been standard in chief executive contracts in the wider State sector and has operated in, I understand, over 300 employment contract agreements without difficulty. Of course, the commission continually evaluates developments in employment law and practice, and will review the chief executive model employment agreements when necessary.

Tim Barnett: Does the State Services Commissioner employ any State sector employees?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, but very few.

Shane Ardern: In the light of the Minister’s answer, how is it that a request made to the Taranaki District Health Board by its chief executive—who is on sick leave after being suspended while overseas on honeymoon—for information around the accusation in regard to his employment issue has still not been furnished, or he has had no information on that matter? How is that?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think the member knows that it would be absolutely inappropriate for me to comment on an individual case. I submit to the House that it is also unwise of him.

Sue Bradford: What commitment does the Minister have to reducing the pay gap in the public sector, whereby in 2001 male managers earned on average $65,000 a year, and female managers $54,000, according to a human resources capability survey of public service departments?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is not a problem that I have noticed in our Cabinet.

Judy Turner: Can the Minister explain, in the light of the State Services Commissioner’s statement to the Government Administration Committee that he did not endorse unlimited sick leave and it was being phased out, why it is still included in the standard contract offered to new district health board chief executives, which can be found on the commission’s website?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: As I indicated earlier, practices and law are looked at carefully by the State Services Commissioner, and draft contracts—which are the responsibility, of course, of the boards, when they are signed, not of the commissioner—are updated regularly.

Government Information and Services—Access

10. HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) to the Minister of State Services: What steps are being taken to ensure that accessing Government information and services online will be secure for members of the public?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services): I have released a discussion document seeking public feedback on four models of authentication. We need to ensure that people registering to use an online service are genuinely who they say they are, and that they are secure in knowing that they are genuinely dealing with a Government agency online.

Helen Duncan: Will authentication be required by members of the public in order to access every Government service?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, the e-government portal launch late last year provides a one-stop shop for more than 3,500 Government services. The State Service Commission estimates that around one-third of services that become available will need some form of authentication—for example, registering a birth, making an accident compensation claim, getting a replacement driver’s licence. The idea of authentication is not new. People have had to do it for years in order to join libraries, apply for passports, or join up to a bank online.

Question No. 11 to Minister

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When I submitted this question this morning I specifically wanted to know the opinion of the Minister of Health, Annette King. I note now that it has been changed to the Associate Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: That is the right of the Government, and that must be the responsibility he has been delegated by the Minister. Please ask the question.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): I seek leave to ask question No. 11 of the Minister of Health.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to ask question No. 11. Is there any objection? There is objection. Please ask the question as stated.

Smoking—Ban

11. Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does he support the banning of smoking in all pubs, clubs and RSAs as recommended in the Health Committee’s report on the Smokefree Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, because 4,700 New Zealanders die each year from smoking-related illnesses and a further 388 from second-hand smoke. My goal as Minister responsible for tobacco control is to reduce those tragic figures significantly.

Hon David Carter: Is the Minister aware that his colleagues, including Ministers, are already telling the hospitality industry that the bill will be considerably softened, and does he support that approach?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No, I am not aware. While I have seen such claims made in the media, this is a member’s bill, not a Government bill. Any MP can move amendments to the bill and they will be assessed by the House on their merits. I expect that members will take up that opportunity when the bill is in the Committee stage.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why can the Minister and his colleagues not keep their big noses out of the ordinary lives of New Zealanders, particularly the downtrodden, working-class people who used to vote Labour, and why are those attitude cops so beset with stopping ordinary New Zealanders getting on with their lives?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: This Government cares about the people of New Zealand. If we were to ignore the road toll in this country and not take any action, we would be deemed negligent. If we were to ignore the outrageous and tragic figures from smoking in this country, we would be deemed negligent also.

Heather Roy: Why does the Minister not concede—

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry. There is something wrong with the member’s microphone. Perhaps she could start again. Members should just be a little more sensible.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did hear her and she was out of order in her initial comments. Perhaps you could give her some guidance.

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly be listening. If there is anything that is out of order, the member will not be proceeding with the question. Please ask the question inside the Standing Orders.

Heather Roy: Why does the Minister not concede that that ban is just pandering to Labour voters, and that it will have a devastating effect on sporting clubs, workingmen’s clubs, and Returned Services Associations—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER:. I will now ask the member to start again.

Heather Roy: Why does the Minister not concede that this ban is just pandering to the chardonnay socialists and will have a devastating effect on sporting clubs—

Mr SPEAKER: No. That was not the question asked by the member that I heard. The member talked about Labour voters, or something like that. She is now getting into the area of adding in material so as not to render the question effective. I will give her one more go. Please ask the question, and I will not have any interjection.

Heather Roy: Why does the Minister not concede that this ban is just pandering to Labour voters and will have a devastating effect on sporting clubs, workingmen’s clubs, and Returned Services Associations, and is a blatant attack on the freedom and choice of law-abiding New Zealanders?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I do not agree with that member. I remind her that the bill was heard by the select committee, and there were 397 submissions. The changes made to the bill were made unanimously. Members on the select committee included two from National, one from New Zealand First, one from ACT, one from the Greens, alongside those from the Labour Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Labour Party seem obsessed with attacking the hard-working men and woman of this country, many of whom have very few pleasures, including smoking, and if that is the case, why stop with smoking; why do we not have one on eating, for example, or lack of exercise?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are a Government that is prepared to facilitate hard calls to protect our people when necessary. This is a member’s bill, and that member’s party voted for this bill to go to a select committee, and all the changes were made unanimously.

Heather Roy: I seek leave to table the report of the bill that shows that ACT New Zealand submitted a minority report on the bill. The Minister said it was unanimously supported; it was not.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have a point of clarification. I did not refer to the report. I referred to the bill itself and the changes made that were supported unanimously.

Mr SPEAKER: But leave was sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon David Carter: What reports has the Minister commissioned to establish the adverse economic impacts that this legislation will have on our tourism and hospitality industries, as evidenced by the fall in Sky City shares yesterday?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The international evidence that we have for such moves made in a number of countries, including Ireland, Norway, and more particularly in the state of California, indicates that over time there is no adverse effect on businesses.

Child Pornography—Imports

12. DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) to the Minister of Customs: What is the Government doing about the importation of objectionable materials such as child pornography into New Zealand?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs): The Government is committed to wiping out any trade in material depicting the abuse and degradation of children, including its importation. I am heartened to report that the first sentence of imprisonment under section 209 of the Customs and Excise Act was recently handed down in the Tokoroa District Court to John William Noble. This man got 8 months for importing, via his laptop computer, 3,698 images and 43 movie files of children involved in sexual acts. This included the abuse of toddlers and children under 5. Additionally, the New Zealand Customs Service has a number of other prosecutions awaiting trial, with imprisonment again being a potential outcome.

Darren Hughes: What power does the New Zealand Customs Service have to stop the trade of such material in and out of New Zealand, especially with the wide and relatively unrestrained use of the Internet?

Hon RICK BARKER: In the case of John Noble, his successful prosecution under New Zealand legislation was a result of a contract with US Customs where he was identified as part of the US Customs sting to capture traders in such objectionable material via the Internet. This Government moved swiftly last year to amend the Customs and Excise Act to give such material imported by electronic transmission, such as over the Internet, the same status as objectionable material in hard copy form.

Shane Ardern: In the light of the Minister’s answer, and the Minister of Justice stating on 5 March that most of the trade in this material is via the Internet, when will the Customs Service implement the measures that the Minister just spoke of?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am glad to assure the member that the Customs Service has a high level of expertise in this area. We are developing and expanding our ability for encryption, forensic investigation, and our contacts with the US and other customs agencies, and I am very confident that we will see a huge improvement in our success rate in this area.

Marc Alexander: Does the Minister consider legislation clarifying the rules in interpreting objectionable material, such as the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Meaning of Objectionable) Amendment Bill, would be useful in the prohibition of such material?

Hon RICK BARKER: The Government will be supporting that bill to the select committee, but I need to advise the House and the member that the Government is planning a wider range of changes, particularly in the area of penalties.

Questions to Members

Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2)—Dog Control

1. DAIL JONES (NZ First) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: What meetings have been held by the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) concerning dog control, since it was referred back to the committee?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): The bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 18 February 2003. At that time the committee was up against tight statutory deadlines to report the financial reviews. On 6 March the committee met to consider the bill and received a briefing from officials. We have today released a statement outlining our intentions regarding progressing the bill.

Dail Jones: Does she have any indication, as chairperson of the committee, as to when the committee is likely to consider submissions on the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2)?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: The committee has been advised that Government officials are seeking further information, particularly the views of all district councils on the bill and on possible methods of dog control. The officials are preparing recommendations on measures that go beyond what is currently in the bill. This may take the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. The committee has resolved to seek public submissions as soon as that information is available to us so that the public may comment on those further proposals.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that the Minister of Local Government said that he would be introducing changes within weeks, and that it is now 3 weeks since the tragic incident involving the girl in Auckland, has the committee had any indication as to when it will receive amendments from the Government to the dog control laws?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: The committee has been advised that the Minister is likely to be considering the recommendations of officials by the end of March, which is very soon. We expect a briefing very promptly after that, and we will then be able to proceed with the bill.

Ministerial Statements

Iraq—Military Action

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): This afternoon President Bush has announced that military action against Iraq is commencing. The Government reiterates here its profound regret that the diplomatic process being conducted in the Security Council, and through the inspection and disarmament process, was unable to run its course. New Zealand strongly backed the work of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, including by sending 13 military personnel to support the weapons inspection team. We continue to hold the view that the inspection process was making good headway, and it is unfortunate that the UN Security Council was unable to agree on its continuation. We have consistently said that only through full compliance with the demands of the Security Council could Iraq have avoided the catastrophe of war.

The fact that Iraq failed to take the opportunity provided to it to cooperate fully with the inspection and disarmament process means that the Iraqi people now face the prospect of serious hardship. The Iraqi leadership must take its full share of responsibility for that. Now that military action has commenced, we clearly have a concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people. For that reason, the sooner that the military action is over, the better it will be. It is the strong wish of the New Zealand Government that peace is restored as quickly as possible, and that the issue of the next steps over Iraq is swiftly brought back into the multilateral arena. At the end of this conflict, which I very much hope will indeed be short, the international community must be ready to contribute to the rebuilding and reconstruction of Iraq, and to humanitarian relief. The Government has this afternoon indicated that it will participate fully in reconstruction and humanitarian efforts, within the umbrella of the multilateral system. Funds have already been pledged to relevant UN agencies, and consideration will be given to whatever further contribution New Zealand can make to the post-conflict challenges that Iraq will face.

The international community was, regrettably, unable to reach common agreement on the best means for disarming Iraq. It is, however, important that the international community now finds a way to come together at the end of this conflict, in order to meet the needs of the Iraqi people for humanitarian relief and for reconstruction. New Zealand will play its part in that process.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): It is with profound regret that we see hostilities have begun in Iraq. Our hopes are with the innocent Iraqi men, women, and children who are caught up in this war—a war that, as the Prime Minister notes, could have been avoided at any time if the leadership of that country had chosen to comply fully with the demands of the international community.

The beginning of these hostilities reminds us of the destruction and suffering that goes with war, and it reminds us again, if we need it, of the seriousness of contemplating the use of war. The process of disarmament that showed some signs of beginning was only proceeding because of the serious threat of the war that has now begun. We share with the Government the wish that this war will come to a swift end.

The Prime Minister has remarked on the contributions the Government intends to make on behalf of New Zealand in the post-war period. We ask that the Government consider now the early deployment of the resources, particularly the medical resources, that it has already promised for the period after the war.

The participants in this war—our friends the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia—have made undertakings about the way in which they intend to conduct this war. It is to be conducted in a way that is highly targeted on Saddam Hussein and his military capacities, and in a way that will minimise civilian casualties. Today we leave with them, our friends, the hope that they will be able to meet those undertakings.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to convey our deep sense of sadness at what we all understood was predictable and certain, but, in fact, has come into being. We note, alongside the Prime Minister, the degree of responsibility that the leadership of the Iraq nation has to take, in terms of the consequences of the decisions that have been made. We hope, I am sure along with all the other members of this House, that the action will be short, the casualties will be minimal, and the harm will be small. We also concur with the Prime Minister that our responsibility now is to take our place in working alongside other nations in a multilateral fashion, to ensure that the harm that will inevitably occur will be able to be rectified when the conflict concludes.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): The ACT party strongly supports the actions that the United States, Britain, and Australia are taking right now to enforce United Nations Resolution 1441 for Iraq to disarm. By taking that action, those countries are making New Zealand, and the world, a safer place. We say to the people of Iraq: “Your hour of liberation is now at hand”.

But I say to this House that our irrelevance is demonstrated by this debate. We all know that the Prime Minister learnt of the actions in Iraq in the same way that I did: she watched it on CNN. We are no longer a relevant player in the world; we are just a commentator. Regrettably, New Zealand is no longer part of the “coalition of the willing”—those nations that have been prepared to take action to uphold liberty. I say to the Prime Minister that it is pleasing that she will give some assistance after the war, but we should be giving assistance now. That is when we were asked for it. That is when the people of Iraq really need it. That is when the world needs it.

We need now to turn our attention to the post - Saddam Hussein world that is coming rapidly towards us—a world with a United Nations that is not prepared to enforce its own resolutions, a world where old alliances are now gone, and a world where we are not one of the 35 nations prepared to take action for the freedoms and values that this country believes in.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): On behalf of the nine Green members, the wider Green Party, and the thousands of New Zealanders who have been calling for peace and reason over recent months, I want to record our grief and our anger at the attack on Baghdad that has just begun. Our first thoughts are for the Iraqi people, weakened from two wars and from many years of sanctions that have denied them even the basics of life. None of us, and none of those planning this war, have ever experienced the horrors they are about to inflict on others. It is not within the power of the Iraqi people, who will suffer from this attack, to cooperate or to not cooperate with the weapons inspectors.

Our second thoughts are for the systems of international law and agreement that are so seriously undermined by this action. The charter of the United Nations, which holds that force must be the very last resort, has been undermined. In its place we have a new doctrine of first strike, without any immediate threat and without international agreement. I fear we are entering a new dark age in international relations, which may undo what has been achieved with such difficulty and so tentatively in the last 50 years. I call on the Prime Minister to ensure that our frigate does not assist in any way with the US-led war. I would also like her to make our grief and our anger known to the diplomatic representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, and to play our part in initiating a special session of the United Nations General Assembly to condemn this “coalition of the killing”.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): On behalf of the United Future party I rise to speak on this very, very solemn occasion, when action has indeed begun in Baghdad. Many, many words have been said for many, many months, but right now the time for those words has inevitably come to an end. The people who are going to be affected are the people who, right now, are within the arena of the war zone—the Iraqi people, and the valiant and brave soldiers of the “coalition of the willing” who are seeking to implement change within Iraq. It is very clear that when people do not live by good principles—by democratic principles—suffering occurs in the world. It is our wish right now, as members of the United Future party, to join in prayer with people of all faiths around the world, and to pray that the suffering that will be inflicted in that area will be short and that the outcomes will be worthwhile for the people of Iraq and for the peace and safety of the world in the future.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): The Progressive party deplores the fact that a military juggernaut is descending upon the people of Iraq. In March 2002 I had the honour to be the New Zealand Minister at the development and financing conference in Mexico. The powers that are now descending on Iraq could not find the money to meet the needs of the people of Iraq and all the other millions of people around the world who need action on underdevelopment. Now, they have money in abundance to take a military juggernaut against the very people who symbolise the suffering of people throughout the world. At that very conference were the assembled dictators who receive money, arms, and financing for the oppression of their people. Also at that conference were the representatives of Israel, which at this very moment is continuing to remove the Palestinians from their lands, and which has been armed with weapons of mass destruction and is carrying out terrible crimes against the people of Palestine.

History has a way of bringing down harsh judgments. As I have said many times in this House, a judgment upon those responsible for putting Saddam Hussein in power, and for giving him the weapons to oppress his own people and to launch war against Iran, is now coming home to haunt those who have launched this war against Iraq.

I can only say that we must redouble our efforts in Government to put New Zealand at the forefront of genuine disarmament and genuine development. Firstly, I ask this House to consider giving support to the Government to get in behind the Government of South Africa, which has asked that the world urgently consider linking disarmament with development. Secondly, I ask that this House get behind the genuine effort to make sure that out of this conflict the people of Iraq will have a genuine Government that will be independent and able to use its national resources for its people, and not for the interests that have their military forces now invading Iraq.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I thank all the members who spoke who were forward-looking as to how New Zealand might contribute at the end of this conflict to relieving the misery of the Iraqi people and helping to rebuild that country. I want to state again, for the record, that this Government will not be assisting a war for which there was no case at this time. Faced with a choice between supporting peaceful and diplomatic means, which were working, and war, which cuts off that process, this Government made the only rational choice, which was to choose the peaceful means. I believe we had the strong support of a majority of this House and the people of New Zealand in making that choice. This country will be relevant in supporting what happens at the end of this conflict to give Iraqis a better future. We will be urging the United Nations to be proactive in seeking a role, and we will seek to work closely with other nations close to us, like Canada, that share our views on the appropriate way forward.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): I seek leave for this House to stand for a minute’s silence.

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

Bills

Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the purpose only of receiving a briefing from officials, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 28 April 2003, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during questions for oral answer—during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

This bill includes significant changes to the way that the Resource Management Act operates. It has three main objectives: reducing compliance costs, simplifying the use of national instruments, and strengthening historic heritage provisions. The issues addressed in this bill are not new to the House. The provisions are essentially the same as those reported back by the Local Government and Environment Committee on the previous amendment bill. The main differences are the reintroduction of limited notification, which was removed by the select committee; the removal of appeals of notification decisions to the Environment Court, which was put in by the select committee; and minor amendments to the provisions relating to national environment standards and national policy statements. The bill does not raise any new policy issues from those previously considered by the committee.

I have reintroduced the bill in this form to clarify what is actually being enacted, instead of what was in, and then went out. There is nothing in this bill that was not previously considered by the select committee, and I see the committee’s role as only verifying that this is indeed the case.

Before going on to outline the main provisions in the bill, I need to thank United Future for its help in getting this bill into the House. United Future members shared this Government’s frustration that the useful and important reforms implemented by this bill were not proceeding through this House, and have lent their weight to seeing the bill progress. Without their partnership this bill would still be languishing on the Order Paper. The Resource Management Bill has been there since 1999; it was reported back in 2001, and now, in 2003, with United Future’s support, the legislation in that bill is back before the House.

My partnership with United Future members to address problems with the Resource Management Act does not end once this bill is passed. United Future members have raised other problems with the Resource Management Act, and I intend to work with them to achieve positive outcomes, such as reducing even further the backlog at the Environment Court, and removing unnecessary impediments to major roading and energy proposals.

The process to amend the Resource Management Act was initiated by the former National Government. The bill that emerged included a range of controversial proposals to reduce compliance costs, including contestable resource consent processing, and mandatory use of hearings commissioners. Such changes would have compromised environmental outcomes and reduced opportunities for public participation. They would have reduced the role of local government, which is counter to a key principle of the Act that local government is best placed to make the majority of decisions on environmental and resource management matters. I am pleased to see that, following lengthy consideration of that bill, the committee recommended against those measures.

This bill includes a number of provisions that, though individually modest, will collectively provide meaningful reductions in compliance costs. Processes for the ordinary tasks associated with resource consents will be improved. There will be a simplified list of matters to take into account when making decisions on resource consent applications. The number of rules in district plans will be reduced, as new rules will replace the old as soon as they are beyond challenge, unless councils specifically state otherwise. There is also a range of improvements designed to offer certainty to applicants, such as clarifying the lodgment date, and the effect of requests for further information, meaning that time frames to process resource consents will be reduced. All these provisions offer improvements to the Act, to allow local authorities to deliver better process without compromising the quality of decision making.

In response to concerns raised by the business compliance cost panel, the Government announced its support for further changes to the Act. One such change is the introduction of limited notification—a new method of processing resource consents for activities with minor effects on the environment. I want to say upfront that these new provisions retain the current presumption in the Act in favour of notification. Limited notification will be applicable only where the resource consent application is for a controlled activity, or where the effects of an activity will be minor. As proposals with more than minor environmental effects will continue to be publicly notified, I am confident that there will be no additional environmental costs borne by communities.

This new process provides for reasonable compliance costs while maintaining good environmental outcomes, and opportunities for effective involvement by affected parties. It will reduce the cost for applicants, by avoiding the cost and time associated with a fully publicly notified consent process when such a process is unwarranted. I also want to make clear that the provisions do not change the definition of who can be an affected party. Residents associations and other community groups will still be considered affected parties, and I say that I fully expect local authorities to notify community groups when consent applications bear upon those groups’ reasons for being.

Limited notification does not undermine the role of plans and decision making. Plans will continue to establish the range of activities that are permitted and the issues that are of particular concern to local communities. Decisions about whether the environmental effects of an application are minor, and who is affected, will continue to be guided by plans and the extensive case law in this area. The bill formally introduces a concept of a permitted baseline confirming the existing case law established over the years.

The bill also contains some changes that will directly improve the efficiency of the Environment Court. The backlog of cases in the court is already reducing, and these changes will ensure it reduces even more quickly. The original bill as reported back from the committee included a new right to appeal decisions on notification to the Environment Court. This would have been a change from the existing provisions, which allow only for judicial review at the High Court. The Government is concerned that the Environment Court is currently overburdened, and this would be a significant new work area for it. We have recently invested significant additional resources in the Environment Court to help it clear its backlog, but such an amendment would undo much of the progress currently being made. For this reason, the bill introduced here preserves the status quo, and does not give the Environment Court this new role.

One of the main criticisms of the Act is that there are inconsistent approaches to similar environmental issues throughout the country. The bill as redrafted provides for a greater range of matters to be addressed through national environment standards, and clarifies their scope and effect. It makes clear that where a national environment standard conflicts with a rule in a plan, the more stringent of the two prevails. The bill also improves the provisions for making national policy statements by removing unnecessary steps in their development. These changes will enable central government to provide better guidance to local government, and more certainty and consistency to business and the community about appropriate environmental bottom lines. We expect to develop a package of national environmental standards, and, potentially, one or two national policy statements.

To ensure that heritage values are accorded increased importance, the bill elevates the protection of historic heritage to a matter of national importance. It also gives increased status to iwi planning documents, by requiring local authorities to take them into account when they draft their own policies and plans. Clarifying iwi interests, through iwi management plans, will provide greater certainty for developers and local authorities. It also puts Māori in a position to participate more effectively in resource management decision-making.

In conclusion, the changes in this bill will ensure that the processes of the Resource Management Act work better, without compromising what the Act originally set out to achieve—a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): Never have I seen such an abuse of the parliamentary process. That the Minister for the Environment is hiding under the bombs of Baghdad to pull off this trick is something that every member of this Parliament should feel ashamed of.

This bill matters. This issue matters. There are energy stations that need to be built and there are roads that need to be built, and there is nothing as important as ensuring that the Resource Management Act is properly changed and amended. But what is outrageous is this. For nearly 2 years, the Local Government and Environment Committee considered over 400 submissions on the Resource Management Amendment Bill. It sat for 80 hours, and reported back to this House in May 2001. For 100 weeks this Government stymied progress on that bill. Now the Government has pulled this trick. It has introduced an identical bill to that which was reported back by the select committee, but under a new name. It even says, in the explanatory note, that the bill is virtually identical. What an outrage!

That members of the United Future party would disgrace this Parliament with that sort of conduct is really bringing this place into disrepute. But I have to say I understand why members opposite do not want to have a full and frank debate about that select committee report, or about what the Government is doing with the amendment to the Resource Management Act.

I will go through just what the Minister has said, and show how it contradicts the record. Back in May 2001 the Minister rejected limited notification. She told everybody it was a bad idea. Martin Gallagher and four other Labour members voted against it. So why has there been a U-turn? Well, the Minister says we got the business compliance costs report, but that does not stack up, because 5 weeks after the business compliance report, the Minister told the environmental law association that she supported 100 percent the recommendations of the select committee.

What has been pulled off here is a dirty trick. There is one difference between the two bills: the bill from the select committee has 18 parts—each of which could be debated by Parliament—whereas this bill has about 18 subparts. What sort of con is that? Did the Minister tell Parliament that that is what she is doing? Is she telling Parliament that the Local Government and Environment Committee can sit for 2 years, listen to over 400 submissions, then have its report ignored? Why do we bother sitting on select committees?

David Cunliffe: Oh, sit down.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Cunliffe pokes his head up. I want him to get to his feet and tell members why they should sit on select committees, when the Government uses that sort of perverted process to avoid a debate on the select committee report on the Resource Management Amendment Bill.

Then there is the behaviour of the United Future party. Mr Dunne has put out a press statement saying he supports this bill because it has got standing. Well, I have had a look through every single page, and he has misled the business community. He has told people that this bill has standing in it, but it does not.

Most significantly, at a time when this Parliament and this country are crying out for changes in the Resource Management Act, this bill makes things worse. This bill will provide more uncertainty, more delays, and more costs. The Minister went on the Holmes programme the other week when I raised the issue of Ngāti Pu up in the Coromandel. They said they will just object to everything: the first rule, object; the second rule, object; and, if in doubt, they will go back to rule one. The Minister said she would fix it. I challenge the next member to tell us whether there is anything in this bill that will stop Ngāti Pu or any other organisation from objecting to anything, anywhere. This bill does nothing to stop that.

I then look at what else is in this bill about extending Parliament’s business in respect of spiritual definition. When this Parliament starts allowing regulation around Māori spiritual values and ancestral landscapes, it is getting itself into a serious pickle. It is interesting that the Prime Minister says we cannot have prayers at the Prime Minister’s dinners or at formal occasions, but we can—

Jill Pettis: What’s that got to do with the bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will tell the member what it has to do with the bill. Can the member answer why we can move a motorway for a taniwha? Why will this legislation extend the ability for courts to chase taniwha, when we cannot have a prayer at a formal Government ceremony? That is a disgrace.

What is missing from this, the single most important bill, and from the Environment Court? Direct referral. Simon Upton did all the hard, intellectual work for Marian Hobbs. She sat around for over 3 years, ignoring the proposals that were put forward, and rejecting some of the most important ones. What will this bill do to facilitate the development of Project Aqua or any of the other energy projects around the country? Zilch. What will this bill do for an organisation like the Whangamata boating club, which has spent $750,000 over the last 7 years in trying to get a resource consent to build a marina? It has been told it will be another 2 years before it will get a decision. What is in this bill that will change that? Absolutely nothing! To those in the United Future party who say that this bill will somehow make a difference to the bureaucracy that swamps us from the Resource Management Act, I say they are telling porkies. I say they have got it wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot use that expression in this House. He will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. The leader of United Future has told the business community that this bill introduces standing; he is not telling the business community what is in this bill. I refer to the legal opinion given by Chapman Tripp Sheffield Young. It has said this bill provides no assurance of any improvement in the uncertainty, costs, and delays of the Resource Management Act. That is what Chapman Tripp says. I challenge any members opposite, including those from the United Future party, to tell us that that legal opinion is wrong. Are we to reject the legal opinion of that firm about what is in this bill?

Then we turn to the provisions that extend the bureaucracy: the increased weight that is given to iwi planning documents, the extension of the historic heritage measures—all of those things that will make this bill a lot worse. Then we come to the granddaddy of them all. The Minister, having sat on her hands for 100 weeks in relation to the previous select committee report, moves in the House that the select committee has to sort this bill out in 3 weeks. She does nothing for 100 weeks, then wants the select committee to sort this bill out in 3 weeks. What sort of respect is the Government showing to the select committee process of this Parliament? Absolutely none!

If New Zealand is to get economic progress, if we are to raise our standard of living, then we need to sort out these resource management laws—and we need to do it properly. We should have issues such as direct referral to the Environment Court; we do need to readdress the definition of the environment; we do need to narrow the definition of the environment; and we do need to provide for commissioner hearings. National will be arguing every step of the way that this Parliament’s processes are being totally abused by this Minister, and that the United Future party is consenting. Remember all those highbrow United Future speeches made by Peter Dunne about how United Future would be the party that stood up for proper parliamentary process? Proper parliamentary process! You have to be kidding! We will be arguing every step of the way on this bill that the Government is cheating, that it is abusing the parliamentary process, and, most important, that it is not serious about fixing the problems with the Resource Management Act.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) has been a long time coming. The original Resource Management Act was written by Labour, then amended and passed into law by National more than a decade ago. It is important to remember that, because in recent years it has become very common for some parties to engage in Resource Management Act bashing. It is important to remember that this bill is a product of both Labour and National Governments in the past 15 years. Perhaps it is timely that United Future has arrived to be able to support this bill coming into the House, so that some of the much-needed amendments to the Act can be finally addressed.

Since that time, 15 years ago, many problems have emerged in the way that the Act has been implemented and administered. But I think that most people would agree that, whatever problems the Act has, it is still a vast improvement on the Town and Country Planning Act and the plethora of other legislation that it replaced. However, despite the Act’s superiority to the previous state of affairs, it has been apparent from at least the mid-1990s, when National was in Government, that the Act is in need of extensive reform, particularly in the way it is administered. The reform process was started in the late 1900s by the then National Government, and resulted in Simon Upton’s Resource Management Amendment Bill being tabled in 1999. Unfortunately, the reform process, which was slow even to get going, has been the victim of highly partisan politics in this Parliament, and it has been stalled ever since. The real and increasingly urgent needs of New Zealand families and the business community have taken a backseat to this in-house politicking.

For this reason, today’s first reading of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) represents a real and much-needed breakthrough. We in United Future have made it a priority from the outset to get this much-needed reform legislation through Parliament, and today our efforts have reached fruition. We did not get everything we would like to see in this current bill, of course; but we do believe that it represents a significant step in the right direction. Of particular importance to us was that we did make sure that the bill includes limited notification provisions, and that council decisions not to notify a resource consent application remain appealable to the High Court only, and not the Environment Court.

I am also pleased with the provisions requiring councils to take into account iwi planning documents. The smart thing for councils to do in response to this provision will be to put the details from hapū and iwi planning documents that are reasonable into their district plans. If this happens, then everyone will know what hapū and iwi would object to in advance, and Māori will know that everyone is aware of their concerns. This provision, therefore, could lead to increased certainty for everyone involved in the resource consent process, and mean the avoidance of many of the Resource Management Act – related costs and delays that are now common.

One concern I do have is the implications of both the existing and the strengthened and expanded heritage provisions—a major feature of this bill—for private property rights. This is something that will require vigilance and, maybe, further legislation at some stage in the future, but it does not necessarily have to involve amendments to the Resource Management Act. One of our colleagues, Gordon Copeland, is working on a member’s bill to amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act so that it specifically includes property rights. This alone could go some way towards addressing the problem I have outlined. I have no problem with—in fact I strongly support—the protection of New Zealand’s beautiful and unique heritage. However, when this protection infringes an individual’s or family’s use of its own private property, that family should be adequately consulted and, if necessary, compensated.

United Future is keen to ensure that the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) represents a first step, rather than an end point, in the Act’s reform process. We have several innovative reform proposals on the table, which the Government has agreed to discuss further with us, and I look forward to more progress in the near future. As I have mentioned, we are particularly interested in protecting the rights of families, and property rights in general, and we will be working closely with the Government to achieve further practical outcomes in that respect. We also want to remove unnecessary impediments to making much-needed improvements to New Zealand’s infrastructure, particularly with regard to roading and electricity developments. We already have a common basis with the Government for continuing the process of reform of the Resource Management Act, and that is a belief that reducing the backlog at the Environment Court is the first step towards other meaningful reform in the long term. Once the backlog is addressed—and today’s bill goes some way towards this—it will become clearer what other specific reforms are needed.

I thank the Minister, Marian Hobbs, and her advisers for listening to our concerns and working so closely with us, and I look forward to continuing and building on our working relationship in the future. It is a relationship that, it seems, is going to last for a long, long time.

I note that National and ACT have been complaining loudly that the Government is somehow violating parliamentary process by moving to pass the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) in its current form. I wish to make it very clear that United Future is committed to correct parliamentary processes and to the observing and upholding of the Standing Orders. It is important for all parties to have the opportunity to debate all legislation thoroughly in this House. If Nick Smith’s concerns are about the lack of time for the Opposition to debate the clauses of this bill when it gets to the Committee stage, then that is a matter that can be raised with the chairperson at that time, and I am sure that the chairperson, as the defender of all parties’ rights, will take that into account.

But I am sure that the taxpayers of New Zealand do not want the Standing Orders used for time-wasting opportunities by the Opposition, like the time that Nick Smith moved frivolous amendments during the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill last year, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. That process lasted for 2 hours of this debating chamber’s time. I have never before seen such a waste of taxpayers’ money as I did on that occasion. I know that I cannot use the “h” word in this House—so I will not—but I am struggling to find any other word to describe the actions of the National Party and the ACT party when they complain about how long this Resource Management Act amendment bill has been languishing on the Order Paper. Now, when the amendments it contains are about to finally become law—a law that will benefit businesses, residents, and iwi in New Zealand, and improve the operation of the Act—we find that the National Party is trying all kinds of tricks to delay it. I say that, no, it is time for this bill with its amendments to the Resource Management Act, which have been debated ad infinitum, to be passed into law for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and in the interests of achieving a greater balance between our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s own country, which He has given to us, and allowing freedom to pursue our personal, family, and economic interests in the land.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): We in ACT—along with the business community of New Zealand, and any landowner or property owner—say that the Resource Management Act has become the single biggest block to investment and wealth creation in this country. I certainly find that deeply regrettable. Indeed, the Government’s own compliance cost assessment came to that same conclusion. Regarding the response the Government has delivered here today in Parliament, not only is the content perverse, but the process—the way the bill is being rushed through—is indeed very perverse.

The point has already been made, but I will reiterate it. It was May 2001 when the amendment was introduced, and I would like to reflect on the work that Simon Upton did. I supported the 12 significant changes that Simon Upton proposed in a review process that went on for about 18 months to 2 years. There was wide consultation. All those changes, I believe, were necessary. However, they were not sufficient. I would put them in the category of tinkering, because I think more substantial changes were needed than those that were proposed. Then with the change of Government in 1999, that bill was referred to the new environment select committee, chaired by the Greens’ Jeanette Fitzsimons, and, essentially, everything was overturned. Then the Government left the bill languishing for 100 weeks on the Order Paper.

It is a substantial bill. It comprises 18 parts, and what we have here is a bill introduced yesterday, tabled and having its first debate here today, and now the Government wants to rush it through the select committee process in about 3 weeks. It says by way of background that the bill is virtually identical to the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee—virtually identical; those are the words. But the bill comprises only two parts. The Government has condensed what were 18 parts down to two parts, and, just by chance, there are 16 subparts. That means that there are only two debates.

I know that United Future members are new to Parliament, but surely they are not that green. Surely they are not that naive. They have rolled over on their bellies, with their legs in the air, and said: “Tickle my tummy.” They have been taken for a bunch of suckers—absolute suckers. For his whole time in Parliament, Peter Dunne has championed the Resource Management Act. He has been the great “man in the middle” who knows all about the Act, saying that nothing will get passed his scrutiny. I remember him proclaiming that he had managed to reintroduce “standing”. Well, he has not, and his party does not even understand what standing means—as we used to have it under the old Town and Country Planning Act. Let me assure United Future members that they do not have standing. If you sold out because you thought you had standing, then you were hoodwinked and taken for suckers. You were sold a pup.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not use the word “you”. He is bringing me into the debate.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I beg your pardon, Mr Assistant Speaker. United Future members were taken for suckers. They were clearly hoodwinked, and it seems right—even to this point—that they do not even know what has happened to them. That is rather sad in many respects.

If it wanted to make changes, the appropriate process for the Government would have been to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. What is the Government’s dilemma? Why has it left the bill languishing for 100 weeks? We know why. It is because the Government cannot get the Greens and United Future all of one mind to pass the bill through this Parliament. That is why it does not want to have 18 debates for the 18 clear parts, because some of them would be supported by the Greens but others would be opposed, and United Future might oppose some and vote for others. Rather than having to try to manage that, the Government has just condensed the bill down to two parts. That is a perversion of process, and I believe it is deeply regrettable.

When the whole Resource Management Act process started out in the mid-1980s, it was meant to streamline our environment laws. It was part of deregulation, and meant to be a much-reduced process—a one-stop shop. It was the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. But something happened on the way to the forum. The whole process has been subverted and captured, and we have welded on to it all these nebulous concepts of social engineering, community goodwill, consultation, and metaphysical beliefs. That is why the Resource Management Act has become a nightmare for anyone who has to work with it.

The administration of the Resource Management Act will be carried out by local government, and regrettably, the Local Government Act, which was rushed through by this Government late last year, will greatly compound the nightmare. We have abandoned representative democracy in this country in the name of participatory democracy. Now we have all this woolly-woofter, endless consultation, and endless process—somehow thinking that we will get a better decision if we consult with and empower everyone, rather than having representative democracy. The two Acts working together—the new extension of the Resource Management Act working alongside the Local Government Act—will be a nightmare, an absolute quagmire of woolly-woofter humbug and process. It is all about process rather than outcome.

I indicated earlier that while I believe that Simon Upton’s amendments were necessary, they were not sufficient. They were minor tinkerings to the extent that three major changes need to be made to the Resource Management Act. Firstly, we have to introduce standing, as we used to have in the Town and Country Planning Act—in other words, the “Twigs and Tweet Society” of Gore cannot object to a resource consent application in Whangarei.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: They do not do that.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: They certainly do. Nor should someone in Hamilton object to something in Christchurch. That is outrageous. So why not have standing? In other words, unless someone is clearly affected by the application, it is essentially none of his or her business.

The second key point is compensation. I reckon we all value major—

Jill Pettis: Some of us care about the whole of the country.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Oh, absolutely. If society says that that bit of coastline, or that river valley, or that mountain top, is of such significance that the public sector needs to take it, that is socialism by stealth, unless we pay compensation to the property owner. Where the public good requires the confiscation of private property, then full compensation should be paid. We cannot have a law that allows a sneaky socialisation by stealth. We must respect property rights in this country, and unfortunately the Resource Management Act is increasingly becoming a vehicle for socialisation by stealth. That is why the socialists over there love it. The more tied-up processing consultation they can have, and the more they can confiscate and restrict property rights, the better. So it all goes into this big package of consultation and public committees, where they will all discuss it and talk it out, and somehow the Government thinks it will create wealth in this country with that format. Let me assure the Government that it will not.

The third and final change must be to turn the bill back to the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. We should not have nebulous cultural things like taniwha, and hobgoblins, or whatever, appended to this legislation. It is hogwash to put into resource management law things like kaitiakitanga that are not even defined in the Act, but that somehow confer guardianship on one particular group in society. Those are the sorts of problems we are getting in this country, and increasingly it is becoming a vehicle for extortion. There are numerous examples where it is now an established process for extortion. It is losing its credibility fast, and ACT will certainly be opposing this legislation.

The Resource Management Act was already deeply in trouble. There was an opportunity to try to turn it back and get the trend on the right path. Unfortunately, this bill continues down the wrong path.

DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn): To quote the Hon Dr Nick Smith, this bill matters. It is a good bill that will improve the implementation of the Resource Management Act. It will help to remove and reduce costs and delays without undermining the Act’s objective of delivering a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. The sad thing is to hear the Opposition playing politics with it and trying to have a buck each way. On the one hand, the Opposition says that compliance costs are too high, and on the other hand, it tries to criticise us for moving expeditiously to reduce them. Every one of the issues contained in this bill was openly discussed and debated amongst the 400 submissions that were heard over several months. There is nothing new in this bill. It is simply a reformatting, and some rejudgments—and they are often rejudgments on the basis of issues that the Opposition believes it stands for: reduction of compliance costs, making the Environment Court more effective, and making parliamentary democracy work.

Now Dr Smith has alleged—and I think it is an abuse of the Office of the Clerk—that this is a violation of parliamentary process. If that were true, this bill and this motion would never have been cleared for introduction into the House. That member is reflecting on the Speaker’s office and on the Office of the Clerk. He may think that he is attacking the Government, but he is attacking Parliament. If the Speaker or the Clerk believed that the Standing Orders were being violated, they would simply not have allowed the motion. If you want to have more of a say, you should put that call in the Committee stage and see how many numbers you get.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not bring me into the debate.

DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am sorry, I mean that member.

To conclude: as a result of the Government’s initiatives, we are moving ahead on a raft of initiatives to reduce compliance costs, of which limited notification is only one. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): My colleague Mr David Cunliffe made several references to the report of the select committee. I seek the leave of the House to debate the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Resource Management Amendment Bill.

DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn): The member alleged that I drew the select committee report into the debate. I did not. I referred to the select committee process, but not to the report.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a debatable matter. The member has sought leave, and it is up to the House to decide whether it is granted. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): The Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) is effectively the No. 1 bill as reported from the select committee in 2001, plus the Government’s changes of policy since that time. The introduction of this bill is an abuse of process, because when a Government plans to introduce just two policy changes—both of which were to do with matters discussed extensively by the select committee—when it has changed its mind from the way it voted on the select committee and decided to do something differently, the way to do that is through a Supplementary Order Paper. It is not normally done by introducing a whole new bill that is largely the same as the old bill. That, of course, would have allowed us to have a proper debate on the report back of the select committee, as well as debates on the changes.

I concur with Opposition members who have said that 5 minutes at the Committee stage is not sufficient to discuss the 57 pages of complex and controversial legislation that is now all in one part. Admittedly, it would be challenging to get through 18 parts in the Committee of the whole House. The Greens actually offered the Government extra sitting hours to enable it to do that, but the Government did not choose to avail itself of that opportunity. I do not know why the bill sat there for 100 weeks. It certainly was not because we were impeding progress. Everyone knew that we would vote against the reintroduction of limited notification, but plenty of other people in the House would have supported it, so it is still a mystery to me why it had to take so long. It is very much a slight to the select committee, and it has been worsened by the reference back of this bill. What are we expected to do with it in the very short time available? We have other hearings planned on other bills, and we are travelling outside Wellington. Are we supposed to just give a rubber stamp to somehow legitimise that process?

I am very puzzled as to what United Future thinks it has got out of this process. Both of the policy changes that are accomplished by the No. 2 bill, compared with the No. 1 bill, were announced by the Government well before the new United Future members came to Parliament. They have not achieved any policy change whatsoever in the bill. They have simply allowed themselves to be used as a tool to prevent parliamentary debate on the many important matters that are now all rolled together in one part—subparts 1 to 16. The House needs to debate the decisions of the select committee on the Upton bill. It needs to debate the Government’s changes to those committee decisions in this bill, and it needs to debate any amendments that are introduced in the Committee stage of this bill—and I am sure that amendments will be introduced in the Committee stage.

Today I will confine myself mainly to talking about the select committee’s work, because as the chair of that committee, which spent more than a year travelling around the country, hearing 400 submissions and considering those submissions very carefully, I feel that our work has been undervalued.

The Resource Management Act controversy reflects a divergence of interests, and therefore a divergence of views in society. No amount of talking will reach agreement between those divergent views, but at least we should ensure that the drafting of the bill carries out the policy intentions. Developers see the bill as an obstacle, as a compliance cost, and as a source of delay. They oppose public participation, and they want the right to do what they like on their own land, and with the public commons, as well, because this bill deals with matters like air and water, which are not anybody’s property. Developers are calling for a reduction in the rights of the public to bring evidence on their proposals to hearings.

On the other hand, many members of the public see that the Act is not protecting the environment as it was intended to do. Councils are constantly permitting things that are contrary to Part 2. Just one example of that is the inappropriate subdivision use and development of the coastal environment. In how many places around New Zealand do we see councils giving permission for inappropriate subdivision use and development of the coastal environment, which under section 6 of the Act they are not supposed to do? The public want a say in how the areas where they live develop. It is not just about personal property rights and whether our land and buildings are affected. It is about our rights as citizens to help shape our living environment.

The Act relies on contestable evidence at a hearing to establish whether the environmental effects of an application are acceptable to the community, and whether what is planned might be better remedied, mitigated, or avoided. There is no inquiry function at the Environment Court. There is no independent authority protecting the environment. It is left to the community, and to those who care to put up the evidence—which the developers themselves will not provide—on the likely effects of the proposal. Therefore those hearings, and those things called objections, are vital for the proper functioning of the Act.

The community has often been right, and the developer wrong. I think of the Golden Cross mine at Waitekauri near Waihi, where people got up and said that they had lived there for generations, they knew that land was unstable, and that it slipped. The developer brought in expert witnesses to say that it was quite stable, and so the resource consent went through. What happened? The land started slipping. At last count they had spent $30 million trying to stabilise it, but still have not completely succeeded, so we should not just dismiss the evidence that the community can bring to the hearings. Public participation is at the very heart of the structure and the philosophy of the Act. It cannot work without it.

Simon Upton’s bill planned further restrictions than the current Act. The select committee, including the Government members, voted to remove those restrictions, but they are being put back in this No. 2 bill. I hope United Future members will explain to families who will lose their rights to affect the way their neighbourhood develops why they have voted for this limitation on notification. I hope they will be able to explain to the families who find their property being undermined when the bulldozer suddenly moves in next door—as has actually happened—that they voted for those families not to have a right to object in those cases.

The approach of the select committee was that it would support anything that would reduce compliance costs and delays without reducing environmental standards or the public’s right to participate—but only those things. We were also very mindful that case law had established a lot of precedent under the Act, and that changing definitions and the wording of clauses without very good reason was going to impose huge compliance costs and delays on applicants and everybody else, while people rushed off to the courts to get new case law. So we tended to be conservative in changing wording unless there was good reason for it.

The Opposition is fond of saying that the bill has been gutted, or that compliance costs have been increased. Let me run through the positive things that came out of the committee’s deliberations. First, we got rid of some silly, over-the-top proposals like allowing developers to choose their own consultants to process their applications; like bypassing the council altogether and going straight to the court, if the developer wants, immediately putting the hearing right out of reach for many of the public; like mandatory use of commissioners to hear cases for councils—people who have no accountability to the district, and no long-term association with it. Those omissions enraged the Opposition. But the Chapman Tripp people quoted by another member have clearly not read the bill. There is a lot in the bill that will reduce delays and costs, and could have been doing so for the last 2 years, if the Government had been prepared to give it legislative time.

A major criticism of the operation of the Act has been that no effort has been put into the central government part of the deal. The decisions are devolved to councils, but those decisions are meant to be guided by national policy statements and standards, and training and guidance, and for nearly a decade none of that happened. The national policy statement process in the Act is too long and unwieldy, and there are too many stages of consultation. We worked hard to improve that without losing public participation, and the new process is workable. I hope we will get some national policy statements, because that will make things easier, faster, and cheaper for councils.

Environmental standards can be developed under the Act, but there is no mechanism to make them operational through plans. The bill provides that mechanism. That will save a lot of duplication of effort and costs for councils. There is a lot of extra cost if an application has to be heard under both an operative and a proposed plan at the same time.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this bill. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation for New Zealand. This bill has been in the redrafting process for some time, and I am delighted that with the support of United Future we have been able to bring this bill back to the House. It is a good bill. [Interruption] If only ACT and those hard-line right-wingers would read something, for a change. This bill gives people an opportunity to be involved earlier on in the process. It encourages debate, rather than the hard-line attitude that ACT and National would prefer. I am surprised at the criticism by ACT of participatory democracy. That is what we have fought to preserve all these years, is it not? The legislative process that ACT and National would prefer, which would ride totally roughshod over people, is absolutely ridiculous and does not bear contemplation. I am delighted this bill is back in front of the House. It will be good for our society, and I wish it a speedy passage through the House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: “Back in front”? It’s the first reading.

JILL PETTIS: Well, that member did not mind rapid progress on the Te Puke bypass, so he should get his priorities right.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): The Labour member who preceded me obviously has not been following this bill. She talks about this bill coming back to the House, but this is the first reading. The bill is not coming back to the House; this is the first reading of the bill. She constantly talked about the bill coming back to the House, yet this is the first reading—or that is what this House is being led to believe by the Government. Secondly, that member seemed not to understand what was in the bill, insofar as local involvement and participation in resource consent management is concerned. She seemed to be totally unaware of the way in which this bill works in that area, much to the astonishment of Mrs Jeanette Fitzsimons, one of the previous speakers.

I am quite staggered at the way in which this bill is proceeding. I could have spoken earlier in the debate, but I thought I would listen to some of the members who have worked on this bill, in its previous incarnation as the Resource Management Amendment Bill, in order to find out more about it before I said anything. I have had the opportunity to discuss it with Jim Peters, the New Zealand First spokesperson on the matter, and I am making my comments on that basis, as well. The main point is that this bill is really just a mishmash of resource management law over many years. The Resource Management Amendment Bill sat here in the House, as we have been told, for 100 weeks after it was considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and it is really out of date already. If we really look at resource management law, we see that that bill passed its use-by date a long time ago.

This bill will be referred to a select committee. If the House wants to do the job properly with resource management law, we should be starting all over again. This legislation is historical now. We talk about Simon Upton’s involvement with it and what he did, and then what the Labour Party did when it came in. It really is just a dog’s breakfast now. If we are to do anything in resource management, we should get rid of this bill altogether and start all over again, with a clean slate.

Lindsay Tisch: And get it right.

DAIL JONES: This bill certainly will not get it right. It will really make another mess of this whole difficult area. I have done some resource management work, and I know how difficult it can be.

I am really staggered that the United Future party should take credit for this bill and the way in which it has been drafted. The first principle of the democratic process must be to allow one’s representatives in Parliament to speak on an issue fully and fairly, so that all aspects of a bill can be considered. I do not think I have ever seen an Act of Parliament—and I have seen just about every Act of Parliament that is on the book in my 41 years in legal practice—that has 110 clauses in only two parts. The first part has 95 clauses, and the second part has another 15.

I was speaking to a senior lawyer from one of the big law firms only last week, and we were discussing a particular piece of legislation. I mentioned in passing that the particular part we were discussing has five subparts, because of the way in which the Government uses that situation in the House to cut down on speaking time, and he was quite staggered to learn that. Finally he understood why it is that in some commercial legislation a part of a bill can have many subparts, some of which make no sense whatsoever: because that is only a debating tactic in Parliament to stop the Opposition speaking on a bill.

That is what the Government is trying to do here: it is trying to stop the Opposition from speaking on the bill. If there were 16, 17, or 18 parts, we might have been able to spend half an hour on each part and to have a debate of about 8 hours or so. Now, with just two parts, the Chairperson would be entitled to take the view that the debate should be much less than 8 hours. We will be lucky to have 2 hours’ debate on the bill, and that will be a matter for the Chairperson to decide at that point, based on the way in which the bill is presented. So what United Future is doing is cutting down the Opposition’s right to debate the bill in the Committee stage by 75 percent, in my generous estimation. That is an utter disgrace in a democracy. Yet United Future is taking delight in cutting down the Opposition’s debating time on the bill. Mr Baldock had the cheek to say that we were just trivialising the bill, by making the debate on it last for so long.

I will tell Mr Baldock what this bill does. I will explain the bill to him, although I will not have enough time to do that. For example, Part 1 has a subpart 1, which is the interpretation clause. Everyone knows that usually the interpretation clause in a bill can stand on its own, but it is now part of Part 1. The purpose and principles are in subpart 2. Matters of national importance will now be built into a debate of possibly 1½ hours on 95 clauses. Matters of national importance are of so little importance to this minority Labour Government and its partner, United Future, that they want virtually no time to be spent on that debate, at all. It will be difficult for members of the Opposition to spend enough time on it.

Then subpart 3, “Duties and restrictions under this Act” relates, for example, to restrictions on the use of the coastal marine area. Members could spend quite some time just on that issue alone, but debate on that will be cut down by the way in which United Future and this minority Labour Party have structured the bill. Subpart 4 is entitled “Functions, powers, and duties of central and local government” and clause 9 relates to the functions of regional councils. I would have thought that regional councils feel that they have some standing in the community, and that their powers and functions should be the subject of some debate. But no, they will be put into this short debate on 95 clauses. In relation to regulations prescribing national environmental standards, surely everyone in this country and this House wants to have a good look at what the bill provides for those matters, but no, that is part of a subpart. Other areas such as the content of regional policy statements, the content of regional plans, and district plan rules will all be crammed into this very short debate. Resource consents would otherwise take an hour on their own, but no, subpart 6 relates to resource consents and that issue will be crammed into that debate, as well.

Coastal tendering is near and dear to the heart of many members of this House, but this minority Labour Government has no regard for democracy. We have made a lot of noise about Saddam Hussein, what a tyrant he is, and what he does to his people. In a democracy one would expect that a Government that talks like that would allow its own Parliament to debate an issue, but no, it has purposely changed the debate on what should be 18 parts into a debate on just two parts. That is about as undemocratic as it can be. If we had an Attorney-General in this House who adopted the rules of an Attorney-General, we would have expected her to threaten to resign over such undemocratic and unprincipled political behaviour. After all, the Attorney-General, as the principal law officer, stands in a special relationship with Parliament, the courts, and the executive. One would expect that type of person to ensure, when she was discussing matters in Cabinet, that this Parliament had a proper right to debate those issues. But no, this Government is prepared to ram through the Supreme Court Bill or to turn this country into a republic, and this is the type of way that we would see legislation being passed in a republic, without any regard for the duties of the Opposition.

As an Opposition it is our duty to go through this legislation and to point out any defects in it. There would be many occasions where a bill was much the better because of the points raised by the Opposition. I am sure there are Government members in this House who have taken up points raised by members of the Opposition and have given them effect.

We have looked at other areas of this bill, such as declarations, enforcements, and ancillary powers. We looked at the right of appeal. Obviously, that is one of the most important areas for anybody on either side of the resource consent application process, but, again, that is all to be crammed into the debate on Part 1.

I was very impressed with Ms Fitzsimons’ speech. It was interesting that she made the point that the United Future members have achieved nothing by their support for this bill—absolutely nothing. As a new member I was staggered to learn that. I would have thought that a party that claimed it was here in the House on the basis of some sort of desire to reduce compliance costs and to improve business in the community would at least try to achieve something. But I am told that all the things that the United Future member referred to in this debate were already the subject of public statements by the Labour Party prior to the election. Well, really! United Future says it has certain standards, but one can only assume that if it has those standards it does not have any idea of what is happening. If United Future had any idea of what was happening and it made the statements that it has made, we would wonder what its standards were based on. Really, there is a great contradiction between what United Future has said and what it has done. Common sense dictates that there should be a similarity between the two, but clearly that is not the case here.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South): I would have thought after all the debate since the introduction of the bill’s predecessor in 1999, and after building on improving the legislation that was introduced by the previous National administration, the people who have been bleating for the last 3 years about the whereabouts of the amendment bill, asking why it was not back in the House, saying we have terrible delays in resource management, and asking what was happening with that bill, would welcome its return to the House in this form and the opportunity they now have to debate it. Instead, we have this pathetic bleating from the Opposition, and the extraordinary procedural obstruction that we saw at the start of the day from the man who says he wants the legislation back in the House. Well, we have found a way of giving the National Party the opportunity to debate the issues and to tell us the other things that need doing. I am pleased to support this bill in its process to the select committee, so the committee can check that the content of the bill matches that of its predecessor.

Dr DON BRASH (NZ National): I have rarely taken more enthusiasm in opposing any piece of legislation than I have in opposing this bill. When the Resource Management Act was introduced in the early 1990s it was a well-intentioned law that made some significant improvements on what had been before. But it has been obvious for a number of years that there were some significant problems with that law, and the last National Government moved to introduce some changes to it some 4 years ago. Sadly, the bill before us today does almost nothing to improve the situation, and almost nothing to remove the problems that the Act has created. Every survey of business compliance costs over the last 5 years at least has talked about the problems and the compliance costs caused by the Act. The problems are very substantial, and this proposed legislation does almost nothing to fix them.

There are at least four distinct problems with the present Act that this bill does not adequately address. The first and most obvious problem that we are aware of is the one that involves the extra costs and the long delays caused in any major project, and the huge costs involved in lost growth opportunities, in particular. Before I was elected, Transit New Zealand told a select committee of this House that it can take up to 7 years to get approval for a major roading project through the resource management process. That contrasts with the situation in Singapore, which can get approvals through in about 7 days.

The Prime Minister has estimated that the cost of traffic congestion in Auckland City is approximately $1 billion a year. We will wait for years through the current process, and through the process created by this bill, to get those problems fixed. The mayor of Auckland, the Hon John Banks, has said that the problem is not one of money but of getting the consents through the process. This bill does almost nothing to fix that.

We have been warned, not simply about the problems of electricity generation this year—a dry year—but, perhaps more ominously still, about the problems that loom 2, 3, and 4 years down the track. They can be dealt with if we have a process that will enable those who can invest in more generating capacity to do so briskly, without undue delays. We know that Meridian Energy is having major difficulties, and faces major delays, in getting its Project Aqua through. I saw in the Dominion Post last December an article about the problems that Windflow Technology faces in getting its wind generating power facility established. The article states: “We can get by for several months, but we can’t get by for a year. The Environment Court wait could be 1½ to 2 years, and unless we can find a way round it, we could run out of money.” This legislation does almost nothing to fix those serious problems that have a major impact on our growth.

The second problem is that this legislation engenders “greenmail”, blackmail, and corruption. Bill Day, one of New Zealand’s leading entrepreneurs, stated, again in the Dominion Post of late last year, when talking about the impact of the Act: “That is the thin end of the wedge of corruption in New Zealand and, as a society, we have got to do something about it.” This bill fails to deal adequately with that problem. If we see more “greenmail”, more blackmail, and more corruption, those will be some of the consequences of dealing inadequately with this important legislation.

Thirdly, the Act strains race relations in this country. My colleague the Hon Nick Smith talked about Ngāti Pu and its advice to its iwi to object, object, and object. What it said was: “Time is of no importance to us, only the applicant.” Not only does that stop development and investment; perhaps even more seriously, it badly damages race relations in this country. Pākehā and, indeed, many Māori resent that kind of behaviour. Let me quote another comment, this time from Ngāti Whātua: “The Resource Management Act is being ‘exploited to the max’ by Māori, says William Kapea, an environmental and heritage consultant for his Auckland iwi, Ngāti Whātua. It’s a shame because there is a role for iwi. The RMA presented that, and we are abusing it and it will end up disappearing on us.” We had a similar problem with Ngāti Whātua members in Auckland recently, when they objected to the wrong kind of sand being used to rebuild a beach. Then they objected to the wrong kind of shells being used in rebuilding some nests for dotterels. Let us leave aside, as I say, the damage to growth that that creates. It does huge damage to race relations in New Zealand, and the Act makes that possible.

The fourth serious cost that I think the Act has created, and that this legislation does nothing to deal with, is that it pushes up the price of residential sections. It has been pointed out in a number of studies that the cost of residential sections in the city of Auckland, and, indeed, in the city of Christchurch, is substantially higher than the cost of similar-sized sections in some of the largest cities in the United States. And why is that? It is because the Act has enabled local authorities to create restrictions on the supply of land, thus pushing up the cost of residential sections and the price of homes for ordinary working New Zealanders. This legislation that we see before us does nothing to deal with that serious problem.

So it worries me that one of the most important pieces of law on the statute book, the Resource Management Act, is recognised as an Act that creates major difficulties for the New Zealand economy, by blocking investment, deterring growth, engendering corruption and “greenmail”, straining race relations, and pushing up the price of residential sections. We have an opportunity in the House to fix those problems, and we are failing in our responsibility to do that. This bill could have been one of the most important bills before the House this year. Sadly, it falls a very long way short of realising that opportunity. The Government has talked about its objective of getting New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD. It has obviously decided to abandon any attempt to put a date on that objective, so that makes it a substantially easier task—indeed, it makes it no objective at all. But in this legislation we have an opportunity to do something constructive to increase our growth rate—the Act is recognised by the business community and by all objective observers as being a major impediment to growth—and this House is on the brink of flunking that opportunity. I believe it is a sad day for this Parliament that we are missing this very important opportunity.

DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago): I move, That the question be now put. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: That is a speech. The member is entitled to say whatever he likes.

SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country): It is enlightening to follow on from the new member from Otago, who gave a very, very deep and meaningful speech. We are at the brink of going through a process in the House that could only be described as a misuse of Parliament’s Standing Orders and the way that the process should work. I invite United Future members to sit down with the clerks and other members who have been in this House for a long time, and ask them what the normal process is. What we have here is definitely not what could be described as normal process. How can we take a bill, which in its first form had 18 parts, and turn it into two parts, describe it in the commentary as being more or less exactly the same as the bill put up in the first place to the select committee, and then say in the commentary: “This new Bill is required to make sure the passage of the amendments through the House is as efficient as possible.” How can that be described as proper due process in Parliament? I ask the leader of United Future, Peter Dunne, who has been somebody who has championed that type of thing for years—for as long as I have been in this Parliament—to take a good look at that, come back to this House, perhaps take a call, and tell us how that can be so.

As the previous National speaker said, we are missing a great opportunity here to fix up what has been a major problem for some time, in terms of growth in this country. I go right back to the original passing of the 1991 Act—which was brought in by National. At the time, under the leadership of Simon Upton, it was described as environmental legislation that was world-class. The most important part about that legislation was that it was enabling. It is quite an indictment, I guess one could say, not only on local government representatives, but on New Zealanders at large, that they have misused that basic principle to the extent that they have.

We have heard many examples of that in this House. There is one example that I can give, just briefly, as an aside. State Highway 3, going through Taranaki to the King Country and on to Auckland, is the major link between Taranaki and the north. It is the link to the biggest city in New Zealand, Auckland, where most of our produce goes, and it is the highway where most of our connections to the outside world, one could say, pass up and down. Trade is absolutely affected by that highway—and we had its realignment held up for 6 months because of the discovery of six hāngi stones. I suggest to this House that that is an abuse of legislation that was never intended at the time it was introduced. It is high time that was fixed. We had an opportunity to fix it in this process, and we have missed that opportunity. The old Act was very permissive, and very enabling, and, unfortunately, those qualities have been abused.

The 400 submissions that were presented to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and the 80 hours of select committee time put in, in the last Parliament, have totally been ignored. United Future members talk about the fact that they have a deal, and that they have brought to this House some changes that will be significant. Well, we learnt earlier from a previous speaker that all of those changes were in the original draft, before United Future came to the House with the members that they have. I thought that they had achieved one change, and I learnt that that was not the case. They need to sit down with the Green Party and learn how to negotiate, because when the Greens were propping up the Government, at least they used to get some changes. Most of them were negative, but at least they used to achieve changes in their negotiations. United Future has totally rolled over on this legislation. This is the one opportunity—probably the only opportunity—that it will get, as a support for the Government, to bring about significant change in its time in Parliament, but it will go down as an absolute failure in terms of the constituency that that party represents.

Chapman Tripp said, when it presented a submission to the select committee, that the proposed amendments will bring no certainty whatsoever to further development in New Zealand, and no certainty whatsoever to the process of how resource consent is handled. I challenge any Minister or Government member to stand and tell us why that advice has been absolutely and totally rejected and ignored. Sixteen substantial amendments were brought forward by the Simon Upton report, after the Owen McShane report recommended 12 amendments. I invite the ACT member Ken Shirley, my colleague on the select committee, to have a look at that. There were 12 recommendations in the Owen McShane report, and 16 amendments were recommended by Simon Upton. Most of those have been totally ignored and rejected by this process.

We have now ended up with a bill that has 110 clauses and two parts. Subpart 2 outlines the purposes and principles of the bill. I suggest to the House that if something as substantial as the purpose and principles of the bill can be a subpart, then what would we put in a whole part? What would be significant enough to be included in a whole part? If the purposes and principles of the bill are a subpart, then what goes in a full part? With regard to the drafting of legislation, that is a question I would like members of the Government to stand and answer, because I am absolutely at a loss to know why the purposes and principles could be a subpart.

It has also come to my attention that one of the major amendments provides that we are now going to provide legal aid to a person who wants to object to a development. Let us remember that this Government—since it has been elected, in two elections—has championed the need for supporting our entrepreneurs, the need for growth, the need for development, and the ability for business to flourish and for jobs to flow from that. But in this legislation we will be providing people, even if they are just objecting for the sake of objecting—and we have heard about the types of objections that take place—with legal aid to allow them to object.

I am absolutely at a loss to understand how that will meet some of the comments made by the Government over that 4-year period, that it is about helping and assisting business to flourish and do well. It would be really useful for the Parliament and for the listening public if somebody within the Government—a Minister preferably, but not necessarily—would stand and tell us how offering legal aid to vexatious claims against development, such as the realignment of State Highway 3 out of Taranaki, is going to aid and abet the Government’s objective of assisting the country to grow and prosper, and for jobs to flow from that. There is an absolute tragedy here, in the fact that we are missing an opportunity like none other, to help New Zealand to grow, to help our environment to be maintained, to help our economic standing, and to help our climb up the OECD to improve. The only opportunity for improving this bill is to change the Government.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

Noes 44

Bill read a first time.

Labour 52; Green Party 3; United Future 8.

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6.

Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the purpose only of receiving a briefing from officials, that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 28 April 2003, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during questions for oral answer—and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193, and 196(1)(b) and (c).

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a longstanding tradition that select committees do not sit during urgency. One of the dangers we have, and I have written to you about this matter, and I think it needs to go to the Standing Orders Committee, is that the Government can subvert the clear intentions of the Standing Orders through this referral motion. The motion just put by the Minister would authorise the Local Government and Environment Committee to meet during urgency. That does pose an intolerable pressure for smaller parties. I am sure that United Future, perhaps the Greens, and others would share that concern. We in the ACT party know that it is an intolerable situation to have select committees meeting during urgency.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): Just in response, it is totally understood by the Leader of the House and myself, and by the chairperson of the select committee, that meetings would not happen during urgency.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a statement by the Minister in the House. Her word must be accepted.

Motion agreed to.

Third Readings

Third Readings

Mr SPEAKER: At the conclusion of this debate I will ensure that each question is put separately.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Associate Minister of Revenue), on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I move, That the Taxation (Maori Organisations, Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2002-03) Bill, the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill, and the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bills encompass a wide range of issues that reflect the Government’s continuing commitment to simplifying the tax system, reducing tax compliance costs, protecting the revenue base, and producing a better and more effective tax law through the regular introduction of remedial legislation.

The most prominent feature of the Taxation (Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is its modernisation of the tax rules that relate to organisations that manage Māori assets held in communal ownership. The new rules will relieve much of the unnecessary complexity and restrictions that the present rules impose upon these organisations. The changes will apply only to organisations that manage communally owned Māori assets whose use and management are heavily restricted by legislation or Government process.

Another important feature of this bill is its further fine-tuning of the relatively new legislation that relates to taxpayer compliance and to penalties for non-compliance with the law. One of the main changes here gives the Inland Revenue Department greater flexibility by allowing it to take into account taxpayers’ good behaviour when it imposes penalties for tax shortfalls. Other related changes include a new penalty on promoters for certain kinds of tax arrangements, and provisions that strengthen and clarify the Inland Revenue Department’s vital information-gathering powers.

The bill introduces two tax simplification measures that will be of special relevance to small businesses. One relates to employers’ PAYE obligations, and the other to the payment of provisional tax. Both involve businesses making use of private-sector intermediaries to help them to meet their tax obligations. The bill clarifies the GST treatment of cross-border supplies of telecommunications services and simplifies the tax treatment of outbound telephone calls. Similarly, it also clarifies the GST treatment of international passenger cruises that visit a number of New Zealand ports.

The bill rationalises several aspects of the law that relates to tax and charities. The changes include an increase from $500 to $630 in the maximum amount that people can claim as a tax rebate for donations to charity. The public-benefit test has been relaxed so that the charitable entities are not automatically excluded from income tax exemption just because their members are connected by blood ties. In a similar vein, the bill accords marae the same status as public halls and churches. The bill also gives effect to the Government’s announcements last year that the crew members of visiting superyachts would be exempted from paying income tax in New Zealand.

Finally, the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2002-03) Bill confirms the income tax rates that will apply for the 2002-03 year. I am pleased that the bills have reached their third reading stage. I would like to thank all those who contributed to their passage, the many individuals and organisations that made submissions on the proposed legislation, the officials who worked on the bills and supported their passage, the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its careful consideration of the proposed legislation, and, of course, the fine Minister who steered it through the House. I commend the bills to the House.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney): National is opposed to most of the provisions of these four bills and will make clear why that is, in these third readings. The first bill I want to address is the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2002-03) Bill. I want members of the Government, the Labour Party, United Future, and the Progressive Coalition to understand what they are doing to working people in this country by passing this legislation. With the passage of this bill, they lock into place tax rates that result in working families suffering the highest increase in taxation, since Labour has been in office this last 3 years, of any country in the developed world except the Czech Republic.

If members of United Future are to support this third reading, I want to make sure that they are aware of that—that is, they will lock into place tax rates that have seen the biggest increase, not on wealthy people, on the average production worker, to use OECD jargon. Under the Labour-led Government the increase in tax impost on those people in the last 3 years has been the highest in the OECD, and this bill in front of this Parliament today locks those tax rates in place. What is more, if we look at the combination of effects, the current tax rates that this bill locks in place, plus the tax credit system, we see that some of the lowest-income people in this country face effective marginal tax rates under this taxation regime of 100 percent. That is not just Lockwood Smith making that up; that information was supplied to me by the Inland Revenue Department through official questions through this Parliament. People who earn between $10,000 and $15,000 a year with dependent children, when we combine the effects of these tax rates being confirmed by this bill, plus the family assistance tax credit system, pay effective marginal tax rates of 100 percent.

That means that as they seek to earn another dollar above $10,000 they pay the lot—that is, every cent of the extra dollar they earn goes to the Government. That is what we are locking in place with this bill. It is not good enough. It is just shameful for a Labour-led Government to treat our lowest-income earners in that way. The Hon Paul Swain, who just led the third reading for the Government, would not even know about that. That shows how little the Government cares about what it does to working people. This bill locks into place those tax rates that have seen the highest increase in taxes on the average working person in this country—that is, the highest increases in the developed world except the Czech Republic—while Paul Swain’s Government has been in office. That is, the Taxation (Annual Rates of Income Tax 2002-03) Bill. The Taxation (Māori Organisations, Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill also introduces very controversial legislation into this country. It introduces a special low tax rate of 19.5 percent for Māori authorities. It has been argued by the Government during the Committee stage of this legislation that that is not a racist measure. It argues that the special tax rate is based on the income level of the beneficiaries of Māori authorities. That would be a valid argument if it applied to other organisations, such as Pacific Island trusts. If the Government’s argument were valid, it would extend the special tax treatment to the beneficiaries of those trusts, as well, because of their low level of income. But the Government is not doing that. This legislation is racist, because the only people who can benefit from the special low tax rate are Māori people. Although I have nothing against Māori people—some of our finest citizens are Māori people—it is wrong to divide this country down racial lines. No one likes paying high taxes.

Mahara Okeroa: I do; I would.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Did the member say he likes paying high taxes? I can promise him that most of his Māori colleagues do not enjoy paying high taxes. When this legislation goes through, we will see accountancy firms kept very busy, as Māori businesses seek to reorganise themselves to benefit from the special low tax rate.

I accept that the status quo is unacceptable. At present, if a Māori authority distributes profits, it pays a tax rate of 33 percent, like any other business. It achieves the same imputation credits for its recipients, which is the same as any other business. If the authority retains its profits, it pays a tax rate of 25 percent on those profits. The problem is that if those profits are not distributed within 4 years, then a double taxation can occur, because the 25 percent is not refunded. That is unacceptable. National fully accepts that the status quo is not satisfactory. However, we do not accept that that unsatisfactory situation, where some Māori authorities can pay double taxation, should be remedied by the introduction of racist legislation, which splits this country down racial lines.

During the Committee stage, I challenged members of the Government, and those members supporting the Government, to find me a non-Māori New Zealander who could benefit from the special low tax rate. Gordon Copeland claimed he had found a minister of Irish descent—he did not say he had no Māori blood in him, but he did claim that he was a beneficiary of a Māori authority. I am not sure how that can be if he is not of Māori descent, though I pointed out to the House that he may not be the only Māori who claims Irish or Scottish descent when that is convenient to him. The Rt Hon Winston Peters is well known for claiming Scottish descent at times when it suits, and claiming Māori descent when it suits, as well.

National says that it is wrong. We will oppose this legislation because it is racist, and New Zealanders object to that. It divides this country. PricewaterhouseCoopers told the select committee it will be very busy, as Māori businesses seek to re-establish their affairs to benefit from the favourable tax treatment. Chen Palmer and Partners told the select committee it was contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It told us that, in the fishing industry alone, there will be a $70 million windfall for Māori businesses involved in the fishing industry. The select committee did become concerned about the potential competitive advantage that some businesses could achieve, which is why the select committee recommended that wholly-owned subsidiaries should not be able to access the special tax rate, but it will not be difficult for them to rearrange their affairs so that they can. Moreover, we know that some of the major farming businesses in this country will pay a tax rate of 19.5 percent once this passes, while other dairy farmers will pay a 39 percent tax rate. Whatever way one looks at it, it is wrong for one race of people in the same business to pay twice the tax rate that is paid by another race of people in this country, who are in the same business.

In my remaining moments, I point out that some of the amendments to the Tax Administration Act deserve comment, as well. With the passage of this legislation, we will give the Commissioner of the Inland Revenue Department the opportunity to demand 100 percent of tax in dispute. We will establish a new system of tax pooling, and stuff relating to PAYE intermediaries, which makes some sense, but the tax pooling could be resolved if the Government would only address the use-of-money interest issues. There is a real problem around PAYE intermediaries—what happens if an intermediary goes bust? The liability for the tax payable is still with the taxpayer, even though the taxpayer may have paid the intermediary. The Ministers who have been in the chair did not answer those questions during the Committee stage.

Finally, we have no problem with the introduction of promoter penalties. But, again, the Government has not answered all the issues around that. What will happen when a tax adviser advises on a tax scheme, and the taxpayer has settled with the Inland Revenue Department, which then says the scheme is not valid? The scheme promoter could get caught with having no say in the settlement of the dispute with the Inland Revenue Department, and face huge penalties. The Government did not perform well during the Committee stage of this legislation.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): United Future is pleased to lend its support to the third reading of the bills. The present taxation regime for Māori authorities is fundamentally unjust. Some distributions from those authorities are subject to double taxation, as both the organisations’ income and the distribution to the members are taxed. That same situation used to apply in an even more fundamental way to taxation on New Zealand companies. In those days, they were also subject to double taxation. But all that was rectified by the introduction of the imputation system, which now ensures that a credit is given back to shareholders, so that the income stream is taxed once, and once only.

The new Māori authorities taxation regime works in exactly the same way. The only difference is that, whereas the average New Zealand shareholder in a company has a marginal tax rate of 33c in the dollar, 90 percent of the beneficiaries of Māori authorities have a personal tax rate of just 19.5c in the dollar. That is why that particular rate has been chosen. It is quite clear from the evidence presented to the select committee that if we do reach the happy day when the average Māori authority beneficiary has a tax rate of 33c in the dollar, or, even better, 39c in the dollar, then the Māori authority rate will go up to those levels. Again, United Future categorically rejects any suggestion that these principles are based on race. In fact, they are the same for all New Zealanders. It must be remembered that if the personal tax rate for beneficiaries under Māori authorities is 33c or 39c in the dollar—and that is true for 10 percent of them—then they will pay tax at those rates. The competitive argument that has been rehearsed again by the Hon Lockwood Smith was well dealt with in the select committee and put to bed. In my opinion, there is no basis whatever to that argument.

I would like the House to take note of the general tone of the comments made by John Tamihere about the need for all of us to focus on how on earth we crack the problem and lift the Māori citizens of this country from the bottom of the heap, up through the tax bracket until they indeed come to that more normal situation—that is, with their tax rates in line with the rest of the population. That is a tremendous problem for this country. I hope we will not continue to be mealy-mouthed about simply correcting an injustice that has the outcome of putting just a few more dollars into the pockets of the members and beneficiaries of Māori authorities. Surely we want them to get fair and just treatment. They are the group that need it most.

But I am not voting for the legislation on that basis; I am voting for it on the basis that it is a fair and consistent tax treatment, and in reverse of the angle taken by National—that is, unless this is done for everyone else it should not be done for Māori authorities—I take the other view. I believe that this is the first step, and I will be pushing the Government to say: “Yes, we’ve now got this in place; let’s extend it to superannuation funds. Let’s extend it to family trusts and other similar organisations.” I am with National in terms of that objective, but I choose a totally different route to get there, and I am not prepared simply to catch votes by falsely claiming that this has anything whatever to do with race. It does not.

For the rest, United Future welcomes the provisions of this legislation as they relate to charities, to tax pooling, PAYE intermediaries, depreciation rules and amalgamation, GST treatment of telecommunication services, and superyacht crew tax exemptions. All these provisions will reduce compliance costs for taxpayers and introduce greater fairness and equity into the tax system. Accordingly, we are in the rare situation with this legislation of being able to say with confidence that all the affected taxpayers, saving only those dishonest people who wish to evade their legitimate tax obligations, will be well pleased with its outcomes. I guess we cannot often say that about a tax bill, but we can on this particular occasion.

I just want to add one further point. Lockwood Smith raises legitimate concerns about the present mix of tax rates, family credits, and so forth for low-income earners. He raises a legitimate point in saying that they have, in some circumstances, a marginal tax rate of 100 percent. I am therefore pleased to hear the Government say that it is committed to working hard on that very problem next year. Concerning the tax rates themselves, I also agree with the National Party that we should, at the very least, even though the Government is committed to progressive tax cuts, be adjusting those for the effect on the consumer price index. I am pleased to have gone along with it this year, because we actually came into Parliament as a party for the first time after those rates had already been set and were applying from 1 April 2002, but I give notice, as I have already done, to the Minister of Finance, that we will be on his case about seeing that adjusted, and I would ideally like to see that done in this year’s Budget. So with those explanations and reservations, I have great pleasure in signifying our support for the third readings of this legislation.

CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First): I am glad to speak to the third reading of this legislation—not because I am supporting it, but because I have an opportunity to speak out against it on behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues, and especially on behalf of my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and myself. We are both members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

I want to start by answering a question or two—not that I was asked the questions—raised by Gordon Copeland. He said that the current situation was unjust. Just like Lockwood Smith, we believe that the current situation in respect of the income level of Māori organisations is unacceptable. We have no problem in accepting that, but we do have a problem in allowing a tax regime to be implemented based on race, and if we look at the legislation, we see that that is exactly what it does. New Zealand First is not only concerned but also alarmed that one section of the New Zealand community is receiving an advantage over other groups.

We expressed a minority view in the committee’s report because of our concern, and I want quickly to read to the House what New Zealand First said in its minority report. We said that New Zealand First members do not endorse the proposed basic rates of tax for the 2002-03 tax year, and are opposed to what we see as a race-based tax law. New Zealand First and National had the same views on that. We also said that much of our consideration of the original bill focused on amendments to the tax regime as it applies to Māori authorities. The legislation introduces to the Income Tax Act 1994 a new definition of “Māori authority”, and also reduces the tax rate of Māori authorities to 19.5 percent. It is basic footy in my mind. How can that not be a race-based tax? Also, clause 68(2) of the original bill amends the tax rate reducing the income tax rate for Māori authorities to 19.5 percent, which is equal to the lowest income tax rate for individuals. This amendment is intended to reflect the fact that 90 percent of those individuals who receive benefits from Māori organisations pay tax at the lowest basic rate.

My question to the Government and to parties that are supporting this bill is this: why does everybody not get taxed in the same way? Why do we not fix this anomaly? Why do we not fix this problem? We accept that the status quo is unacceptable, we accept that the current situation is not right, but we are saying: “Why don’t we make this available to all New Zealanders?”. I think it is kind of sad to have to stand in this Parliament and raise such a basic question.

Last week, or 2 weeks ago now—it was before the adjournment—Tony Ryall was talking on this legislation. He asked a question of the House. It was another basic question. He asked why Māori organisations get a favoured tax rate. Mahara Okeroa answered in his own words. He said: “Because we are Māori.” That is what he said. That is what you said, mate; it is true, is it not?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Members must be referred to by their proper names. Speaker’s ruling 6/1 in the Supplement to Speakers’ Rulings states that members must be referred to by name, title, or portfolio.

CRAIG McNAIR: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for that guidance One day I might even read that.

In the second reading debate of the original bill, New Zealand First put forward an amendment that would have amended Part 2 so that all sections of the New Zealand community that can take advantage of the proposal relating to a basic rate of tax of 19.5 percent were treated in the same way. As a party we cannot support the legislation in this form, and it was sad to see that amendment defeated. This legislation is unfair. It is a race-based tax system. There are no two ways about it. We cannot get away from that fact.

The people I have talked to on the street tell me so, and some people whom I know quite well, who own businesses and so on, just cannot believe it. They are quite well informed as to what is going on; they have not heard just a couple of sound bites on television. They are business owners. They are people who have an interest in tax. They have been looking at this and they are concerned, as well. They cannot understand why this precedent is being set, and it is a scary precedent to set.

I reiterate that New Zealand First wants to treat all New Zealanders equally. That is why we prepared an amendment to give effect to that view. I was very glad that National and ACT supported us in that effort.

There is another member of New Zealand First here, Edwin Perry, and he is the chairman of a trust, as I have said before. He has got 80 beneficiaries in his trust—4,000 acres. He has had the message—and other members and other people from Māori trusts have said this to me or to our party and other members of the New Zealand First caucus—that the current situation is not acceptable and that Māori do not want to be treated in a different way from anybody else. They are aware, Mr Perry is aware, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters is aware, that a regime that encourages dependence and different rules is not going to help.

It is simple. If parents give children everything they need, if they buy their children a car when they leave school—and that is not wrong, depending on one’s view on that—and if the children do not want to work or contribute to society, because their parents are constantly giving them money and everything they need, they are not going to get anywhere in life. They are not going to make it further. They are not going to step forward in life. I have seen this with very close friends of mine. One child was given everything on a silver platter and the other, with the same parents, was not. Who has advanced and excelled? The child who was not given everything on a silver platter.

We also asked some other questions on this whole issue of taxation of Māori organisations. I will mention a question that we asked different submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One of the questions I asked was this: “Are there any elements to the Government proposal in this regard that cause you or your clients any real concerns?”. I think that the other members on the committee, from both sides of the House, and whatever their views are, will agree with me— because it was a fact—that people had concerns about this. Chen Palmer and Partners in its written submission stated that it felt like a breach of the Human Rights Act. That is exactly what it is. I thank the House for listening.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): I support this legislation.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): Jill Pettis’ speech might have sounded like 10 minutes of waffle, but it was only 3 seconds long when she said that she supported this legislation. I thank the Hon Paul Swain for pointing out to us, and to the people of New Zealand, that her 3 seconds did sound like 10 minutes of waffle. But I say that was one of the more insightful comments that I have heard from Jill Pettis in this House.

I will cut to the two main issues in this legislation. The first is that it introduces two tax rules for New Zealanders, and they will be based on race. I know my colleague Mr Gordon Copeland has discovered an Irish priest he thinks can somehow benefit from these tax rules for Māori, but he has not yet presented this Irish priest and the priest did not present himself, as I understand it, to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I look forward to meeting that guy. But it does not seem to me to say much in favour of this bill that an Irish priest can also rort the system and get in as a Māori authority. That seems to me to be wrong.

Mahara Okeroa: No, he can’t.

RODNEY HIDE: Is that wrong?

Mahara Okeroa: Oh, absolutely.

RODNEY HIDE: Mr Okeroa says Mr Gordon Copeland has it wrong, and no Irish priest will be able to take advantage of these rules.

Mahara Okeroa: A Māori Catholic Irish priest, yes.

RODNEY HIDE: A Māori Catholic Irish priest could, but an Irish Irish Catholic priest could not. And there we have it! Does Mr Okeroa, with his contribution to this great House today, not explain this legislation perfectly? That is, there will be rules for Māori Irish priests but not for Irish Irish priests. That is what that Government MP has just said. Dr Lockwood Smith heard him, as did the people at home listening to this debate on their radios.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member may not refer to radio listeners.

RODNEY HIDE: I do apologise to them. We all heard it. Everyone who is listening to this debate heard that our tax laws are to get down to making fine distinctions about whether one is a Māori Irish priest or an Irish Irish priest. I am pleased to report that although I am not a priest, I am, according to the Minister of Māori Affairs and his associate Minister, Ngāi Tahu, so I do believe that I will be in for a lower tax rate of 19.5c in the dollar as soon as I structure the house at home and my affairs as a marae. And as soon as we structure our business as a Māori authority, we will be in like Flynn at the 19.5 percent rate.

Mahara Okeroa: Hurry up, hurry up.

RODNEY HIDE: The member says “Hurry up”. I am as busy as I can be already, unlike that member.

I say to this House that that provision a disgrace. The idea that we should have two tax rules and distinguish amongst people’s tax payable on the basis of their race is wrong. It is divisive and wrong, and an insult to New Zealanders, Māori and non-Māori alike. When they went off to fight wars side by side, the bullets coming over the top did not distinguish whether people were Māori or Pākehā. Those bullets took everyone out. And when those people took their pay, the Army did not distinguish whether one was Māori or Pākehā—everyone received the same. So I ask Mr Okeroa why we cannot, in our tax rules, have one law for all New Zealanders? Why does Mr Okeroa not take a call and explain why there should be two tax rules? I would like to hear the reason for that.

The ACT party, New Zealand First, and the National Party stand for the rule of law and one law for all, no matter what the colour of one’s skin is, or one’s ethnicity or religious belief. I am shocked to hear that United Future does not agree with that position. [Interruption] Those members think they have sorted things out for the Irish Irish priest, but as we have heard from Mr Okeroa that will not happen—not if Mr Okeroa has his way—unless the priest is a Māori Irish priest. I have not worked out how much of a Māori an Irish priest has to be in order to get to pay tax at the 19.5 percent rate.

Let us look at the second problem in this legislation. Mr David Carter and Dr Lockwood Smith will remember—Mr Craig McNair was not born at the time—that in the last parliamentary term we had an inquiry into the Inland Revenue Department.

David Benson-Pope: What about an inquiry into Pipitea Street? That would be a good inquiry.

RODNEY HIDE: Mr David Benson-Pope wants to have an inquiry. Do members know what I love about it? I love these guys. There was an inquiry, and it has cleared us. I would like to say those members can say the same about Te Māngai Pāho, about Mr Dover Samuels and Mr John Tamihere, and about the Minister, Parekura Horomia, but unfortunately the Government does not conduct inquiries into those things, does it? The Government does not want to inquire into Te Māngai Pāho, so those members should just pipe down and concentrate on the tax issues.

This legislation, I am afraid, will affect Māori and Pākehā alike. The issue is this: the committee in that inquiry was stunned to learn that the Inland Revenue Department can just construct a debt against a taxpayer. It can just announce a debt, and it is up to the taxpayer to prove that he or she does not owe it. So, we heard the Inland Revenue Department admit that it had announced that taxpayers owed a million dollars. The rule then was that the department could demand that half the debt be paid immediately, before the taxpayer had a chance to go to court to prove that he or she did not owe it. So a taxpayer could become bankrupt before he or she got to court, because the tax department had the power to be judge, jury, and executioner, with no law.

We said on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, to a person—and I am sure if Mr McNair had been born and had been there he would have said the same thing—that that was wrong. This legislation has come back to the House, and it does not provide that the tax department can demand half the money upfront. We agree with that. We should give the taxpayer his or her day in court; Mr Copeland agrees with that. But then the commissioner, at his or her discretion—which means, I think, everyone whom the commissioner delegates that power to, which is every officer—can say he or she has looked at Mr McNair and Mr Copeland and at the debt that the department has constructed against them with no evidence, and has determined he or she thinks the assets are not safe. The department can then make that taxpayer cough up on the spot, not just 50 percent but 100 percent—plus interest. But the department has not gone to a third party, like a court, to prove its case. That happens before a case is heard. Now can members imagine that? When there is a taxpayer against whom the department thinks it might lose its case, it can wipe him or her out on the spot.

We should not entrust that sort of power to any human being, yet here we are entrusting it to the Inland Revenue Department. And this House is doing it. I do not blame the Inland Revenue Department; it is this House that is agreeing to that. What is Mr Copeland’s defence? He says the Inland Revenue Department will use that power only in special circumstances. What is a special circumstance? Is it when Rodney Hide or Gordon Copeland leaves Parliament? Is it someone whom members of the Inland Revenue Department do not like? Is it someone whom they do not like because they ate that person’s hamburgers, which made them sick, who will therefore be wiped out? Why should the Government not have to prove before the courts that a taxpayer owes it money before it can take that money or bankrupt that person by demanding it? Is that not a simple proposition for people here to get their heads around?

We have heard from me and from the qualified lawyer Mr Dail Jones that the department can use a Mareva injunction, whereby if the department does think that a taxpayer will do a runner it can go to the High Court, like any other litigant. It can say to the court that it thinks that person will do a runner, and ask it to put an injunction on that person. That request is tested by a third party. Presumably if the department has a good case, the High Court judge will agree with it. But why should we give that arbitrary power to any civil servant? Why is this House doing that? Why are Mr Gordon Copeland and Dr Michael Cullen doing that? We heard from the Hon John Tamihere that the Government is doing that in order to get at my mates. That is what we heard him say yesterday. What sort of power and what sort of threat are we signing up to? Will fictitious amounts be demanded from people who are friendly with Rodney Hide, in order to destroy them?

We on the Opposition side of the House in the ACT party, in the National Party, and in New Zealand First say that this legislation is racist. We say that it is an abuse of power—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member must not use the word “racist.” It has been ruled out of order in this House. The member must withdraw.

RODNEY HIDE: I beg your pardon, but it has not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member should look at Speaker’s ruling 6/5 (Supplement).

RODNEY HIDE: It is tax law based on race, which where I come from has a peculiar word that up until now Speakers have—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must withdraw and apologise for the use of the word.

RODNEY HIDE: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding of that Speaker’s ruling is that it is up to the Speaker to decide whether describing a policy as racist is likely to lead to disorder.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is right, and I have just done that.

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What you told the House was that the use of the word was not allowed, and that is not actually correct. The word is allowed if the Speaker thinks that it will not lead to disorder.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for drawing that to my attention, but I would also like him to look at Speaker’s ruling 6/5 (Supplement). It states: “If the word ‘racist’ is used in an insulting or demeaning way to any person or party, it is out of order.” I have made my decision.

RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would help if, when you make a ruling, rather than saying it is not possible ever to use that word to describe a bill, you explain that you think it will lead to disorder. To say that we can never use that word to describe a policy or legislation is not in the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member very much. I appreciate him drawing that to my attention.

DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago): I rise to speak about what is probably the most controversial aspect of this legislation, and to support the comments of Gordon Copeland, because I think he has it on the nail. This is not racist legislation. It cures an injustice that has been there for a long, long time. Until this legislation is passed into law Māori authorities experience double taxation. They and their members are taxed at higher rates than any other sector in society, notwithstanding that 90 percent of their members have a marginal tax rate of 19.5 percent. To the extent that any individual is in the top 10 percent and gets a tax advantage, it is only one of timing, because at the end of the year that person has to pay the balance of his or her tax. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): I have been sitting here wondering about the Irish priest, and I think I know why Gordon Copeland cannot present him. That priest is very, very busy in the confessional box. I suspect there are many, many occasions when the United Future members of Parliament line up and say they think they have let the people of New Zealand down. Those people campaigned on the basis of their commitment and principle. They were to come here to Parliament and keep the Government honest. I listened to the speech of Gordon Copeland, as he tried to justify this legislation. He attempted to argue—with huge difficulty, I acknowledge—that this was not a tax rate based on race. But Gordon Copeland could not successfully argue that. To David Benson-Pope, who continues to interject, I say it is a sad day—

Clayton Cosgrove: It’s been around for a long period of time.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Clayton Cosgrove thinks he knows the law. He says it has been around for a long period of time. Why are we changing the rate now to 19.5 percent? Why is this legislation before the House today, if this has been around for a long time? The answer is that these guys today, if we pass this legislation, will give a special tax rate of 19.5 percent. I say to Clayton Cosgrove that that rate has not been around for a long time. I say to him that, as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, he should have known that.

I go back to the comments of Gordon Copeland. He may well have forgotten this, but I sat in the House when we did the Committee stage on this legislation, and he interjected—it will be recorded in Hansard—that Māori deserve to have a special tax status because they were here in New Zealand first. That is what Gordon Copeland said in this House.

Dail Jones: Are you sure he said that?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I assure you he said that Māori deserve to have a special tax status because they were here first.

John Carter: They were here first. They arrived in New Zealand—

Hon DAVID CARTER: They arrived in New Zealand before Pākehā.

Rodney Hide: He didn’t say that!

Hon DAVID CARTER: He did say that. So that is what we are to do: we are to have tax rates now that are determined by the time that one’s heritage has been in this country.

Rodney Hide: I’m from the first four ships.

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is tough luck if Rodney Hide is descended from people on the first four ships. He would have to be descended from people on the first four wakas to be included in this deal. I say to United Future that it should watch the way it is treated at the next election if it continues to roll over and support stuff that I cannot believe it can really accept.

The other interesting comment from Mr Copeland was that he aspires to the day when we will be able to find most Māori authority beneficiaries being on a personal tax rate of 33 percent, and that then we will change this legislation. I make two points about that. Once it is enacted, it will be very hard to change this racially based legislation. The second point I would make is that there is no chance of getting significant numbers of Māori on to a 33 percent tax rate while there is the basic argument raised by John Tamihere, whereby continuing to bash people into welfare dependency will give no chance whatsoever of upping significantly the tax rates paid by Māori.

The other interesting interjection came from my South Island colleague.

Rodney Hide: I’m Ngāi Tahu.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I wish the member good luck. Rodney Hide should rearrange his affairs and get on a Māori authority, and he will save himself a lot of money. The other interesting comment that I must mention was Mahara Okeroa’s contribution, when he yelled across the House that Māori like paying high taxes. That is what he said, and he repeated it today. Why are we giving them a special tax rate if they are so keen to pay a higher tax rate?

Mahara Okeroa: We are restoring our historical situation as has existed with Māori authority beneficiaries for 100 years.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I say to Mahara Okeroa that if Māori are happy and keen to front up and pay high rates, we should let them. We do not need to pass this legislation. Let us see where that man votes shortly.

The justification for this racially based legislation was that most Māori beneficiaries—the ultimate beneficiaries of a Māori authority—are actually low to middle income New Zealanders. Therefore, they will not be taxed at 33c in the dollar, and therefore we will bring in the special proxy rate of 19.5c in the dollar. That was the argument that was run. But let us, for example, take a listed company like Air New Zealand.

Darren Hughes: Very good owners.

Hon DAVID CARTER: The member should stand in the queue tonight. He does not have to go to the airport, because he is locally based. However, if he did, he would stand in the queues now, which are probably half an hour longer than they were before the Government and Michael Cullen became the very good owners of that airline. But that is not the point I want to make. I want to make the point that the 17 percent shareholding in Air New Zealand that is not owned by the Government will, in terms of numbers, be significantly owned by ma and pa investors. I say to Darren Hughes, who now claims that he is a tax expert, that most of those people will not be paying 33c in the dollar as their personal tax rate, so why are we not providing the same 19.5c in the dollar rate for them?

Darren Hughes: Because it’s a new policy.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I will tell that member what my policy is. It is to drive tax rates down and to get the economy performing. And it is nice to get some support for that. It is a simple thing to do.

I am not sure how much time I have left, but that brings me to another point. This legislation also cements in the annual tax rates. Not enough people have spoken about that. Here in New Zealand we had an economy that gave a golden opportunity to Dr Cullen to lock in some sustainably high growth rates, but what did he do? He locked in the tax rates. Mr Hughes is quite right. However, Dr Cullen has not locked in sustainable growth, and that is a hugely missed opportunity that would not have been missed if we had a Government that knew anything about how to achieve sustainably high growth rates.

Only in the last couple of weeks Helen Clark has admitted amnesia, and that she forgot that she ever set a target of getting us back into the top half of the OECD within one decade. That just will not be possible while the tax rate is locked in at 39c in the dollar for people earning $60,000 or more. Sixty-thousand dollars or more is not a high income. To ask people to pay in tax 39c of each additional dollar that they earn above that amount stifles initiative. It is a way to get at successful people. They are the very people that the Government talks about the need to try to assist and encourage, and it is doing nothing but giving them words.

Brian Connell: It’s an envy tax.

Hon DAVID CARTER: He is absolutely right; it is.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.