Thursday, 22 May 2003

Thursday, 22 May 2003

Thursday, 22 May 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Deputy Foreign Minister of Vietnam

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency the Hon Mr Nguygen Dinh Bin, Deputy Foreign Minister of Vietnam, accompanied by the Minister for Trade Negotiations, is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed.

His Excellency the Hon Mr Nguygen Dinh Bin, accompanied by the Minister for Trade Negotiations, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week the House will go into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 10 June, it is the intention to make progress on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6), and the third reading of the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill. The first Wednesday, of course, is a members’ day. Over the next sitting period, it is also the Government’s intention to conclude the debates on the performance and current operations of Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, and the Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, including the second reading of an Imprest Supply Bill.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): I wonder whether the Leader of the House might give us some indication of when the Responsible Gambling Bill will be coming back before the House. There is quite a bit of public concern about it, particularly in the sporting community. A number of letters are coming out of the various trusts affected by this, stating that they are unable to make grants for summer sport pending the legislation being passed. Can the Minister indicate when he might let the sporting community of New Zealand know just when the bad news is to hit?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I can tell those bodies that they can proceed. There is no reason to believe the canards put about by some that the Government will grab the money. There is no intention to move such an amendment.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Free-trade Agreements—United States

1. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Minister for Trade Negotiations : Is he optimistic about New Zealand’s chances of securing a free-trade agreement with the United States in the near future, particularly in light of United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick’s comment that: “There’s been some things done recently that would make (a free-trade agreement) harder to carry”, and does he think this comment is a reference to the Prime Minister’s stance on Iraq; if not, why not?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations): Ambassador Zoellick’s remarks were his own. I do not intend to interpret them. New Zealand will continue to pursue its interest in a trade agreement with the United States. We have known that this would be a big challenge but we are prepared to put the effort in with the United States administration, the United States Congress, and American business and agriculture groups.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister really believe that opposition from the United States farming lobbies to exports of New Zealand lamb and dairy products is the real reason behind Mr Zoellick’s comments at this time, considering that Australia also has a strong lamb and dairy export industry but is, nevertheless, apparently on the brink of signing such an agreement?

Hon JIM SUTTON: Ambassador Zoellick’s comments, as prepared for delivery, contain no reference to New Zealand whatsoever. It is quite clear, and it has always been clear, that the main obstacle to New Zealand obtaining a free-trade agreement with the United States would be the objections of United States farm interests to additional competition.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister believe that the “things done recently” might include Helen Clark’s criticism of the Bush presidency, her statements aligning us with China and France, and the heavy playing in the US of the picture showing her cuddling up to Jacques Chirac at exactly the time he was public enemy No. 1 in the US?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I am quite sure that Ambassador Zoellick would never have heard of most of the things on the Leader of the Opposition’s list of complaints.

Martin Gallagher: Were Ambassador Zoellick’s comments a rejection of New Zealand’s case for a trade agreement?

Hon JIM SUTTON: As I said before, Ambassador Zoellick’s comments are his own, and I will not interpret them for him. However, the New Zealand Government does not regard this as a rejection of New Zealand’s case for a free-trade agreement. We will continue to follow the advice of Ambassador Zoellick to work with the Congress, the Senate, the administration, the business community, and farm groups in support of our case.

R Doug Woolerton: Is it not true that the American farming lobby has no intention of ever allowing New Zealand to have a free-trade agreement with America, particularly after the war with Iraq?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The fact of the matter is that New Zealand rural interests are working increasingly closely with United States farm interests in, for example, the processing and marketing of dairy products, where recently New Zealand technology has added significant value to the US industry. We support the initiatives taken by congressman Charles Stenham, who recently has facilitated a meeting between New Zealand, Australian, and United States sheep interests, with a view to jointly promoting lamb markets in the United States for the benefit of all. We intend to keep working to ensure a partnership relationship develops here, which will not be inimical to a free-trade agreement in the future.

Hon Richard Prebble: Does the Minister stand by his statement of 10 May in the Dominion Post in response to questions on the Prime Minister’s criticism of the US invasion of Iraq: “So far it hasn’t made any difference as far as I’m concerned.”, and does he now concede that the Prime Minister’s comments torpedoed any chance of a free-trade agreement between New Zealand and the US; if not, what was Ambassador Zoellick referring to when he said the United States was disappointed at recent actions by New Zealand?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The Government certainly does not accept that those recent remarks torpedo any chance of a future free-trade agreement. All I can say is that I continue to have an excellent working relationship with Ambassador Zoellick, pursuing our common interests in trade negotiations, particularly in a multilateral arena.

Rod Donald: Does the Minister regard Robert Zoellick’s statement on 8 May, that countries must cooperate with the United States on foreign policy and national security goals before they meet his criteria for a free-trade agreement, as bribery and blackmail; if the Minister does agree, does he also agree that it is more important for New Zealand to maintain an independent foreign policy stance than to succumb to America’s wishes to dominate the planet?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I do not share the member’s uncharitable interpretation of other people’s comments.

Hon Peter Dunne: In the light of Mr Zoellick’s comments, does the Minister not now consider it vital that the New Zealand Government immediately seek to improve its diplomatic and political relationships with both Australia and the United States, and, if he does think that way, what steps are to be taken?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The Government has consistently taken the view that these are two of New Zealand’s most important bilateral relationships, and it does its best to develop those constructively. However, by doing that we do not forgo the chance to express an independent view on foreign policy issues.

Hon Bill English: What does the Minister say to those rural and provincial communities that will miss out on $1 billion worth of trade, jobs, and opportunities, and that believed him when he said on 5 May: “Not too long after Australia has completed an agreement, we will be there with a good chance of negotiating one ourselves.”?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I have no reason to change that view.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister recall his statement of 1 April 2003, in response to being asked whether sending troops to Iraq would help to secure a free-trade agreement: “I don’t believe it would make any enduring difference,”; if so, can he explain to the House what actions, lack of actions, or comments by the Government he now thinks have made that difference?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I certainly do not believe that any comments the New Zealand Government, or members thereof, have made about the Iraq war have made any enduring difference to the relationship. A healthy relationship allows the free and frank expression of views. We disagree from time to time with our friends on many subjects.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member did not really address the question, because he actually turned it on its head. The question the Hon Peter Dunne raised was really the same as my question. We both asked the Minister what things New Zealand had done that have caused this change. He got up and said that he does not think it was this statement and he does not think it was that statement. What does he think caused the change? That is the question Mr Dunne asked. We want to know what New Zealand has done that has caused us to lose our free-trade agreement.

Mr SPEAKER: He did address the question.

Hon Peter Dunne: If it is nothing that New Zealand has done, and if the issue is not one of opposition from the United States farm lobby, what steps does the Minister think New Zealand now needs to take to ensure that we are back on the list, in terms of a free-trade agreement being negotiated at some point in the future?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I am not aware that New Zealand has ever formally been on any such list, or indeed that any such list exists. All I can do is reiterate that we will continue to work with legislators, with the administration, with the business community, and with farm groups in the United States to advance our case for a mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement.

Internal Affairs, Minister—Confidence

2. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Internal Affairs; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Peter Brown: Why has she put so much confidence in this Minister, when violent crime has increased massively since this Minister—

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question related to the Minister of Internal Affairs. The member cannot switch portfolios because it is the same person.

Mr SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct. The member must now come to the Minister’s role as Minister of Internal Affairs, if he had not come to it already.

Peter Brown: Has the Prime Minister noted that there is a direct correlation between the violent movies and films this Minister lets into the country with impunity, and the growing violent crime in society?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No.

Peter Brown: Is it acceptable to the Prime Minister that a film is allowed into this country that displays a 10-minute rape scene, a man having his head bashed to pulp, and much more, while I note that in this House we are not even allowed to use the word “rugger” spelt with a “b”; and, if it is not acceptable, will she insist the Minister does something about film censorship—or at least go and look at a film?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Unlike a famous former National Party predecessor, the Minister does not watch those kinds of films. I understand that Mr Graeme Lee used to invite his colleagues around to watch them in the past. The Minister is unable to correct the Chief Censor of Film and Literature on these matters. That is a matter of legislation.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you would not mind, would you explain to the House, and particularly to the Opposition, how Dr Cullen’s answer was in any way relevant and necessary in respect of the question he was asked?

Mr SPEAKER: There is no need for that. The second part of the answer was perfectly relevant; the first part was not.

Peter Brown: Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the Minister has performed dismally when it comes to such issues as leaky homes, Agent Orange, and film censorship, and that he has now created a fund that is going to rob local communities of returns from gambling?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The last point is completely untrue, as I stated in the business statement. On the issue of censorship the Chief Censor is completely independent. It is not up to the Minister to decide what films that member, or any other member of this House, can watch.

Defence Force—New Ships

3. TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Defence: What progress has there been made on the acquisition of new ships for the New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence): I am pleased to advise the House that the request for proposals for the acquisition of new naval vessels, which is matched to New Zealand’s wider security needs and known as Project Protector, is about to be released to six short-listed companies.

Tim Barnett: Will New Zealand industry get an opportunity to be involved in this project?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes. The Ministry of Defence and the Industrial Supplies Office are actively promoting the capabilities of New Zealand industry with the short-listed companies. As part of the tender response process, companies are required to report, in writing, on what they have done to afford opportunities for New Zealand industry involvement.

Simon Power: Can the Minister guarantee that all new vessels being built for the New Zealand Navy will be built to a military engineering specification rather than a civilian commercial specification; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can assure the member that the ships will meet the specifications as designed and arrived at by the agencies involved. The purpose is to ensure that we have the right vessels to do the job we require of them.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister once again try to explain to the House whether these vessels will be built to military specifications or civilian commercial specifications?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can explain to the member that the process by which the invitations—

Opposition Members: Just answer!

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will have an opportunity to answer, and I want him to do so.

Hon MARK BURTON: The vessel designs submitted by the six companies or groups that are being invited to do so are to meet set operational specifications. The companies are being invited to put forward the sorts of ships that will meet those requirements, and we will make the judgment about which is the best tender on that basis.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the Opposition took umbrage at the way the Minister started to answer the question, you insisted that the Opposition should be quiet and give the Minister a chance to answer. In fact, you directed the Minister to answer the question. The Minister has been asked twice whether the specifications are civilian or military. We know the process. The Opposition is not interested in the process, we want to know the specifications, and, at some stage, surely the Minister has to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Does the member want to speak to the point of order?

Hon MARK BURTON: No, I do not.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question. Whether it is satisfactory to the Opposition is not my concern.

Simon Power: Do “set operational specifications” mean that the specifications will be military or civilian?

Hon MARK BURTON: Those specifications mean that the vessels will be required to meet the needs of military and civilian functions, because the vessels are required to meet a wide range of defence and civilian capabilities.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is one of those questions where you would be justified in allowing Mr Mark and the National Party to ask some more questions, because that answer is a piece of nonsense. We all know what the Minister has been asked. A military ship is built to a different specification, so it has things that mean it will still be able to operate if it is hit; a civilian ship does not. There is really no reason that the Minister cannot tell us whether the specifications are military or civilian. Of course, a civilian ship can be used for military purposes—we all know that. That was not what the Minister was asked, and I do not understand why—[Interruption] I know that Mr Cunliffe is very proud of being rewarded and of being a Minister, but I do not think that is a reason for him to interject on a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No, he should not. He will leave the Chamber, please.

Hon David Cunliffe withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Richard Prebble: I am really interested in the answer. I suspect that the Minister must know, and I think we should be allowed to ask some more questions; otherwise, we have wasted our time this afternoon.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister does not have to answer according to the questioner’s prescription; he has to address the question as he sees fit, and he did so.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Prior to the Easter break, I raised a point of order about Ministers not answering questions, and you gave us a ruling on that after Easter. The question addressed in part of the ruling was whether a Minister could be considered to be trifling with the Chair if he or she did not give an answer. Your answer was yes. As for the question of whether that would therefore allow more supplementary questions, Speaker’s ruling 128/4 states that if a Minister is trifling with the Chair, further supplementary questions can be permitted. In this case, I put it to you that the Minister has not answered the question and therefore could be considered by you to be trifling with the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER: I always listen to the member’s comments with care, because he does not often raise points of order. On this occasion, I do not agree with him.

Beef—Canadian Imports

4. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for Food Safety: Can the Minister reassure New Zealand consumers that no beef fat products imported from Canada have entered the food chain in New Zealand; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister for Food Safety): I am advised that New Zealand has imported approximately 100 tonnes of beef fat tallow oil and 250 tonnes of shortening over the last 18 months. I am further advised that a temporary hold on consignments of beef products from Canada will remain in place until further information is available from Canada.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that beef tallow and shortening are both used in cooking foods, such as fish and chips and hamburgers, and that it is totally unsatisfactory for consumers not to know where exactly it is used in the food chain; and does the Minister agree that the situation demonstrates the urgent need for traceability of food ingredients and country-of-origin labelling so that consumers know where their food comes from and can make up their own mind about whether they want to eat products that contain Canadian beef extracts; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are very concerned about the products that New Zealand consumers take in. We have very good traceability systems in the country. I can confirm that the shortening is used in cooking, and that the beef fat tallow oil is used in cosmetics and soap. However, I am confident that if the member has used any of the cosmetics, she will not contract mad cow disease.

Dave Hereora: What action did the Government undertake when it was informed of the situation in Canada?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Government was notified first thing yesterday morning. Officials from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Health, customs, and biosecurity met, and a temporary ban on beef imports was put in place. Imported product from Canada was traced, and I am confident that that was a timely and thorough response.

Barbara Stewart: Given the latest news from Canada, is the Minister reconsidering her opposition to the labelling of imported meats; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We do not consider that to be absolutely necessary at this stage. We have a number of other protocols and systems in place. Customs data can identify specific imports. We have an ability to contact those importers, recall any products that we consider to be of high risk, and, of course, publish any further information that is necessary.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that the Food Safety Authority does not actually know where 100 tonnes of beef fat tallow oil and 250 tonnes of shortening, which may contain beef fat, have in fact ended up in New Zealand; and how can she therefore claim that we have very good traceability systems in New Zealand or that we are in any position to recall products, when we do not know where they have ended up?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We do know where that went. We are assuming that it has been used. It is a very, very low-risk product. The Food Safety Authority does have the ability to trace any high-risk products. No such products have come into this country. We consider there to be no risk to New Zealand consumers or to the New Zealand economy at this point.

Free-trade Agreements—United States

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister for Trade Negotiations: Does he believe that the statement made by United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick in relation to New Zealand that: “There’s been some things done recently that would make (a free-trade agreement) harder to carry” to the United States House of Representatives was a reference to the Prime Minister’s comments about the United States presidency and the war in Iraq; if not, why not?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations): As I said earlier, ambassador Zoellick’s remarks were his own, and I do not intend to interpret them. New Zealand will continue to pursue its interest in a trade agreement with the United States.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister seen a diplomatic cable, dated 21 January 2003, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Wellington to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Washington, stating: “New Zealand could suffer economic harm, particularly through investment diversion, if the US and Australia proceed with an FTA agreement without a similar agreement being negotiated between the US and New Zealand.”; and if he has seen that cable, does he believe the advice that Government officials gave him and the Prime Minister?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I do not recall the particular cable, but I do accept that a free-trade agreement between our two largest trading partners to which we were not a party would have some potential downside for New Zealand.

David Parker: Has the Minister had any reaction from Washington DC on this issue?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I draw members’ attention to comments made today by the President of the US - New Zealand Business Council, Fred Benson, for whom I have enormous respect. He is well connected with the US administration and the US business community, so his words carry a lot of weight. I was pleased to hear him say that he does not believe that the door is closed to a US – New Zealand trade agreement. His view was that we should press on and do our job to show the case being made by US business for a free-trade agreement. That seems to be pretty good advice to me, and I think the Government will follow it.

Dail Jones: What reports has the Minister received from the Prime Minister, following the Prime Minister’s recent meeting in Europe with Mr Zoellick, with specific reference to the issues raised in this statement: “There’s been some things done recently that would make (a free-trade agreement) harder to carry”?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I have had no report of ambassador Zoellick saying any such thing to the Prime Minister.

Hon Richard Prebble: Is Parliament to interpret the Minister’s answers to the House today to mean that he—the Minister—and his officials have no idea what is meant by: “things done recently that would make (a free-trade agreement) harder to carry”, or does he not care what those “things” are; if that is not the right interpretation, would he now tell us what he and his officials believe are the “things” that have been recently done that would make a free-trade agreement harder to carry? What are they?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The correct interpretation of what I said was that I do not intend to interpret ambassador Zoellick’s words for him.

Rod Donald: Has the Minister seen reports in Australia that claimed gains from a US - Australia free-trade agreement rely on heroic assumptions, such as the US abandoning all agricultural protection measures, and that without these there are no gains to Australia from a US - Australia free-trade agreement; if so, are claims of benefits to New Zealand from a free-trade agreement based on similarly fanciful assumptions?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I have no recollection of seeing the report the member refers to. I will say, however, there are potential upsides and downsides for New Zealand in this situation.

Hon Bill English: As the Minister is unwilling to interpret what Robert Zoellick said, can he give us the benefit of his huge experience as a trade negotiating Minister and tell us his opinion of whether Helen Clark’s remarks about a Gore presidency, her remarks about alignment with France and China, and her close relationship with Jacques Chirac have made his job easier or harder?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I am a persistent person, and I just get on with the job. I am confident that success will eventually attend our efforts.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact that the Minister may or may not be persistent—

Mr SPEAKER: No, he went further than that.

John Carter: Well, he did, and he said he would carry on with the job.

Mr SPEAKER: “Confident”.

John Carter: He said he was confident, but he did not answer the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am sorry.

Hon Richard Prebble: I think I can help.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Richard Prebble.

Hon Richard Prebble: I think the member should listen more carefully. I think the member really did answer. There was no doubt about his answer.

Census—2006 Preparations

6. DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Statistics: What progress has been made towards determining the content of the 2006 census?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Statistics): Decisions on census content are made by the Government Statistician. His autonomy is jealously guarded; so is his integrity. Recently Statistics New Zealand released its report Preliminary Views on Content for the 2006 census. This document is the basis for further consultation and public submissions. Submissions on census content close on 27 June this year. A final decision on the proposed content will be released in October.

Dianne Yates: Does Statistics New Zealand’s release of its preliminary views on the census content mean that decisions on the content have been predetermined?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: No, the contents will be determined only after the submission process is completed and the views arising from that process are analysed. It is important to note that the content of the 2001 census did change from that proposed in Statistics New Zealand’s preliminary views. I encourage those interested in the census content to make a submission.

Crime—Asians

7. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: What initiatives, if any, is he contemplating to deal with the increasing rate of Asian crime?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): The police deal with criminals regardless of race or creed. This Government has in the past funded, and continues to fund, initiatives to fight all crime.

Ron Mark: Does one of the Minister’s initiatives include gagging the entire police force to stop its members from embarrassing the Prime Minister, as has been reported in today’s New Zealand Herald—a bizarre response, would he not agree, given that by his own figures apprehension of people born in China for violent offences has leapt by a massive 297 percent?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The fact is that the apprehension rate of Asians, per 10,000 Asians, fell from 117.7 in 1996 to 116.8 in 2001.

Georgina Beyer: What is the philosophy of the police in dealing with crime?

Mr SPEAKER: I do encourage esoteric questions, but that is a very, very wide one indeed. The Minister may give a very brief comment.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police discharge their oath, and I quote, “without favour or affection, malice or ill will”. They are not interested in casting aspersions on groups of people in our community. It would be a pity if members of the House sitting opposite did cast aspersions, because it would only stir up a climate of hate.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am going to take that as a direct shot at myself, which I deem to be offensive. I ask for your protection; and my reason for requesting your protection from such aspersions—

Mr SPEAKER: If that was an implied personal reflection on the member, the Minister will withdraw and apologise.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: It was not a personal aspersion at all.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That cannot possibly be the case when this Government and previous Ministers of Police have focused so heavily on Māori crime without one word about offence being taken. This issue needs to be dealt with as an issue, as opposed to it being turned into a personal attack by a Minister on an Opposition member.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has taken personal offence to it. I would now ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I withdraw and apologise.

Pansy Wong: Has the Minister consciously considered the practical and logical initiative of funding the Auckland police to implement the Auckland City District Police—Asian Responsiveness Strategic Plan, dated 26 October 2000?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I am pleased to tell the member that the police are now helping fund a language telephone line, and are surveying the Asian community about its needs. Police liaison officers are working with the community. There are talkback programmes, and formal working relationships between the police and Chinese programmes and organisations. Of course, the police also work with other groups, to make sure that members of the Asian community are not victims of crime and are not singled out.

Dr Muriel Newman: Is the Minister concerned about being asked about Asian crime, in the light of Statistics New Zealand figures showing Māori conviction rates are double Pacific Island rates, five times European rates, and 10 times the other category, which includes Asians; that being so, what initiatives, if any, is he contemplating to deal with the increasing rate of Māori crime?

Mr SPEAKER: That is outside the original question. The Minister may make a very brief comment in relation to the original question.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police have many initiatives to fight crime wherever it occurs and whoever commits it.

Ron Mark: When police officers like Senior Constable Steve Lamb of Auckland, District Crime Manager Detective Inspector Kevin Baker, Detective Inspector Gavin Jones of Auckland, and Detective Sergeant Bob Kerr of Christchurch are all reported as saying that immigrant crime is escalating disproportionately, and when his own figures out of his own office show the same thing, why do the Minister and the Prime Minister continue to tell this House that the increasing rate of immigrant crime is low?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Because it actually represents a very small number of people in the Asian community. Crime in the rest of the community is overrepresented, being four times what it is in the Asian community.

Ron Mark: What is the Minister doing to assist the New Zealand police force out there trying to keep our streets safe, whose officers are required to deal with 300,000 people in New Zealand who do not speak English?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I do not think the last statement is true.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Unless the Government is about to deny its own figures, is the Minister now calling me a liar?

Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister is entitled to give his opinion, which was perfectly adequate.

Pansy Wong: I seek the leave of the House to table the document, Auckland City District Police—Asian Responsiveness Strategic Plan, dated 26 October 2000.

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

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to table a series of documents that relate to question No. 5: a diplomatic cable from Washington to Wellington, dated 28 May 2002; a Treasury report of 6 November 2002 on the harm to the New Zealand economy if there is not a New Zealand – US free-trade agreement; and a diplomatic cable from Wellington to Washington, dated 21 January 2003, which I quoted in a supplementary question.

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

Oil and Gas—Waitangi Tribunal

8. Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) to the Prime Minister: When the Hon Margaret Wilson, on her behalf, said yesterday that “the Government will consider the report and the recommendations from the tribunal”, does this mean that the Government may still accept a claim by Māori for compensation regarding petroleum; if not, why did she make this statement?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations), on behalf of the Prime Minister: No, the Government will consider the tribunal’s report because it has implications for the settlement process beyond the specific issues of using petroleum as compensation in Taranaki. Also, I see no reason, on the evidence and the advice I have, to change the position relating to compensation regarding petroleum.

Hon Roger Sowry: When the Prime Minister said that the issue of contemporary claims “should be parked as an issue for another day”, and also: “We cannot deal with this at this time.”, will she now, after 2½ years, deal with the issue and tell Māori and the whole of New Zealand what Labour’s position is on contemporary claims for natural resources, such as petroleum?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The report deals with petroleum and Crown minerals in a historical context; it does not deal with it in a contemporary claim context. We are, however, looking at the issue of contemporary claims at the moment.

Jill Pettis: What are the other implications of the tribunal’s petroleum report?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The report has introduced the new notion of a treaty interest, the meaning and extent of which need to be understood better. This notion appears to suggest that settlements agreed by claimants and the Crown should not be full and final, and could be revisited in certain circumstances.

Stephen Franks: What criteria are applied by the Government in assessing the national or public interest affected by treaty claims, whether contemporary or historical, and for how long have these principles been applied?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The principles have been applied in terms of, certainly, petroleum since 1937, but it is the Crown Minerals Act that contains the provision relating to the Crown use of Crown minerals. In other words, this is also being incorporated in the Government’s Crown principles governing the negotiation of historical settlements. There is a section at page 94 stating quite clearly that natural resources are not available for general use in settlements in the way that cash or surplus lands are.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by Michael Cullen’s statement in April: “It genuinely makes the treaty a living document when new applications or implications may rise as circumstances change.”; if so, how is that consistent with the Government’s treaty settlement policy that all settlements are final and cannot be reviewed to take account of those new applications or implications, such as petroleum resources?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is that the full and final settlement relates to the negotiation of the historical claims and grievances that have been recognised and incorporated in the deed and in legislation. So it relates to that; it is an agreed position. Within that is an acknowledgment that Crown minerals are not the subject of compensation in terms of cash or land.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister’s last answer mean that, although it is the Government’s position that all settlements to date are full and final, there is now an opportunity for that provision to be reviewed in what was described in the report as “contemporary settlements”; if so, what are the implications of that?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The tribunal’s report appears to argue not that contemporary issues should reopen historical settlements, but that historical settlements should be reopened for this matter relating to royalties for Crown minerals. In other words, the Government needs to consider the tribunal’s report further, because it appears to relate to historical settlements that have already been settled with the agreement of both parties. That is why the significance of this report is taking some time to work through.

Hon Roger Sowry: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Hon Margaret Wilson’s comments that the tribunal has seen fit “to extend the jurisprudence in this area by creating a new concept of treaty interest”; if she does agree with those comments, will the Government support the new concept of treaty interests; if so, how?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Yes, the Prime Minister does agree with the Hon Margaret Wilson’s comments. That is precisely why we as a Government are taking time to consider the implication of that precise issue of what is meant by “treaty interests”.

Stephen Franks: I return to my previous supplementary question to the Prime Minister and I ask about the criteria as applied in the national or public interest generally, not just petroleum—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is foreshadowing his question by a long explanatory statement about his previous question. He is there to ask a question, not to explain what he meant the first time around.

Mr SPEAKER: I would like the member to come to the question. I am sure he can rephrase it.

Stephen Franks: What criteria or factors are applied in the national or public interest test generally, and if claim settlements need not all be in the public interest, why not?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: My understanding is that the “national interest” means “in the interests of all sections of the community”, and it has been declared that Crown minerals are for the use of the whole community. Crown minerals have been assessed as having those criteria of being in the national interest in terms of their use.

Hon Roger Sowry: Will the Prime Minister today rule out compensation for royalties, or for a share of ongoing royalties, being given by her Government to Māori claimants; if not, why not?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: It would be foolish to give an absolute assurance without an opportunity to consider the report totally and fully. Only a fool would do that, and this Government has no fools. However, as I have said, there is nothing that I have seen or been advised about that would lead me to believe that royalties should be paid in this instance, at all.

Stephen Franks: If national interest factors mean that an expropriation can be made without compensation to those contributing to the national interest, what factors allowed the Prime Minister to decide to ask that the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) include ancestral and cultural landscapes, effectively nationalising from their owners, without compensation, parts of their land, in breach of article 2 of the treaty?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I fail to understand the direct relevance of that question to the subject matter of the original question.

Question No. 7 to Minister

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek this opportunity, before the next question, to seek leave of the House to table a press release from the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, announcing the setting up of a language line interpreting service designed to help 300,000 immigrants with no, or limited, English.

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

Question No. 5 to Minister

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): I seek leave to table a study by Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics at the Australian National University, titled Australian Security and Free Trade with America, which concludes the claimed gains from a US-Australian free-trade agreement—

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

Indonesia—Aceh Independence

9. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Prime Minister: What steps has she taken to seek an end to hostilities in Aceh, as the stated position of her Government is to see the Indonesian Government and the Aceh independence movement return to negotiations?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has made clear that the New Zealand Government would like to see the parties return to mediation and negotiation. We believe that special autonomy remains a workable solution. These comments have been published in Indonesia and our embassy will be registering this position with the Indonesian Government.

Keith Locke: Will the Prime Minister be making direct representations to President Megawati Sukarnoputri to stop the military assault in Aceh so that we do not have a repeat of the East Timor tragedy, where New Zealand Governments for many years failed to meet fully their responsibilities to a suffering people?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We do seek a negotiated solution, but there is a difference between East Timor and Aceh. Aceh has been part of the State of Indonesia from its formation; East Timor was conquered by invasion by Indonesia.

Dr Wayne Mapp: In supporting the peaceful resolution of the dispute between the Aceh independence movement and Indonesia, is the Government committed to the territorial integrity of Indonesia—not just there, but elsewhere, including West Papua?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The West Papuan situation is similar to Aceh in that both have been part of Indonesia, but West Papuans seek a different relationship from the one they have at present. In both cases, the Government thinks that Indonesia should deal with its citizens on the basis of seeking negotiated solutions rather than military ones.

Keith Locke: Is the Prime Minister worried that Indonesian troops may violate human rights with impunity in Aceh because of the failure of Indonesia to bring to justice those commanders responsible for the atrocities in East Timor; and how will she be pressing Indonesia for adequate trials for those commanders?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government has made representations to Indonesia on both of those matters. Of course we deplore any atrocities committed by Indonesian military in Aceh, but, equally, we deplore any atrocities committed by the Aceh independence movement against other citizens of Indonesia.

Question No. 10 to Minister

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I have a question for the Minister of Māori Affairs. His office advised me at 10 past 2 that he was on his way to the House. I assume he is still on his way to the House. I seek the leave of the House to postpone my question until after question No. 12.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister is in the precincts of the House, surely there is an obligation on him to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I have just been informed by the whips that the Minister is on leave.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that there are two Associate Ministers of Māori Affairs, could we have some indication as to who will be answering this question?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will find out when he asks the question.

Questions—Responsibility for Replies

10. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he accept full responsibility for his replies to questions in the House and for the actions of his officials; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs), on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: Yes.

Rodney Hide: In which case, has the Minister asked Te Māngai Pāho’s Chief Executive, Mr Trevor Moeke, for an explanation of the emails I tabled in the House on Tuesday; if so, what was the explanation?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: The matters addressed by Mr Rodney Hide are subject to an independent investigation. Closure of that investigation will occur this week. A report will be provided to Te Māngai Pāho’s board next week, and it will also be made available to the Minister.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is the difficulty that this House has. The Minister of Māori Affairs answered a question on Tuesday in this way: “I would encourage the member to provide me with that information, as I suggested ... , so that I can get to the bottom of any of those discrepancies. I assure him that I will do something about it.”

Hon Tariana Turia: He did.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is on top of the current point of order. How come it is OK for Ministers in this Government to interject in that way on a point of order, but it is not OK for anyone else?

Mr SPEAKER: I did not see who interjected. Had I done so, that person would have left.

Rodney Hide: It was Tariana Turia. Does that help you?

Mr SPEAKER: The member has indicated that. I, however, would like the member to carry on. Anyone who interjects will be asked to leave straight away. I have already done that today.

Rodney Hide: The report that this Minister was talking about has been under way now for weeks and weeks. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the emails. The Minister of Māori Affairs said in this House that if the emails are supplied to him, he will do something about it, he will look into it, and heads will roll—and now he is waving about some report. How can we have any confidence in, or accountability from, the Minister when, firstly, he will not give straight answers, and, secondly, he will not turn up?

Mr SPEAKER: That is criticism of the Minister, which the member is perfectly entitled to voice, but it is not a point of order.

Mahara Okeroa: Does the Minister have confidence in his officials?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I want to correct a perception that the House might have incorrectly taken from previous answers. We have absolute confidence in the leadership of Te Puni Kōkiri, and will await the outcome of the investigation report that I have just alerted the House to. All questions have been answered—

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member cannot correct his answers in an answer to a question. If he has given answers before that have given us a false impression, he should seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation. When I listen to him, I do not know which question he is telling us was wrong; I do not know which one he is correcting. I think he should make a personal explanation and say: “The answer given on yesterday’s question No. 4, when I said so-and-so, was wrong, and what I should have said is such-and-such.”

Mr SPEAKER: That is not what the Minister said. I listened to the Minister very carefully; he said in case there had been any false impression given. That does not necessarily apply to any answer he has given.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Just to conclude, and to clarify the matter completely for the member, all questions are answered correctly based on information available at the time. When further information subsequently arises, it is right that a member is alerted to the new information, and that is what has occurred.

Hon Murray McCully: Given that the Minister of Māori Affairs has stated that all these matters will be sorted out by an independent external review, which he told the House on 1 May would be completed the following Monday or Tuesday, which he told the House yesterday would be available next week, and which this Minister has just told the House will reach closure this week, can the Minister indicate which of these three answers is correct, or would he like to take the opportunity to provide a fourth?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: The one I gave.

Rodney Hide: Why is it that, in the Minister of Māori Affairs’ portfolios, thieves, liars, and fraudsters can so readily find employment at the taxpayers’ expense, and is this the standard that he, as Minister, and his Associate Ministers are setting?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I was not aware that they were in the employ of the ACT party.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not an adequate answer. The member will give an answer to the question.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I await with trepidation, or otherwise, the response from the independent report.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It cannot be suggested that that addressed the question. He was asked a straight-out question about how thieves, liars, and fraudsters can be employed in his department, and he says he is waiting for a report.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It is a perfectly adequate response, because the question contains an assertion that is the subject of the inquiry.

Mr SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a fresh point of order. We have been asking the Minister of Māori Affairs for some time about the goings-on at Te Māngai Pāho. As a consequence of earlier questions, an investigation was called for by Treasury and Te Puni Kōkiri, and it has been delayed and delayed and delayed. However, new material has come to light, prompting further questions to occupy this House’s time. The Minister’s consistent response is to say that we should wait for the report, or that a report is being done on this. This House, and these Ministers, are held to account by Parliament. They cannot dodge answering a question, or reply to a question, by simply, from this day on, saying that a report is coming.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It is common to ask for reports, and the Minister said one would be tabled shortly.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I seek leave of the House to table the financial review report of the Audit Office briefing to the Māori Affairs Committee with regard to Te Māngai Pāho.

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

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to make sure that this is a report that has previously been tabled.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, it is.

Document not tabled.

Hon Murray McCully: I seek leave to table the Minister of Māori Affairs’ answer in Hansard of 1 May, and his answer in Hansard of yesterday, giving the two different answers.

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

Pharmac—Dispensing

11. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Minister of Health: Does she agree with Pharmac’s press release, on the change from 1-monthly to 3-monthly dispensing of medicines by pharmacists, that the proposal “has the full support of all district health boards”; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister of Health): Yes, I do agree with that statement. Pharmac’s understanding was confirmed in a press release by Graeme Edmond, speaking on behalf of all district health boards, where he said that a proposal to change the way some medicines are dispensed by pharmacies is being welcomed by all district health boards, and I foreshadow tabling that document. I am further aware that at least one district health board, the Nelson-Marlborough board, is making a submission on the proposal. I have been advised that this submission does not oppose the proposal, but, of course, the board is most certainly entitled to make a submission.

Dr Lynda Scott: Is it true that district health board chief executives were told not to pass on the information to board members and pharmacists, as alleged by Pharmacy Guild representative David Ross yesterday, when the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board voted unanimously to oppose the proposal; and does that not make an absolute mockery of the role of district health boards and their members?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member may be very surprised to know that the acting chief executive of the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board has confirmed that, for once, the Marlborough Express was incorrect.

Steve Chadwick: What are the benefits for district health boards of the Pharmac proposal?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Pharmac is consulting on a proposal that would allow district health boards to invest an additional $35 million in improving health services.

Sue Kedgley: Has the Minister read a submission from the Kensington Pharmacy, in Northland, that says the change to 3-monthly dispensing of medicines would have catastrophic effects on the populations of Northland, and force the closure of a substantial number of pharmacies; and what will she do if Pharmac bulldozes ahead with its proposal, and a substantial number of pharmacies in Northland and around New Zealand do close down?

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is not a matter of ministerial responsibility. Pharmac makes the decision.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was what would happen if pharmacies around New Zealand were to close down. That is the Minister of Health’s responsibility, not the responsibility of Pharmac.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I think the Minister could briefly comment on that point.

Hon RUTH DYSON: It is not actually a Minister’s responsibility whether any individual pharmacy in any part of the country closes, but the member will be well aware that not just the Minister of Health but probably all members of this House are very concerned to ensure that all New Zealand citizens have high-quality access to primary health services, including pharmacies.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon Ruth Dyson in her previous answer said that she was not responsible for Pharmac—

Hon RUTH DYSON: No, I did not say that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, she did. Well, I want to make it very plain that she should have—

Hon RUTH DYSON: I did not say that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Speaker, I was kicked out twice for—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I realise that. My problem with the Minister, who should not be interjecting on a point of order, is that this is her question; that is the reason I am allowing her to remain. As soon as her question is over she will leave. The member had better come to his point of order, because I myself certainly do not recall what he is claiming.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: My point of order is, very simply, that it is not possible for the Minister of Health to say that she is not responsible for Pharmac, when it is very clearly the case that she is accountable in this House for Pharmac’s activities.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is now, I think, the fourth time today that you have ruled that a point of order is not a point of order. I have been listening at times to question time, and we are now having at least a dozen points of order ruled out as simply not being points of order. At what point do people who raise points of order that are not relevant and are not points of order actually suffer some kind of penalty?

Mr SPEAKER: I will answer that immediately. I listen to points of order, because some members genuinely do have points of order, and I listen to them very seriously. I know, however, that there are points of order that are raised because they are political. I have raised them myself before I became Speaker. Yes, I did—

Hon Richard Prebble: Oh, very rarely.

Mr SPEAKER: Very rarely; Mr Prebble, I agree with you. I just urge members that they should raise genuine points of order, and I take the spirit of the House that we do so, but I warn people that we do have to make sure that a point of order is a point of order.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister concerned about the ethical and legal implications of the timing of Pharmac’s announcement, coming, as it has, after contracts with the district health boards have been concluded?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No.

Dr Lynda Scott: Does the Minister stand by her statement in the House on 7 May that “… a doctor can decide that they”—pharmaceuticals—“are to be dispensed every day, every week, or every month.”; and, if she does stand by that statement, will pharmacists be paid a dispensing fee for every time they dispense a medication according to the doctor’s orders?

Hon RUTH DYSON: In answer to the first part of the question I say “Yes”, and in answer to the second part I say “No”.

Judy Turner: Can the Minister inform the House whether Pharmac’s consultation process has yielded a favourable response to the proposal from pharmacists; if not, do they have any recourse for their objection?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am not aware of the result of the submissions. The submission time has not closed yet, but that information will be made available, I am sure, by Pharmac at the appropriate time.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table a statement made by Mr Damien O’Connor, an Associate Minister of Health, expressing his strong opposition to the Pharmac proposals in respect of stack dispensing.

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

Hon RUTH DYSON: As foreshadowed in the answer to the primary question, I seek leave to table the statement made by Graeme Edmond on behalf of all district health boards, welcoming the proposal.

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

Hon Ruth Dyson withdrew from the Chamber.

Dr Lynda Scott: I seek leave to table a press release from Pharmac stating that it is consulting on the proposal, which has the full support of all district health boards.

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

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not clear. Was the Hon Ruth Dyson asked to withdraw from the Chamber at the end of her question—

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and she has.

Rodney Hide: My understanding was that one could be asked only to leave immediately—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is wrong. I have authority as Chair to do that. I thought it was important that she stay because she was answering questions, and members of the Opposition wanted to keep asking her questions. I judged that she should stay.

Agricultural and Horticultural Human Capability Strategy—Government Support

12. DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) on behalf of CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri), to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What support is the Government giving the agriculture and horticulture industries in developing an ag/hort human capability strategy?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture): The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has facilitated the establishment of a pan-industry governance group and working-group to oversee agricultural and horticultural industry responses to labour-skill needs. Five hundred thousand dollars of Sustainable Farming Fund money has also been allocated to support the initial implementation of the strategy.

Darren Hughes: What is the scope of that strategy?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The scope of the strategy includes on-farm and near-farm human capability. That means the objective is to improve the recruitment, retention, and skills of farm labourers, farm managers, and farmers, as well as the services they rely on, such as shearers, rural professionals, and researchers.

Hon David Carter: Is the Minister conscious of his own remarks yesterday in the Budget debate, and in his subsequent press release, when he said: “More than 80 percent of primary products grown here are exported. Getting into overseas markets at fair levels is hugely important for our farmers.”; and does he think that the Minister of Agriculture’s own comments in January this year, when he accused the United States of “arm-twisting nations into backing a war with Iraq”, are helpful for trade access?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: New Zealand does rely on trade. That is why the Government committed about $17 million extra to facilitate trade negotiations in the next few years.

Questions to Members

Immigration—English Language

1. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) to the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Will the committee sit during the upcoming adjournment in order to hear petitions waiting for a hearing, including that of Kenneth Wang, concerning the Government immigration changes; if not, why not?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): The committee is not planning to sit during the forthcoming adjournment, because it is making good progress with all the work before it at present.

Hon Richard Prebble: Given that this petition has been waiting for over 6 months, and that he as chairman could schedule the committee to meet on every single day of the adjournment, from 9 in the morning until 10 at night, does he not think that his committee should actually start doing its job, rather than bringing the committee and Parliament into disrepute by his failure to have the committee hear this petition?

Hon PETER DUNNE: At the start of this Parliament there were 46 petitions before the committee. A number of those have been dealt with. We are working through them in the order in which they were received by the committee. Many of the petitions that we have dealt with were before the committee long before this Parliament was even elected.

Immigration—English Language

2. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) to the Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Will the committee either set down the petition of Kenneth Wang and others regarding the imposition of English language tests or seek to refer the petition to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee or any other committee so that it can be heard?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): The committee will be setting down a time at some point in the future to hear this petition, in line with the answer I gave to the previous question. It has no intention of referring it to any other committee, and I am not aware of any other committee that is seeking to have it referred to it.

Hon Richard Prebble: Is the House to understand that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has decided not to refer this petition to any other committee, and that there is a 2-week adjournment coming up, but it has not even scheduled a single hearing; and how can the committee possibly justify its cavalier attitude towards this and other petitions?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The House is to understand no such thing. The House is to understand the facts, which are that the committee is dealing with its business in an orderly way, in the order in which it is received. The committee is not going to oblige the ACT party’s political stunt by advancing this petition just to suit Mr Wang’s opportunity.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That answer was out of order. He is not in charge of the ACT party, and, indeed, it is news to me that committees decide to schedule business in the order that it is received. No other committee does that. What we actually have is a lazy committee, and a United Future party that goes out and says it is defending ethnic communities, but then actually does nothing, and whose leader will not even have the committee meet during the adjournment.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made a good point, but it is not a point of order.

Points of Order

Questions for Written Answer

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in getting answers to written questions. I have four that are outstanding—two to the Minister for ACC, dated 16 January—

Mr SPEAKER: If the member brings them to me, then as soon as I leave the Chair in a minute or two I will look into the matter.

Budget Debate

Budget Debate

Debate resumed from 20 May on the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National): This is the final day of the Budget debate, and in about 2 hours and 11 minutes there will be a confidence vote in this House on the Budget. I want to come particularly to the role that United Future will play in supporting the Government in that confidence vote. But before that, I want to say that this Budget did nothing for growth. This Budget really backed up the Prime Minister’s abandonment of growth targets. The Prime Minister wrote a foreword and signed it off for a document that had growth targets in it, yet now she cannot even remember writing that foreword. She now denies she signed it. We are told that probably she was not even conscious at the time that the foreword was sent.

An interesting thing has happened today. Today the US trade ambassador came out with the statement that New Zealand has done some things recently that would make a free-trade agreement hard to carry in the US Congress. What are those things? What can they be? They can be the Prime Minister’s gratuitous remarks about the Iraqi war. They can be the Prime Minister’s remarks about snuggling up to a French-German, reaching-into-the-Chinese, sort of axis. Those comments, and her comments about how different the United States would be if Al Gore were President, have cost us New Zealanders the opportunity of a free-trade deal.

It is interesting that on the day that that story broke, the Prime Minister could not be found. The media of this country were trying to track down the Prime Minister, who was obviously away from the House on urgent public business, for the seventh or eighth day of the 9 days of this session, and could not be found. I thought that Helen Clark was, by her own spin, the most available Prime Minister this country has ever had. She is the same Prime Minister who sprinkled her cellphone number like confetti around the press gallery. Those in the gallery who were chosen could ring her at any time of the day or night, and the phone was answered. That is amazingly good access to the Prime Minister—except when she makes a mistake.

When the issue is probably the most major issue that this nation will face in the next 20 or 30 years—that of not getting a free-trade deal at the same time as the Australians—the Prime Minister is suddenly not available. Then, she is nowhere to be found, the cellphone does not work, her staff do not know where she is, and the media cannot find her. That is an appalling situation. That says to the groups in the community, to the innovators, and to the people working hard at creating jobs and producing goods for this country that the Prime Minister has sold them out and she does not care about that—she is not available, and she is probably not conscious. That is probably why the media could not reach her; she was probably not conscious at the time. It is a tragedy for this country that we have a Prime Minister who cares so little.

It is also a tragedy for this country that in about 2 hours and, now, 5 minutes, the United Future party will give its vote to Labour. Those members will to vote with Labour to keep Labour in Government. This is the same United Future party from which, yesterday, one MP—I think he is an MP—Mr Larry Baldock, issued a statement that the Government is raiding the petrol excise taxes, that that must stop, and that he is here to stop it. Well, I say to Mr Baldock that if he wants to stop that, he should not vote with Labour in 2 hours’ time. Let me give this House a prediction. My prediction is that Mr Baldock and the other United Future members will vote with Labour in a couple of hours’ time, and his statement will be worthless. That statement has no credibility at all, and the public know that.

Why would the public support the United Future party, when they can have the real thing by voting for Labour? That is why the United Future party is in such trouble. I know that behind the scenes United Future members are running around, trying to ditch the Christian element and to bring some non-Christian people on to the board. They are trying to juggle things around and to roll out a few members of Parliament. I think that Mr Baldock is one of them. I think the other United Party members have seen through Mr Baldock. They realise just how silly he really is, in that he thought he could fool New Zealanders by going out there yesterday and saying it was outrageous what Labour was doing with Vote Transport—but he would still vote for it.

I say to Larry Baldock that Vote Transport suffered a cut in the Budget. There was a reduction in expenditure for that vote, and Mr Baldock obviously does not realise that. But if he had bothered to meet the mayors from the South Island who came up here to Parliament yesterday, he would know that. Was it not interesting that all the mayors from the South Island, the biggest delegation ever to come at one time to this Parliament to talk about roading issues, went and saw the Minister? They were not very happy. I cannot talk about what they said at that meeting, but they came and saw us, as well. Did they go and see Mr Baldock? No. Were they interested in going and seeing him? No. They do not think that he will have any influence; he will not be here long enough to have any influence on roading policy.

I say to Larry Baldock that he can redeem himself in a couple of hours if he chooses to vote for what he believes in. He either votes for what he believes in or he votes to keep Labour in power. That is the test. This will be the United Future party’s first Budget vote in favour of Labour. From tomorrow onwards, it will be no good for Mr Baldock to go out there and tell the people of New Zealand that he is opposed to something, because he will have just voted for the programme, in total. He will have voted for the roading cuts, including the cuts in subsidies to the Tauranga District Council for the maintenance of its roads. That subsidy has been cut. Does Mr Baldock support cutting that subsidy? He does not move a muscle; he sits silent.

Well, I tell Mr Baldock that I have been in Tauranga. I have met the mayor and the people in Tauranga who are very concerned at that cut in roading. Not one of them expected Mr Baldock to lift a finger about that. I told them that they were wrong. I said he would lift a finger—to support Labour. That is the only finger he will lift. He will not lift a finger for the people of Tauranga, to replace the roading money that Tauranga District Council is losing. But he will put out a statement that that is terrible and something must be done about it. He has been putting statements like that out for months. I say to Larry Baldock and the rest of the United Future party that there is a time in this House when members are judged by how their party votes. That time is nigh for the members of United Future. We will see then whether they will vote for growth and new initiatives that can get this country going, or whether they will vote with the Labour Government, a Government that has just botched up the free-trade agreement.

We have a Prime Minister who spends less time in this House than any Prime Minister has ever spent in this country’s history. She has been in the House twice in question time in the last 4 weeks. She got caned and kicked around in question time, and has not come back. Today no one can find the Prime Minister. Where is she hiding? Why is she hiding from the press gallery today? Why does she not climb out of her hiding place today and answer her cellphone? Why have the cellphone numbers that were spread around like confetti now disappeared? The Prime Minister is hiding because she has botched things up. She has ruined this country’s prospects—[Interruption] The Government member, before she lays an egg, should understand that the voters in Whanganui will not like a Prime Minister who has messed up that free-trade agreement.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): That speech was a leadership bid from a man who never gets to ask a question in this House, let alone will ever have the opportunity to answer one as a Minister, because he cannot even get a vote in his home town. He was beaten by Judy Keall and by Judy Keall’s secretary; next he will be beaten by Judy Keall’s housekeeper. That man could not fight his way to Australia, let alone—

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is quite wrong to refer to Mr Hughes as just a secretary and a housekeeper. All members are honourable members in this House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

Hon Roger Sowry: But I do not think that a member should bring another member into disrepute, just because that person happens to have been a secretary. It is not a profession that many males do, and I think the member should stand up for Mr Hughes, rather than criticise him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: That man, who became apoplectic yesterday on the deep political importance of knitting in the House, should not talk about denigrating people on the basis of their gender.

It is truly pathetic to see that the National Party is not even able to put up a decent programme for government. We have National Party speakers saying we should spend more on immigration, education, and health. But what is the answer from the Opposition’s spokesperson on the economy? He says the unemployed should line up at post offices.

Jill Pettis: But National closed them.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: It closed the post offices, so that is a bit of a problem.

It is a great pleasure to stand and speak in this Budget debate as part of the Labour-Progressive Government, which is supported by United Future. This Government is working for economic growth, and improvements in education, so that we will have a successful and an innovative society. This Budget is about opportunity and security, which are the keys to success in a society. It is about keeping New Zealand safe. It is about promoting and protecting our environment, our culture, and our heritage. This Budget celebrates and confirms 4 years of economic and social progress in New Zealand, under a good Government that does listen to New Zealanders and does work in partnership with local government, with businesses, with iwi, with the community, and with the voluntary sector, rather than sneering at and deriding them constantly.

We have seen, under this Labour-Progressive Government, 4 years of prosperity, of recovery of spirit and energy, of enterprise, and of innovation. There have been 4 years of planning and investment in the basics like health, education, housing, jobs, and exports, and of building infrastructure—the physical infrastructure of roads, railway services, and public transport. There have been 4 years of innovation and investment in the human infrastructure in health, in welfare, in job training and apprenticeships, and in education and training. There have also been 4 years of investment in the environment—in our physical environment, in our sustainable cities, in liveable urban environments where we focus on the needs of our young people, in the needs in terms of housing for the future, and in looking at issues like air and water emissions that cause sickness and death in this country. This is a good Budget, and it is a result of the Government having talked about the issues and listened carefully to people’s views on what New Zealand is and hopes to be.

This Government has kept its word. We have clearly said what we stand for, and what our vision is as New Zealanders who are citizens in the world. We have had an important message for our people here at home, and for the world: New Zealand has always stood for an inclusive, tolerant, and just society where everyone gets a fair go. When we look at this Budget we see more New Zealanders are in work than ever before. We see fewer people of working age as beneficiaries than we have seen for many, many years. We see reduced costs for primary health-care, more security for superannuation, and more investment in secondary schools, in primary schools, in industry, and in small businesses. We see more training, with 5,102 people having taken up Modern Apprenticeships. The apprenticeship system was destroyed by Roger Sowry and the pathetic little bunch now over there on the Opposition benches, when Bill Birch and Ruth Richardson abolished it in the “mother of all Budgets”. We have seen strong, stable Government with a responsible, careful, fiscal plan and a good Minister of Finance, a great Prime Minister, and a party of people who are determined not to get into the stupid, vicious, mean-minded, personal carping of those people in the Opposition.

I want to say, on a very personal note, that 10 years ago today I was diagnosed as having major invasive cancer. The public health system of this country—the cervical-screening programme—was the reason that that cancer was diagnosed. The service I received at Green Lane Hospital and at Wellington Hospital, in follow-up visits over the following 5 years, has been an extraordinary experience for me, as it is for every New Zealander who has a serious illness. I am proud of our health workers, just as I am proud of all those people in pre-schools, primary schools, kōhanga reo, kura, and universities who are providing those basic services that all New Zealanders need.

I say to members of the Opposition that I made a major and life-changing decision when, after 3 years in this Parliament, I became a patient with cancer. I made a decision that I would spend my energy positively. I do believe that this is the greatest country in the world, and that it is an honour to inherit the vision, passion, kindness, and the services that our ancestors believed we needed in a civilised society. I watched with great grief for 9 years while those people now on the Opposition benches—in the belief that if we cut back those services we could make people work harder—destroyed the underpinning of the New Zealand welfare State. For me, the most important thing in this Budget is that this Government is making a commitment to New Zealand now and for the future, because we are the beneficiaries of the investment in services, in infrastructure, and in the young people of this country.

It is very, very important to understand what makes a good society. It is my honour to be the MP for Auckland Central. I have worked very hard for Auckland all my life, and I am proud to say that this Government is working in partnership with local government. We have produced the Auckland regional economic development strategy, which is a fine strategy that looks at the combination of public services, housing, health, education, and job support that businesses and families need in order to build strong communities. I look at the astonishing progress that we have made with the provision of public transport. I look at the work that we have done to get “Spaghetti Junction” being developed and State Highway 18 being built, and also to get the Puhinui interchange and the North Shore busway. It is very exciting to see the progress that we have made in Auckland.

I will finish by talking about some work that I have done with a man called Richard Florida who came out to New Zealand for the Catching the Knowledge Wave conference, where he said that the key fact of our age is that more of us than ever are doing creative work for a living. His basic argument was that access to talented and creative people is absolutely essential to modern businesses, and that those creative people want to live in, and are attracted to, tolerant, stimulating, energetic cities where they can get a creative life across their lives—lives that lead to prosperity where highly skilled, creative people cluster. All the policies of this Government in our growth and innovation work, in our arts, culture, and heritage work, and in our industry and trade work, focus on that development of New Zealand as a creative, tolerant, inclusive place where people can work and live in the best possible way to the full extent of their ability.

The role of creativity is a fundamental source of economic growth, and every time that I hear those people from the Opposition sneering at what this Government is doing for music, film, small businesses, industry, growth, and exports, once again I think that they have failed to understand the absolute basics of prosperity, of social cohesion, and of this country’s heritage. It is our job to build a country that is tolerant and diverse, and that is open to and encourages creativity. That is where we want to live and that is where people—we—can make prosperous businesses with greater numbers of better-paid jobs and with higher-value exports. That is also why our voice will be respected internationally, whether it is on the matter of free trade, trade agreements, or the sort of society we and the rest of the world want to live in.

GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam): When there is a Budget that says nothing and does nothing, we get a Minister who says little and certainly does nothing about standing up to defend it. That is what we have just heard from the Hon Judith Tizard, one of the junior Ministers of this Labour Government. When I say one of the junior Ministers I say that expressly, because there are very few people on the Government side of the House who are not junior Ministers. Labour has 52 members of Parliament, and only five of them are genuine back-benchers. That is how Helen Clark clings to power; that is how she manages to stay as the queen bee in the Labour Party. She simply gives everyone in her caucus a bit of a job that gives them a little extra status and a lot more salary. That is Labour’s recipe for staying in Government. I tell members that it will not work for long, because the cracks will soon show in a caucus that is traditionally as factionalised as the Labour caucus.

I notice the new Minister, the Hon. David Cunliffe, sitting across on the Government side of the House.

Brian Connell: Where is he?

GERRY BROWNLEE: He has been here for 3 years. I would like to congratulate him on his appointment, but something inside me will not let that happen. When ministerial appointments are given out like confetti, as Helen Clark gives them out, then their value and their contribution to New Zealand are significantly downplayed.

Hon Roger Sowry: At least it wasn’t on merit.

GERRY BROWNLEE: My colleague makes a very good point. At least the Prime Minister was bold enough to say that in appointing people to the ministry she was not doing it on a merit basis.

That was a very, very strong leadership statement from Helen Clark, a leader who, in the last 24 hours, has gone into hiding. She is a leader who has just disappeared off the radar screen in the last 24 hours. Every day we receive Ministers’ diaries, so we know where they are and what they are doing. Quite a few of them—four or five, maybe—are doing good, hard work for New Zealand each day.

Simon Power: Name one.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I ask the member not to challenge me. The Prime Minister has just disappeared today. I am worried that a sort of Bermuda triangle effect is starting to appear in the Beehive. We know that earlier in the day another Minister was on his way to the House to answer questions and he disappeared, as well. At 10 past 2 he was on his way to the House, and by 3 o’clock he had gone; he had disappeared. That all points to a Government that came into the House last week touting a Budget with a massive surplus of some $6 billion, if the superannuation contribution is thrown in—taxed out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders—told everybody how good it was, and then, as soon as the going got tough, disappeared.

As soon as the going gets tough, Helen Clark gets going. She has disappeared and is unable to answer the questions about why the US trade secretary, Bob Zoellick, has said today that there are a few problems in the way of New Zealand getting a free-trade agreement with the United States. We know that the big problem is Helen Clark. We know that her attitude to the United States and to the Western World is the problem. New Zealanders will continue to pay dearly for this country’s inability—or, more importantly, the Labour Party’s inability—to secure a free-trade agreement with the United States.

New Zealanders standing here today, man, woman, and child, are, when measured by our per capita wealth, at least $200 a week worse off than our counterparts across the Tasman in Australia. That is an extraordinary figure.

Brian Connell: How much?

GERRY BROWNLEE: At least $200 a week. In a city like the one I live in, that is a couple of hundred million dollars a week that New Zealanders are worse off by than the Australians are. That is why we have trouble funding everything we want to in education and in the health services. It is why we cannot get a single road built in the South Island by this Government for the next 10 years, and it is also why elderly New Zealanders have to huddle in those sorts of big sack blankets they buy from the Warehouse in order to try to stay warm this winter during the power crisis. People cannot even have a warm shower, and, what is worse, they cannot even have a quiet tipple with a bit of sherry without the Government having taxed the “zeets” out of that, as well.

Why have we had a bland document like this Budget last week, touting how wonderful everything is, suggesting that New Zealand is in great shape, and that the Government is very capable and can do whatever it wants, when outside the Budget process we have had two major tax announcements on either side of the Budget? First there was the alcohol tax, and then earlier this week the announcement of the $200 million so-called reserve capacity electricity tax. New Zealand is being asked to fork out $200 million a year so that we can have some reserve generating capacity for electric power over and above the ordinary capacity.

I have a simple question because, as many people will tell the House, I am a fairly simple fellow. New Zealand needs 150 megawatts of new electricity generation every year just to keep up with increasing activity in our economy—increasing population, and more activity that requires electrical energy by way of new technologies, and other such matters. We need about another 150 megawatts a year for that. The Minister came into the House on the day that he announced this big tax and said that under existing conditions and pricing structures, and under the whole regime that we have in place at the moment, the generating companies are about to invest in 850 megawatts of new generation that will be available to us by 2005. But he then said he would still have to tax us $200 million to have a bit of extra capacity. The question is this: where does the ordinary increase in electricity generation that he talked about stop, and the new stuff start?

I would have thought that if we have electricity generation capacity, the best thing to do would be to run the lot—reasonably, where we can—and to produce the greatest amount of electricity, in order to drive the price down. Yet this Minister has said no, we are to have an upward price path for electricity, and the Government will ensure that, by taxing us to make it happen. When that extra capacity is needed, the Government will charge us even higher prices. That was in the Minister’s press release and in all his public relations stuff around that release. That is no solution at all. I wonder whether the strange logic that says one can make New Zealanders more secure by taxing them harder came from the new “Ministry for Innovative Thinking” headed by the Hon David Cunliffe. At the moment the Minister shows no innovation in the energy policy.

The most irritating thing is that we now have Helen Clark, when she is available—and conscious of what she is doing—going to various radio stations and small newspapers around the countryside, and saying the Government did know that there would be difficulty this year because of the dry conditions, but it did not like to frighten the horses too early. Would it not have been so much better if the Government had acknowledged last January, when it was plain and clear that we would have a bad winter, that we should start to save a little electricity at that stage? It is much easier for older people, particularly those living on their own, to save electricity during the long summer nights, when there is a lot more warmth. No, we have a mean-minded Prime Minister who simply said the Government would just hang people out there and, when things became really tough, it would put the boot in and tax people so as to make them pay more, and, as well as the tax, it would then tell them to turn the electricity off, anyway.

This Government does not have any idea of how to progress things for this country. Its members previously spent all their years in Opposition mired in the philosophies of the 1970s, because Labour was trying to escape the 1980s. Then, having sort of put in place one or two very minor things in the last couple of years, the Government has suddenly started to feel the wheels fall off the bus. When the Government reached its most desperate position, what did it do? It promoted David Cunliffe. That is the worst thing that could have happened to this country.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): It is quite interesting that Opposition members say that we should be giving tax cuts. The Sydney Morning Herald, dated Tuesday, 20 May, asked its readers whether they wanted a tax cut. Twenty percent said they did—20 percent always take it—and 70 percent said, no, that they wanted better services. That is what this Government is delivering. We are in touch with how people—[Interruption] Of course, that group over there is having its own troubles. We had good old Roger Sowry making a speech, then Gerry Brownlee. They are competitors for the deputy leadership.

I tell Roger Sowry that he has almost gone. He is ineffective. I think Gerry Brownlee will get there. The other possibility is that Dr Brash will get there. However, one thing is certain: Bill English’s time as leader of that party is really running out. The time for the brat pack has come and gone. Two of the brat pack have been demoted on the list, and Roger Sowry is hanging on for all he is worth. Of course, when he gets beaten by a young politician and is so comprehensively thrashed at the polls, members of his party know they cannot keep him there. They know it and he knows it. His day is coming. Do they want a different leader? When I was in the deep south, I talked to volunteer firefighters, who told me that they had not seen Bill English for a long, long time. They thought that was pretty good, and they are glad he has shifted to Wellington. They do not want him back down there.

The brat pack’s days are gone. They resort to all sorts of tactics. Tony Ryall, the MP for the Bay of Plenty, said in the Whakatane Beacon on 13 May: “Recently I wrote to the local community groups to let them know that the Government was planning to centralise in Wellington the distribution of money collected from gaming machines.” Of course, it was not. If members had turned up at the Lotteries Grants Board this morning they would know that he was wrong. We passed the budget today—but, no, they know that, and they are running around the countryside spreading what they know is untrue. They know that that is not a fact. Of course, people only do that when they do not have any hard information with which to attack the Government. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not get questions any more, and Mr Brownlee gets up on points of order so he can keep his face prominent. I think that is quite interesting. One after the other, he raises points of order that are not points of order, at all—just so he can keep it there.

I want to talk briefly about my own electorate, and then I will talk about the police. Manurewa is very lucky, because it has a member of Parliament who gets things for its constituents. At the moment we have a brand-new secondary school being built at Alfriston, which is costing somewhere between $17 and $18 million.

Gerry Brownlee: What’s it called?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: It is Alfriston High School. There is probably a job for Mr Brownlee there, teaching woodwork, if he would like to return to teaching—although we do have fairly high standards and he probably would not get the job. However, Manuwera High School has a new technology block. James Cook High School has a new block being built. Manuwera Intermediate has new construction, worth $2 million.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: What about the police?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: We will talk about the police in a minute. We are just getting on to the good news. We have a centre for young criminals being built—young criminals that other communities in this country do not want in their patch.

Hon Roger Sowry: Who approved it?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The Labour Government approved the siting of it. That failed National Government, as it was, could not get a site for the centre, but we have been able to. We will also have the women’s prison there, because we take our responsibilities very seriously. We are getting two new fire stations and another new police station, and I will tell members a bit about that in a minute. The people of Manurewa are very, very happy, which is pretty good. They are pleased that they are now in a primary health organisation, because their doctors’ bills are going down. Instead of paying $35 or $40 to go to the doctor, they are now paying $15 to $20—and boy that is money in people’s pockets! People can now go to the doctor and not worry how to pay for it. That is really good.

One of the real sad things is the way members of this House are targeting the Asian community in terms of crime. I am very proud of the Asian community. Yes, there are people in that community who commit crime, but it is proportionate to the general population. Generally, they are law-abiding people—but not always, and there are high profile crimes that do get noticed by members, who then play on them. I think New Zealand First members do so for political reasons, so that they can make a point about the Asian community. They also do it in the areas of immigration, and law and order, and that is an absolute disgrace. But the good news is that crime is being handled really well in this country. Gone are the days of 1996 when there were 477,596—

Hon Member: How many?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I will repeat it: in 1996, the number of crimes reported to the police was 477,596. In 2002, 440,129 crimes were reported to the police. That is a significant drop of some 30,000 crimes. Yet we have people in ACT talking about parking tickets. They even talk about speeding tickets. Their leader got upset that 100 tickets were given in Taihape in 1 day. The fact is that the community wanted the police to work for them and clean up the speeding problem. That is really good news. Roading police in New Zealand do an excellent job. The highway patrol—something that this Government brought in—is having a real effect. The road toll is on a downward trend. The highway patrol is doing a good job. Everyone around the country sees those highly visible cars and knows what is happening.

This Government is also really looking after Auckland. There are some 74 English police officers in training in Porirua who will be going to Auckland, along with a whole pile of New Zealanders, including some Asian people, who are training to be police officers. There are large numbers of Māori, Pacific Islanders, and women in training. That is the police force changing, and mirroring the whole community, and it is something that this country has long awaited. We as a country are lucky to have a commissioner like Rob Robinson, who is doing a fine job and who realises that police must reflect the community they work in.

Various districts are working in cooperation with each other. The other night 170 police were out after boy racers and cleaning that situation up. Of course, when that happens, we see the members opposite whingeing and moaning, as they are now. The members on the front bench opposite whinge and moan because they do not have anything to offer. People have told us that they have been able to get some sleep at night now that the “boy racer” bill has gone through. I congratulate Clayton Cosgrove on his efforts in that area.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore): Is not what we hear from the hapless George Hawkins remarkable? He cannot even get his police and crime figures right. Let me ask the Minister which Government was in office in the 4 years he quoted—1996-2000. I have news for the hapless Minister. It was the National Government. We were very pleased that he acknowledged our success in crime reduction. I guess he had to do that because, in the last 4 years, violent crime has gone up. He knows it. He cannot account for it, so he would sooner talk about our success.

The other thing one has to remind the Minister of—and that was a good illustration—is the reason he is losing ministries. Everyone knows that during the leaky homes crisis, this Minister did not just preside over the scandal; he himself was the scandal. That is extraordinary.

Hon Roger Sowry: He tried to cover it up.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is right. What New Zealand is facing under this Government is a foreign policy train-wreck. Who is in charge of the foreign policy train wreck? It is the Prime Minister herself. She is the driver, and she is driving this country down. We could hardly be in a worse position. Australia is going to get a free-trade agreement next year, and New Zealand is not. Those were the simple facts given to us yesterday by the Americans themselves, and no amount of sophistry from the Minister this afternoon can cover up those facts.

It has been said that New Zealand could gain $1 billion in extra trade. The worst of this is that we will lose trade. Farmers up and down the country know full well that their sales of beef and dairy products will be reduced because American buyers will now have the opportunity to buy from Australia. Why on earth would one buy from New Zealand when one can buy the same product more cheaply from Australia? So when the Minister of Finance talks about a 2 percent growth rate next year and an increased unemployment rate, he is telling the truth. Things are getting worse under Labour’s jurisdiction. That will happen even more, because of the loss of that free-trade agreement. That is the price of Government incompetence.

History tells us the real story. I shall go back to 6 months ago. In November, New Zealanders were optimistic about a free-trade deal. We had been described as a very, very, very good friend. Straight after the first resolution on Iraq, back in November, New Zealand announced the deployment of a frigate, an Orion, and a Hercules in Operation Enduring Freedom.

Hon Roger Sowry: Did they ever get there?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: They did. Coincidentally, just 2 days after that announcement Robert Zoellick wrote to Congress saying that the United States was going to start negotiations with Australia, and he asked whether New Zealand should be included. He was asking Congress’s opinion as to whether it would like to include New Zealand, because it had been seen that we were doing something OK. Real commitment—

Hon Roger Sowry: On the doorstep.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: We were on the doorstep. That is what one gets from good relationships: security, trade, and prosperity. The Government seemed to understand that. It was making the moves. What has happened in the last 6 months? Frankly, Helen Clark blinked. What did she do as we got closer to war? The first thing she did was to say that we would not support the second resolution. This is a Government that told the United States, Britain, and Australia to go to the UN. They went to the UN, but when they asked for help from the UN, what did our Government do? We did not just say “No” in New Zealand; we had to instruct our ambassador to the United Nations to go along and make the point that New Zealand could not possibly support Britain, the United States, and Australia in the UN. We had to oppose them. We were proud, in the eyes of Helen Clark, to align ourselves with France.

Simon Power: Why didn’t she just keep quiet?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Why did she not just keep quiet? It is a pretty logical thing, is it not? As a matter of good faith, our friends and allies had gone to the UN, and we turned our backs on them. When the war started, the military expert, known as Helen Clark, decided it was bleedingly obvious that the war was going badly and that if only her good friend Al Gore had been President, things would have been OK.

Hon Roger Sowry: That was popular.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: That was really popular. She was asked to apologise. She apologised—3 days later. Did she apologise for what she said?

Opposition Members: No.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: No. She did not apologise for what she said. She was asked in question after question for 2 consecutive days to apologise. Did she apologise? No. She apologised only for the offence taken. The Americans were saying it is not a very good situation, and one would think at that point that a little bit of a lesson might have been learnt; after all, Robert Zoellick had this to say on 19 March—and I want to quote this because it is important: “ ... there’s not many times that a country like the United States has to ask for help from others. And when we do, it matters when friends stand by us, so we thank you for that, we appreciate it.” He said that to Australia in relation to a free-trade agreement. The lesson could hardly be clearer.

What was our response? Well, the Prime Minister went to Europe, and decided to add a little bit extra, just in case the point had not been fully received. This is what she said in Europe: “What everyone’s looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco/German/Russia link-up with good links through to the Chinese against what we have which looks like a small Anglo/American group—it shifts the whole dynamic.” She said that after the war had been won—and no one could even work out who had won the war at that point, so that was really foot-in-the-mouth stuff.

So what have been the consequences of that stunning diplomacy? Six months ago we were in line for a free-trade agreement. We were at least on the doorstep. We now know what 6 months of diplomacy has done. When asked whether New Zealand would be linked into an Australian-US free-trade agreement, Robert Zoellick said: “That is not my present expectation.” Members should remember that this is a man who, 6 months ago, was asking to include New Zealand in the free-trade agreement, and today he is saying “No”. We know that the cause of that is Helen Clark, because when he was asked why that would be the case, he said that America was disappointed by recent actions by New Zealand—and I guess he was not thinking of George Hawkins when he said that; he was probably thinking of the Prime Minister. On this side of the House we have been saying that as long as Helen Clark is Prime Minister of New Zealand there will be no free-trade agreement with the United States, and today the Americans confirmed precisely that fact.

David Benson-Pope: Vision.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: This is what I have to say to the senior Government whip, when I hear him say the word “vision”: all New Zealanders will pay the price for the Prime Minister’s foolishness in lower living standards, fewer jobs, and shattered relationships. To quote Helen Clark herself, she is no longer conscientiously working hard to look after our interests. She is driving a train-wreck. It is time to change her.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour—Manukau East): I offer warm Pacific and Asian greetings from my electorate of Manukau East, which is an electorate that has 165 different ethnic groups residing within it, making for a rich tapestry of cultural vitality, energy, and excitement. It is an area that I am proud, pleased, and glad to represent—whether it be Papatoetoe, Otara, East Tamaki, or Howick. Manukau is often seen as the face of the future, which was a designation given to it by the former Governor-General, Sir Paul Reeves.

Unaccustomed as I am, as Assistant Speaker, to taking a call in the debate—because I believe in the convention of non-partisanship—it has become necessary today for me to vacate the Chair. It is therefore a pleasure to speak in support of our Government’s Budget. As an electorate member of Parliament, firstly for Papatoetoe for 9 years, and now, in my third term, for Manukau East—which includes Papatoetoe—I have witnessed, and been part of, many Budgets in this House. Some have been good, and others not so good, but, then, that is the nature of politics: what goes round comes round.

Rodney Hide: What was the best one?

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: I tell Mr Hide that I would not like to say, because it might backfire.

My interest and training has always been in the commerce area, particularly in productivity, human resource management, and small business, and the Government has done well in those areas by implementing a growth and innovation framework for business, which is an area that can be a legacy for this nation and for this Government. That is the way forward in terms of creating an innovative, dynamic, and growing economy, which has been inspired by the leadership given to the business area by the Government, but I want to talk about that a little bit later.

In my electorate my interests have been education, health, and housing. Why? Because Manukau East is a microcosm of New Zealand today and into the future. In that electorate we have the most challenging areas and the most successful areas. We range from decile 1 schools to decile 10, from the low-paid to the millionaire. It is an area that truly is a microcosm of New Zealand.

The Government is keeping its word, and I want to mention four particular areas in which it has done so. Firstly, I will discuss employment. There are now more New Zealanders in work than ever before. There has been an increase of more than 132,000 since December 1969.

Rodney Hide: Does the member count himself?

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: I ask Mr Hide to please not interrupt; a payback time will come when I am up the top there. When we have people in work, it provides them with security, a sense of well-being, and the opportunities to go forward.

The second very important area in which the Government has kept its word is in reducing the cost of primary health-care through the 34 primary health organisations that have been established throughout the country. My colleagues who represent the area of south Auckland, the honourable Mark Gosche, the Hon Taito Phillip Field, and the Hon George Hawkins, well know the problems that we face.

The third area is education. The Gateway programme for secondary schools and industry will benefit work-based learning. In the Manukau East area we have Otahuhu College, in which Mark Gosche has been working; Sir Edmund Hillary Collegiate Senior School, with principal Robin Staples; Tangaroa College, with Mike Leach, where I have been working; and new ones this year that have come on board—James Cook High School in Manurewa, Mangere College, and Papatoetoe High School where the principal, Peter Gall, has been doing outstanding work.

The fourth area is Modern Apprenticeships. There were more than 5,000, as at 31 March this year, and the scheme is on track to reach the target of 6,000 by December 2003.

The Government has kept its word in those four areas. It has made the commitments, it has made the promises, and it has delivered. As a member of this Government, I am pleased and glad that we have been able to do that.

I turn now to implementing the growth and innovation framework. I very strongly believe that that is an area where we can really do something in this country. We live in a globalised world. We need to be good at what we do, we need to niche market, and this programme, put in place by the Government, can certainly lead us in that direction. The initiatives include $140 million over 4 years for research, science, and technology, which are absolutely vital—any good business person will say that. There is $73 million over 4 years to promote overseas trade—again, another absolutely essential ingredient for us to remain internationally competitive. There is $19 million for the pre-seed accelerator fund, which is for projects that have moved beyond eligibility for grant-funded research, but which are not yet at the stage where they might attract venture capital or other forms of private sector financing. It is a step up, and we are providing that.

There is also $6.4 million to increase the highly successful business incubator programme. We say to the House that those incubators are really good. The Icehouse incubator in Auckland has been really successful. I graduated in business studies last week from Massey University, and the Icehouse was one of the incubators that I researched for my graduation. It really brought home to me just how much work goes into the incubation system, and into the funding that the Government has provided in order to provide a way forward and a pathway for our young, innovative, creative entrepreneurs who want to go somewhere. That is a very important programme.

There is $110 million over 4 years to respond to the recommendations of the task force on biotechnology, design, screen production, and information and communication technology, which are areas where the Hon Steve Maharey has been most instrumental.

There is $1.84 million in 2003-04, and $960,000 in each subsequent year, to support the small and medium-sized business sector. That is my favourite—I love the small-business area. It is the engine room of growth, often referred to as the locomotive. That is where employment can be created, and it is where people do so much—often on the smell of an oily rag. Everything goes into the business—even the kitchen sink—but small-business people are toilers and battlers, and in some cases I do not know how they survive. It is because of the entrepreneurial spirit that they have that they work and continue to do so. Under this Budget, those people have something to look forward to.

Another initiative is the $200,000 a year for a 2-year pilot programme to establish an employment relations and occupational safety and health advisory service for small and medium-sized enterprises, and $9 million over 4 years for a mediation service. Human resource management is absolutely crucial in the development of intellectual capital within our small-business sector, and we need to ensure that management has that expertise in order to bring out the best in its employees. There is $9.825 million over 4 years to improve the calibre of senior management in the State sector. If the State sector runs harmoniously, and if we have professional, well-trained management, it makes the job of being the Government so much easier. It is important that we continue to improve the calibre of senior management, because there is always room for improvement. One of the things that happens with productivity is that there is always a better way, and it is the same with management. We need, and should continue, to upgrade and upskill ourselves; and that has to be a good programme, both for the Government and for senior management.

An additional $1.504 million has been allocated for the Pacific Business Trust. Representing the area of Otara, which is one of the most challenging, I never cease to be amazed at how versatile some of our Pacific Island families are. I have to go to the Otara market every Saturday. I usually sell raffle tickets to raise funds, but in doing that, I see the vitality of that market, which was initially organised by Pacific Island people. Originally, it was all Pacific Island people, but now we have a lot of Asian and other nationalities competing there. They all want to work together, and the Pacific Business Trust is a way of helping more people into business. I commend that.

There is $15 million over 3 years to promote New Zealand tourism in the USA, which is another key growth industry.

There are so many things that I could go on about, especially in the health and education areas, but I realise that my time has come. I want to thank the House for the opportunity to speak.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): This was a Budget of disappointment and lost opportunities, and in no area is that more so than in the area of education. I had great expectations, given all the spin before the Budget, that there would be some meaningful initiatives in that key area. But the more I have looked at this Budget, the more I think that the education sector and the people who have a passion for the next generation will be bitterly disappointed. I want to concentrate on a number of the announcements, because I can now see why this Government has such a strong interest in ensuring New Zealanders do not have basic numeracy skills. There is in this Budget, I have to say, one con job after another, in respect of the spin not matching up to the substance.

I come to the first great release in this Budget from the Minister of Education. He said we were to have a major boost to literacy in this Budget—a major literacy bid. And I thought that was good, because I was ashamed, as a New Zealander, to read the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study released last month, which showed that New Zealand’s results were second to the bottom in the English-speaking world. So when the Minister announced there would be a major new literacy initiative, I had the hope that we might do something to address that key issue. And what do we have? We have $15 million over 4 years.

If people do a little mathematics—I know Government members may struggle to do so—they will find that that works out to less than $4 million per year for the 380,000 students in years 1 to 8 that it is meant to help. That works out at 18c per student. I ask the House, and particularly the Government members, whether we really think we will be able to lift the literacy standards of New Zealanders and get this country back to where it was 30 years ago, at the top of the league tables in terms of literacy standards, with the 18c per student funding that is in this Budget. If that is not a joke, I do not know what is.

It is interesting that the Government is even to spend more money on treaty education than on literacy. Rather than teaching our young New Zealanders how to read and write, this Government is to put more money from this Budget into treaty education—political correctness.

Edwin Perry: $6.5 million.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: $6.5 million. I ask the member who interjected—a Māori member—whether that money would not be better put into basic literacy and numeracy skills.

Edwin Perry: Hear, hear!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: “Hear, hear!” he says, and he is right. Members on the Opposition side of the House say that putting money into the basics like literacy and numeracy should far exceed the sort of political correctness that is to be stuck down the throats of New Zealanders with the proposed $6.5 million for treaty education.

Now, anybody who is involved in secondary education will know that it has been a huge struggle for schools to meet the costs of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). In fact, we had an Education and Science Committee inquiry into that, and the unanimous recommendations of the committee were that schools needed some funding and resources to be able to implement that new qualification. So when I looked in the Budget I thought, yes, maybe the Labour members of the select committee, the Government, or the United Future party had been able to recognise the huge extra costs that there are. We heard at the select committee that the cost of implementing the NCEA would be about $50,000 for an average-sized secondary school.

When I looked in the Budget at how much money had been allocated for schools to implement that qualification, I saw it was $1.8 million. That works out at less than $1.80 per student per year. Does anybody in this House believe that less than $1.80 per student will meet the costs to secondary schools that have come about because of the implementation of the NCEA? Does any member of the Government believe that that is true? That sum is less than 1 percent of what was estimated in the evidence to the select committee inquiry into those costs.

But megabucks are being provided for the bureaucracy. While the schools receive $1.8 million, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is being provided with $36 million. That is the same authority that, over two years, has doubled the NCEA fees met by parents. So the Government members are saying there should be megabucks—$36 million—for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and $1.8 million for schools. Does that not speak volumes about how the Government is investing in its bureaucrats, and saying “Stuff the teachers and the students.” That says so much about this Government.

Then I saw a bold announcement in the Budget that all 15 to 19-year-olds are to be in education by 2006. Is that not an interesting year to choose? It is just after the next election, so that the Government cannot be held accountable. Well, before I will believe that this Government can get all 15 to 19-year-olds into education, I say let us get all those children into education who are required to be there by law. We know that 4,048 students were reported as long-term truants last year. That is a tragedy. There are another 7,407 students on the Correspondence School roll because they have been expelled from school. Does anybody in this House believe that a student who has been expelled from school—in some cases, from multiple schools—will receive a meaningful education by mail? I believe not; it is a joke.

Is there anything—is there a penny—in the Budget for dealing with that truancy crisis? There is not one bean or one dollar. In fact, over the last 4 years the funding in real terms for the truancy services provided in this country has been reduced by $3.8 million. I ask this Government where its priorities are. It should not tell us that it will get all 15 to 19-year-olds into meaningful education when it cannot even meet its legal obligation to ensure that all those of school age are, in fact, at school.

Then we come to the bold announcement that $61 million extra will be provided for schools’ operating grants—the subtext is that that is over 4 years. Is that not a great trick? The Government must believe that New Zealanders cannot do maths, with those sorts of sums. The rate actually works out at 2 percent. What is the Government’s official inflation rate for the last year? It is 2.5 percent. So what does that mean for the funding in our schools? It means they are going backwards. At a time when we have a $4 billion surplus, real funding for schools per pupil is being cut, and I say that that is a shame.

I also want to refer to some of the local con jobs in this Budget. The Minister of Housing stated in the local newspaper in my electorate on Monday that there was a solution to the biggest constituency issue in my area, the huge 35 percent increase in housing costs over the last year. He stated that all the answers were in the Budget. He stated that the Government had great new housing initiatives and would be providing $69 million for community initiatives, so that local government and iwi organisations may be able to provide housing. It sounded pretty good, and the local branch of the Labour Party said it sounded fantastic. Well, let us look at the detail. We can see it is spread over 4 years. That works out at $16 million per year. If that is divided amongst 76 local authorities, it means my area will get about $180,000. That is one house! I have 169 people sitting on waiting lists in Nelson. Does that mean it will take this Labour Government 169 years to provide houses for those people in my electorate?

David Benson-Pope: How many houses did that member’s party sell in Nelson?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, indeed. In fact, I have a letter. “Mr Benson-Dope” says he was—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): He must have been a very difficult fourth-former, that young boy.

Rodney Hide: He was not as bad a pupil as you were a teacher.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I remember many of the people who taught Mr Hide, so I would not go down that road too fast, or too far.

I rise to support this stable, well-balanced Budget. In the address I wish to make, I want to cover a number of issues: New Zealand overseas aid expenditure, some environment expenditure, some work in the area of adult education, and the advantages to Wellington. In terms of New Zealand aid overseas, the interesting problem we face is that we were party—as was almost every other country in the world—to signing up to the millennium goals. Those goals set out quite strong targets for the provision of clean air and water to the peoples of the world; the provision of sanitation, so that children do not die of diseases caused by lack of adequate sanitation; and the provision of literacy around the world. It was recognised that those goals would be met only if we all pulled together. The goal was that by 2015 the countries of the world would each provide 0.7 percent of their gross national income. New Zealand is producing only 0.23 percent, so we are a long way from meeting the millennium goal of 0.7 percent of gross national income.

Just recently, a piece of research was done on world aid programmes, listing the countries in order. Normally one would expect to see a country like Norway, which gives out 1 percent of its gross national income to aid, near the top of the list, but it ended up 11th.. New Zealand was fourth. That is because New Zealand has an extraordinarily high record in the intake of refugees, and our record in terms of trading with developing countries is equalled by almost no other country. Then comes our direct aid overseas, which, I have to admit, is not all that great. It is nearly 12 months since we established a semi-autonomous agency, NZAID, within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We met the desired needs as we restructured and looked at where we were going. We said we needed to concentrate on our near neighbours in the Pacific, and on the elimination of poverty. We have met that goal, one step at a time. In this Budget we have increased our overseas aid by 9 percent, with $20 million extra a year going in.

Why the Pacific? The Pacific has some of the most appalling pockets of poverty, and we ignore that at our peril. There is self-interest in aid, and I am always upfront about that when I talk overseas. New Zealand operates in partnership with the countries to which it gives aid. We do not give countries what we determine they ought to have; rather, we work with them to determine what they might want in terms of health and education. Papua New Guinea has some of the worst statistics. It has the lowest standard of living of any country in the Pacific, the lowest average life expectancy, and the highest maternal and infant mortality rates. In the Solomon Islands, only 500 jobs are available each year for the thousands who leave school. Over 16 percent of people living in Kiribati are not expected to survive to the age of 40. In Vanuatu, more than 66 percent of adults are illiterate.

That is what New Zealand aid work is about. It is about working with Papua New Guinea, the Solomons, Kiribati, Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa, Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tonga—devising programmes so that the children get into schools, so that diseases like TB, malaria, and HIV/AIDS are tackled, and so that women and young people in rural areas get a chance to earn a living. Working with AusAID and the European Union, we have a major regional initiative to develop basic education across the entire Pacific. It is called PRIDE. We work to create opportunities for peace in the Pacific, particularly in Papua New Guinea and the Solomons. Members know the relative success we have had in Bougainville. We do not want more Bougainvilles, because that is more cost to us as a country. That is why 45 percent of the new funding will target governance.

But New Zealand aid does not focus exclusively on the Pacific; we also have significant programmes in Asia and smaller programmes in Africa. In this Budget, we have also put aside a further $10 million, if it is needed, to help rebuild post-war Iraq. That is on top of the funding we have already given to that country.

Finally, I am pleased to announce that we are increasing the funding for non-governmental organisations in New Zealand—our very good partners who are often in the front line of delivering aid to some of the poorest areas in the world. Some of those partners are organisations such as Rotary, which has been out there raising funds. We have met Rotary dollar for dollar, and more, in its worldwide work to defeat polio. I am proud of that 9 percent increase. I am proud of the extra $20 million that we have given to NZAID.

In the area of the environment, the one I particularly want to mention is increased money—$1.8 million over 4 years, or the $450,000 a year that was asked for—to support the New Zealand Landcare Trust. That trust, which is made up of eight groups, including Federated Farmers and Fish and Game New Zealand—who work together in the same room, which is always interesting—and Rural Women, has done extraordinary work with the rural community, particularly on the question of biodiversity on private land. For instance, there was an absolute explosion from Banks Peninsula farmers over defining significant natural areas. Landcare Trust worked with the farmers and the Ministry for the Environment, and together we found some money whereby we could actually work with the farmers to put up fences at the top of Herbert Peak, so preserving some of the flora and fauna there. It was not the rabbits that we were preserving. I am delighted to announce that extra $450,000 a year for the New Zealand Landcare Trust. When I became the Minister for the Environment, the trust had begun receiving that money on a year-to-year basis. We then asked it to go out—and it went, I think, to Transfund and got money from there. We have now said that that money is permanent, it is baseline, it is in there. The trust has done really good work in terms of working with the community, particularly in the area of biodiversity.

Regarding adult and community education, I heard the previous speaker talking about illiteracy in the community. This Government is the first to ever acknowledge the fact that with many people in our schools we have failed, and that they need to be given, and supported in, second-chance education. We have called that both adult and community education, and foundation education. Part of the problem is that in adult and community education, there is a whole range of providers. I can go to some towns and find that REAP does not know what a private training establishment, or the Workers Educational Association is doing. Through the Tertiary Education Commission, we have set aside $2.8 million for the regional networks—for quality assurance, for setting priorities in that area, and for actually helping them to adapt as we face the new commission—so that we do not leave people all on their own. Through the Ministry of Education, we have also set up 4 years of work for foundation learning, which is dealing with some of the industry training organisations, students straight out of school, and the Gateway programme.

Finally, I want to end with a bit of pride at what the growth and innovation fund is doing for Wellington. There is work there to help the task forces, particularly in screen and production. We are hoping that over the next 4 years $110 million will come out of the fund for projects here in Wellington. Extraordinary work has happened in terms of education. The Wilton Playcentre in my electorate is one of the six centres of innovation that will be used to build a strong research base for informing and developing best models of teaching practice in early childhood education. We are putting in somewhere in the region of 236 new teachers for the 2004 teaching year. In the Wellington region we will also have 7,000 new industry trainees. That is what we want for a growing economy.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): What a sad day it is today! New Zealand has been excluded from a free-trade agreement with the United States.

David Benson-Pope: You’re making it up.

LINDSAY TISCH: The senior whip says I am making it up, yet all the media reports, even from the embassy today, are saying that New Zealand has been isolated. We stand alone; out on the side. We are not a team player, and we have been excluded from a trade deal that the United States is prepared to sign with Chile and Singapore. Where is New Zealand? We are not even considered. We are on the scrap heap. We are missing out on a billion dollars of trade because this Government has come out said: “We are not going to support our traditional allies—the United States, Britain, and Australia. We know better. We are going to stand apart.”

Six months ago, in December, Robert Zoellick, the US Trade Representative, said that there was possibly an opportunity for New Zealand to be included in a free-trade agreement along with Australia. What has happened since that time? We have seen the New Zealand Prime Minster standing out to one side, saying: “We don’t want to be a part of it. We don’t to support our traditional allies.” So what has the United States done? We have said time and time again that trade is linked to our traditional relationships with our trading partners and friends. In testimony before the US House of Representatives agriculture committee on 21 May, Zoellick said that negotiations for a free-trade agreement with Australia, which President Bush aimed to complete in 2003, would not extend to New Zealand.

The senior whip said I was making it up. This is straight from the embassy, which says that the free-trade agreement will not extend to New Zealand. “That is my present expectation,” Zoellick said. “Citing one challenge, he indicated that US farm groups would be likely to oppose increasing imports of New Zealand lamb and dairy products, diminishing support for such an agreement in the Congress.” He also said: “New Zealand has taken some actions recently that would pose problems for congressional passage of a New Zealand free-trade agreement.”

That spells it out—this Government is responsible. This Government does not have the foresight to see where we need to position ourselves. No wonder Treasury said that there would be only 2 percent growth next year. We now know why. It is because we have been excluded from that very important free-trade agreement. Zoellick said he expected to be signing a free-trade agreement with Chile very soon, as well as Singapore. But where is New Zealand? We are left out.

I represent a rural constituency—the Piako electorate. We are a nation of farmers. That is where the growth in New Zealand comes from. What does this actually mean to the farmers, the people I represent in my area? Well, we are not going to forget this day. We will not forget the cruel blow that this Government has dealt to the prosperity of all New Zealanders in the cities and the towns. That free-trade agreement with the United States was something we could have hung our hats on. We are an exporting country, and most of our wealth comes from the rural sector. It is the rural sector that has given us growth and buoyancy over the last couple of years. Export prices, commodity prices, low interest rates, high prices overseas, and the weather have all contributed to buoyancy in rural New Zealand, and that prosperity has flowed through to the cities. This country has had the ability to capitalise on that; it not due to anything that the Government has done. But today the Government has put a nail in the coffin of any future growth, because this Budget is a no-growth Budget.

Certainly, the announcement today that New Zealand has been excluded from a free-trade agreement is something that this Government will have to bear. At the next election, Labour Party members will be hanging their heads in shame that they did not support our traditional allies when the time came and they asked New Zealand to stand beside them. But our Government said: “No way. We’re going to isolate ourselves and put our support behind those non-aligned countries.” We could not go out there and say to our friends—the Americans, the UK, and our Australian colleagues—that we were prepared to stand beside them.

This Government oversees “New Zealand Incorporated”. The mission of a Government should be to provide a very prosperous economy and an environment in which businesses can grow. Every year, about 44,000 new businesses are created in New Zealand, and about 45,500 of them fall over. The rate of births and deaths of small businesses is amazing, but it is a natural progression. Small businesses in New Zealand are going to be hard hit by the Government policies of the last few years. Nothing in the Budget actually said to small businesses that the Government thinks they are important and will help them out. This Government will form a committee to advise the committee on another committee. This Government is all about forming committees; it is all talk, no action. If we want growth in the economy—and most of the growth in the economy comes from small to medium-sized businesses—it follows that we have to remove those compliance costs and regulatory barriers. Since this Government has been in power, that regulatory creep is causing a real problem in terms of the way New Zealanders do business.

I shall quote some statistics to show the importance of small business to New Zealand: 92 percent of Kiwi businesses employ fewer than 10 people, and, specifically, 80 percent employ fewer than five people. We are a nation of small businesses. Of course, an owner-operator or owner of a business is obliged by law to comply with complex regulations and laws and pay tax. Some very interesting statistics have come out in recent times. The extra compliance costs for a business employing 20 people in February 2002 was estimated at $26,000, but in December 2002 that figure was $43,877. That is a huge increase in compliance costs, and New Zealand businesses are carrying the can. We are not operating under a cost-plus mentality now. Prices are driven by the market: they are whatever people are prepared to pay. The National Party is saying that we have to get those regulatory barriers and compliance costs out of the way, so that business can get on with the job it does best—growing the business, employing the people, making the investment. That is where growth comes from. Businesses create growth, not Governments, but this Government would not know that. It wants to empower the bureaucrats. That is where this Government thinks growth comes from. It says: “Tax the people, tax businesses.” That is the way it thinks it can fund its operations, but it does not work.

I want to mention a couple of measures, because they are huge hindrances for business. The first is the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill, which is being proposed by the Hon Matt Robson. He might stand and say something about it, but I say that the increase from 3 weeks’ annual leave to 4 weeks’ annual leave will also create relativity claims, because those getting 4 weeks’ leave will want 5 weeks. Small businesses cannot afford that sort of compliance cost. Then there is the matter of payment for statutory holidays and holiday pay. If staff work on a statutory holiday, the employer will have to pay time and a half—penal rates. A lot of businesses do that anyway, but at the same time they have to give a day off in lieu.

A real challenge is the 3-day bereavement leave provision. What does that mean? It is not 3 days per year; it is 3 days if a close relative dies. We will see a multiplication here. A businessperson whose company employs 53 people came to see me. If this bill is passed in its present form, that company will pack its bags and go to Australia, because of the huge compliance costs this Government is going to impose on business. There is no incentive to be in business today—none at all. Those huge compliance costs are causing employers to say: “Why should I bother? I might as well put my money in the bank.”

As well as that, there are sick leave provisions that say that employees do not have to produce a doctor’s certificate for 4 days’ illness. That is open-ended, and I know what will happen—there will be an abuse of the system and small business will carry the can. There is also the extension of paid parental leave from 12 weeks out to 14 weeks. We have union negotiations; we have this thing called “stress in the workplace” Heavens above! I wonder what that means. Employers cannot insure against it. Then there is “mental fatigue”. I wonder what that is. Members opposite probably suffer from mental fatigue all the time.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): I now know that to be a member of the National Party—and it probably goes for the other right-wing parties; ACT and New Zealand First—is very easy. They can be lazy. They do not have to do any thinking. They do not have to develop their own international policy. All they need to do is go into www.republicanparty.org.usa and take a photocopy and spread it around—then they have their foreign policy. Nothing has changed from when I became conscious of international politics and the war in Vietnam was waging. The National Party of the time did not have its own foreign policy. It supported an immoral, illegal war, which killed millions of people, and said: “We’re doing it because it’s free trade, and we’re doing it because of our traditional allies.” In other words, “Easy—don’t think.” [Interruption] On 4 weeks’ leave, one can shift to Australia. I tell Mr Tisch that in Australia 4 weeks’ leave is normal for workers, and most of them have 5 or 6 weeks.

This is the fourth progressive Budget from the centre-left coalition, first elected in 1999. The Budget shows a net cash surplus of $4.2 billion from core Government operations as at 30 June 2003, which lets us invest $1.2 billion net investment in physical assets like schools for the benefit of the nation, and $1.2 billion is to be invested to partially fund known future pension liabilities. That is responsible centre-left rule for the benefit of current and future generations. That is progress. It is the rebuilding of New Zealand. Budget 2003 permits us to build further on the framework put in place in the past 3½ years to facilitate economic development, jobs, and safer communities. It builds after the wreckage of the policies of Roger Douglas through the 1990s, of the National minority Governments.

The need to have a framework in place to facilitate the creation of high-paying jobs for all of our people is all the more necessary because the international environment is so uncertain. Yesterday we had a frank insight into why the United States does not want to enter into a fair trade deal with New Zealand—a deal that would facilitate job opportunities, certainly, in New Zealand export industries. The reason it will not lower its punitive barriers on our exports has nothing to do with our independent foreign policy, which puts New Zealand’s interests first. US trade representative Robert Zoellick yesterday told it as it is. He dashed hopes of a fair trade deal between our two countries by citing too many objections from Washington-subsidised United States corporate agricultural interests in dairying and sheep meat. The anti-fair trade policies of the rich economies of the United States, Europe, and Japan are against New Zealand’s national interests, which seek a fair multilateral rules-based system. Their practices also cost lives and living standards in the developing world. But that is the world we live in, and Dr Cullen has to manage the coalition finances with a view to having the most positive impact on the New Zealand economy within the context of the hard cold facts of the international environment.

Despite the uncertain international scene, Budget 2003 builds on the steps taken since 1999 to foster intelligent partnership with industry sectors and regions, and between business and Government agencies to leverage more out of the business expansion opportunities in New Zealand and overseas as they arise. In particular, the Progressives are pleased that this Budget provides for policies that are dear to our hearts. There is another $85 million for industry training schemes. We will have 100,000 in training by 2005 because of that. There is another $56 million towards getting all youth under 20 into jobs, education, or training by 2007. That is the way in which National should attack the dole problem. Also in this Budget is $37 million over 4 years for a long-term trade development strategy, and $400 million over 4 years is being added to the existing $112 million for industry and regional development funding. This is investment in the future. It is a vote of confidence.

There will be more for children getting cheaper or free doctors’ visits, the elderly can look forward to cheaper health-care, and there is more for early-prevention programmes. Next year, when an even more progressive Budget is introduced, low-paid workers will have a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave as an extra bonus. The coalition has acted on drug abuse. The Labour and Progressive parties will not agree on everything. The Progressives, for example, will continue to advocate for no fee increases for any tertiary students, and we hope that that policy will come to fruition. We also recognise that that will mean a reduced Government surplus, or that cuts to other programmes of lesser priority than education need to be put in place. The challenge for those voting against Budget 2003—National, New Zealand First, ACT, and the Greens—is to put up a coherent alternative upon which they can all agree. But they cannot agree on anything except to promote negativity and promise the earth. They stay silent on how they will develop the economy, or what tax regimes they will put in place.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South): It is a pleasure to talk about the advantages this Budget has brought to the whole country, and in particular, to the people of Otago and Southland. Education in my home territory, and in the south, has considerable increased funding. For example, people in Clutha-Southland, Dunedin North, Dunedin South, Invercargill, and Otago have an even distribution of another 72.5 new teachers this year above those required for roll growth. Next year there will be another 63.7 new teachers above those required for roll growth. We have $1.16 in extra operational funding for our schools in Otago and Southland. In industry training the Budget contains an $85 million package that will significantly boost the number of businesses and workers involved. I am pleased to tell the House that, currently, nearly 9,000 young people are involved in industry training in the southern region. In health, $656.9 million has been allocated for major hospital developments. A substantial amount of that funding—which is much welcomed by the people in the electorate of my colleague, Mark Peck—will go to the new Southland hospital.

A wonderful initiative for rural areas suffering so badly under the depopulation, encouraged and left alone and ignored by previous Governments, is that just under half a million dollars will be allocated over the next 2 years in rural roster relief funding to help those 11 primary health providers in those areas. That money will help relieve doctors and nurses working in those onerous and remote parts of New Zealand. It is part of a total of nearly $3.5 million to be allocated over the next 2 years to the rural health services, which are so important for the health of those communities.

The Budget provides, in rural and agricultural affairs, more than $30 million to sustain the Sustainable Farming Fund for another 3 years, which will, in my territory, enable support for another 80 to 90 projects a year. Already, the Sustainable Farming Fund has provided support for more than 180 community and partnership-based projects, of which 160 are still running. It is hard to think of a better example of the partnerships that this Government is determined and so successful in forging with all the sectors of our community.

That positive achievement happens without the butchery the Brash policies would bring to our communities, and without the sad and failed policies of those mean people on the Opposition benches—people described in the current Listener, even by their own supporters, as “leaden brat packers”. This Budget invests wisely in the future of New Zealand, continuing the directions begun by this Government in 1999—directions that the community continues to applaud.

For those silly enough to believe the Opposition rhetoric that there is nothing in this Budget, let me detail spending changes in some key areas. In the area of social services, the Budget includes an extra $582 million this incoming year. The Budget includes an extra $737 million for health services in the new year. In education, the incoming Budget includes an extra $481 million. In housing there is an extra $41 million. In arts, culture and heritage—one of our most creative and productive work sectors—there is $28 million of extra spending. This spending is welcome everywhere.

On the East Coast, in the south, in Northland, in enterprise, industry, and regional development—which would be done away with by those members on that side of the House—there is an increase in spending by an enormous $76 million. Members should compare those commitments to the promises of Dr Brash, who is now in charge of policy development for the Opposition. Dr Brash wants to “scrap the unemployment benefit and minimum wage laws, and reinstitute work camps.” He said that on National Radio on 29 January this year. He wants to allow employers to sack staff more easily without fear of recourse to the Employment Court. He said that in the Press on 5 April this year. He wants to privatise health and education services. He said that on 18 August 1999. Dr Brash also wants to slash Government spending per capita by 20 percent. He said that in the Press on 5 April this year.

Dr Brash also wants to end affirmative action programmes for Māori. He said that on the same occasion. Dr Brash also said in the Press on 5 April that he wants to increase spending on defence. Most interestingly, Dr Brash wants to bring in tax relief for the richest New Zealanders—that is, a flat tax and a capital gains tax based on housing gains. He said that in the Independent on 27 March 1997. Dr Brash also wants to raise the age of entitlement for New Zealand superannuation. He said that at the knowledge wave conference in August 2002, and he wants to continue the programme of asset sales. He said that on 17 May 2002. As I have just mentioned, Dr Brash, the one who is developing the policy for that party, wants to abandon regional development and Industry New Zealand. He said that on 15 July 2002 on Wellington television. That is what Dr Brash, National’s leader-in-waiting, believes. That is why no one in this country will miss the irony of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word “Brash”, which is that it is a noun: “A slight attack of sickness; esp. one arising from a disorder of the alimentary canal.”

Mr SPEAKER: That is all very well, but that can lead to unfortunate repercussions. Members are entitled to their name and to have their name used. I suggest the member moves on.

DAVID BENSON-POPE: Those policies that I have detailed will certainly have a most undesirable effect on most New Zealanders. I wonder whether that is the reason for the extraordinary poll released in today’s New Zealand Herald The poll shows that National voters—even though more than half of them insist that the leadership of the party should be changed—are getting worried. More than half of National voters—and the only figure that comes anywhere near that figure is the cross-population all-party support for the leader of the Labour Party, the Prime Minister, Helen Clark—are starting to worry. Although they know that they have to change their leadership, they worry about the extraordinary policies being developed in their country.

What I am asking the National Party to do is to come clean. I am asking Dr Brash to come clean about what he actually believes. I am also asking Mr English to come clean about the new Māori policy. Does that member’s new Māori policy to “out-Peters” Mr Peters really mean the logical consequence that National will stand no candidates in the Māori seats in 2005? I am asking Mr English: does that policy mean that we would see Māori being selected by that party in winnable electorate seats, which will clearly be fewer in 2005, anyway? I do not think so! And does that policy mean that any Māori list candidate could have an expectation—any Māori list candidate stupid enough to climb aboard the National shipwreck—that anyone, let alone anyone Māori, could be elected from the list given the appalling polling of that party?

Members should compare that attitude with this Budget’s commitment to innovation, to growth, and to jobs. There is $140 million over 4 years for research, science, and technology—that area so long ignored by preceding Governments. There is $73 million over 4 years to promote overseas trade. There is $19 million for the pre-seed accelerator fund. This Budget is about a Government keeping its word. It is about a Government that has seen more New Zealanders now in work than ever before—an increase of 132,000 New Zealanders employed since we were first elected in 1999. This is a Government that has reduced the cost of primary health-care through the establishment of 34 public health organisations throughout the country. It is a Government that has made superannuation more secure by the establishment of the fund. It is a Government that has funded 5,102 modern apprenticeships, which is nearly at our target of 6,000.

IAN EWEN-STREET (Green): It is a political truism that when the Government has good news to release, it times it for the television news in the evening. When it has bad news, of course, it hides it in the dead media time of the weekend. When it has really, really bad news, it releases it the day before Christmas or the day before Easter, so that it gets hidden when people are too busy going on holidays to even read the news. And so it was with the economic impact report on genetically modified organisms and their impact on the environment. By the time it became public it was already yesterday’s fish and chip wrappers. So was this a success for the spin doctors, or was it something really quite sinister?

That economic impact report makes very chilling reading for rural communities. Farmers should be afraid—they should be very afraid. If I can summarise the report very briefly, it states that keeping New Zealand free of genetically engineered organisms is good for the rural economy, and embracing genetically engineered organisms is disastrous for the rural economy. So what is this report? Is this the work of the rabid environmentalists—the anti-science, anti-progress people? No it is not. This is the work of Business and Economic Research Ltd. It was commissioned by the Ministry for the Environment, and Treasury. This was part of the Government’s response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. This is a formal document.

It is a curious document, though. It is curious because what is in the text is very different from what is in the executive summary. Why is it, I wonder, that that is the case? The answer is that what is in the text is absolutely damning for the direction that this Government is taking. It is not even listening to its own advice.

There are only two ways to embrace genetic engineering (GE) that can have a positive impact on our rural economies. The first is if we embrace GE and there is an increase in productivity—a very large increase. That is the assumption that underpins all the positive scenarios in this report. The only problem is that there is no example of increased productivity from the use of GE anywhere in the world. There are no examples of it. The other way we can increase the performance of the rural economies is to remain free of genetically engineered organisms.

We are a market-driven economy. We must be responsive to the needs of the consumers who buy our products, and the message from them is unequivocal. It says that our consumer markets do not want GE-free produce. If we increase the demand for our produce, then the returns to farmers go up. If we increase our productivity it is equivocal because—

Jill Pettis: More people will not be able to afford to buy!

IAN EWEN-STREET: I tell Mrs Pettis, that quite apart from anything else, if one increases the amount of product that is on the market, then the price goes down. So increasing productivity does not necessarily increase the farm-gate return.

So why is the Government trying to hide this information? Why do we have, and I hesitate to say this, an otherwise astute Government that is clearly flying in the face of common sense? It is doing the opposite of what the population of this country wants. It is doing the opposite of what the farmers of this country want. Why did the Minister of Rural Affairs, in answer to a question I asked him yesterday, dismiss an academic research poll that showed that 80 percent of farmers do not want GE, as just another poll—it was off-hand? Why did the Minister for the Environment not read the report? She got as far as the executive summary, and that was good. But it does not reflect what is in the text. Why does David Parker, for instance, think that farmers want GE? I tell Mr Parker that they do not.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call Mr Key, could I say that he has 9 minutes before the Minister calls in reply.

JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville): The Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, promised that the 2003 Budget would be a boring and predictable event. For once in his life he under-promised, and he over-delivered. This was a big surplus—a whopping $4 billion. That is $4 billion earned on the hard work and good economic policies of the 1990s introduced by a National Government. That is why the surplus is there. There are also a couple of other factors: a low exchange rate, high commodity prices, and good times down on the farm. There was a $4 billion surplus on the back of the hard work by the National Government, and what did the Minister do? Did he stop for just a moment and consider the hard-working people of New Zealand, the small businesses up and down the land, the corporates, the backbone of this country, who produce the jobs and pay the taxes? Did he consider them for just one moment? No, he did not.

We on this side of the House waited, and waited very patiently I might add, for Dr Cullen to pull a nice juicy rabbit out of the Budget hat. If he pulled a rabbit out of that hat, it must be a virtual rabbit. I am still waiting to see that rabbit, because this Budget produced nothing, absolutely nothing, for the hard-working businesses and people of New Zealand. It is no wonder the Government has found this to be an arduous debate over the last 14 hours. It is no wonder the Minister did not get a single clap during his speech. I reviewed the tapes and looked at the Hansard. Even Bill Birch, not known for being the most animated Minister of Finance, often had members in raptures when he delivered his Budget. He had them on their feet, roaring and cheering him on. There was not a single clap for Dr Cullen, even though the Labour members were under orders to do so. Not a single cheer came from the Government benches.

It is no wonder Susan St John gave that Budget a D minus. Dr Cullen has never had a D minus in his life. Susan St John delivered Dr Cullen a D minus. In a time when he had the opportunity to send the growth message, and when he had the opportunity to give cuts in taxes and compliance costs, what did the Minister deliver? The Minister delivered a subsidised bean counter. That is what he said to small businesses: he told small businesses that the Government would not do anything about compliance, but that it would give them a subsidised bean counter to help them fill out the forms. That was an anti-growth Budget. That is what that Budget delivered. But I ask what it did not deliver—because the list of what it failed to deliver is so much longer than anything it delivered. It did not do anything for the roads of my home town of Auckland. Not a single dollar of extra spending went to fix—

Dr Paul Hutchison: Not a skerrick.

JOHN KEY: Not a skerrick! There was nothing for those poor Aucklanders, many of whom will be stuck in a traffic jam right now. They are ruing the day they read this Budget. They are asking where the extra spending is for them.

What about the corporates? Was there a tax cut for them? Was there anything to say: “Good on you for doing a good job! Thanks very much for producing a $4 billion surplus. Thanks for everything you do for us, day after day after day.”? No, sir. There was nothing.

What about the entrepreneurs? Where was the message they should have got by cutting the top personal tax rate and saying: “Get out there and do it again for us. Get out there and bat again for the good old home team, New Zealand.”? There was nothing there.

What about the Defence Force? Whenuapai Air Base—as long as it lasts—is in my electorate. Was there an extra dollar of spending for defence? Despite the fact that the world is undergoing one of the most tumultuous times in terrorist activity worldwide, there was not a single dollar for defence spending.

Was there an apology to the sherry and port drinkers around the country who had $18 million snatched from their pension-books a few days earlier? No, there was no apology to the sherry and port drinkers. What about a helping hand for those suffering from the energy crisis—in other words, the whole country? What about those people? They got their message a few days later, when the $200 million energy tax was announced. That is what they had delivered up for them. What about growth? Was there anything in the Budget to make us rise in the OECD? Was there anything to help us compete, relative to Australia? There was absolutely nothing.

What did the 2003 Budget—of predictable stability—deliver? It delivered more money being thrown hopelessly at the health system into primary health-care, which has failed to deliver. It gave an additional $34 million for a boat race in Auckland, despite the fact that it will be held in the Northern Hemisphere, and despite the fact that the Government could give it only $5 million when it was held here in the Hauraki Gulf in our own backyard. It gave $6.5 million to the political spin machine to spin just a little faster on the Treaty of Waitangi. That is what the Budget delivered.

This Budget was very quick to point out that the world that we live in is a rapidly changing environment. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars), a killer virus, is in play at the moment. There is worldwide terrorist activity, and plummeting confidence in global equity markets. The solution from the Government is to send $1.8 billion to the New York stock market. It does not matter that worldwide equity prices are going down. Do not worry about that. Do not worry that the Prime Minister would not give support to our traditional allies, because the Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, will step into the breach and send $1.8 billion over to the New York stock market? It has not fooled us in the Opposition, and it did not fool Robert Zoellick, the trade negotiator, when he told us that we are so far off the table it is not even funny. That was what he said. Why did Dr Cullen not give some of those hard-working businesses, corporates, and entrepreneurs—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: He’s saving it up.

JOHN KEY: Exactly. Why did he not give them any money? Because he is saving it for the biggest lolly scramble that members have ever seen in their lives.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Bribery!

JOHN KEY: I do not want to use that word. A huge lolly scramble is coming down the pipes. He called on the caucus and said: “Please don’t criticise me. I don’t mind if you don’t give me any applause. I don’t mind if you don’t clap. Don’t worry about the fact that I’ve done absolutely nothing for Auckland roads. Don’t worry about the fact that this is the most anti-growth Budget that has been delivered for some time in this House, but please, please, just stay at bay because, don’t worry, in 12 months’ time I’m going to spend everything that’s in the cupboard, and some. I’m going to try to buy our way in for a third term.”

It will not work. Hard-working New Zealanders will see through that. They will not fall for that stuff. They are sitting in their cars at the moment ruing the day they read this Budget.

Dr Paul Hutchison: His last cue.

JOHN KEY: It probably will not be his last Budget, but it will be nearing the end of his term. This Budget has been a failure for New Zealanders. The Labour Party has squandered a wonderful opportunity earned by the National Party through its good stewardship of the economy in the 1990s. The Labour Party has a lot to thank us for and I will wait for Dr Cullen to deliver that thankyou and gratitude personally, of which the National Government was so deserving in the 1990s.

Mr SPEAKER: I call on Heather Roy, who has 20 seconds.

HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ): This Budget shows the Labour Government in its true light. It shows it for what it really is: an arrogant Government that is out of touch with New Zealanders. We object to this Budget. We will not be supporting it. The $4 billion surplus is an indictment on this Government. The money that was earned by the workers of this country should be given back to its rightful owners: the workers who deserve tax relief for their fine efforts in producing the goods for this country.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): It is a pity that that member did not read some of the Australian newspapers today, because Mr Costello gave some tax cuts, and only 20 percent of the Australian public supported that. The great majority would rather the money had been spent on more health and education. I want to start with that, because ACT has invented a whole new form of economics. Mr Prebble says that if one has an operating surplus of $4 billion—it was actually $1.36 billion, but never mind—on accruals accounting, one can spend the lot.

Let me run through, for the simple minds on the back bench of the ACT party—they are all back-benchers there—the simple facts of accruals accounting. Let me give them my simple car example. Suppose a person’s income is $30,000. That person spends $20,000 on the ordinary cost of living, and buys a car worth $10,000. The ordinary person would say there would be no money left. Accruals accounting would say that the money spent was $20,000 plus the first year’s depreciation—say, $2,500. That person has made a profit of $7,500. Mr Prebble says that one spends the $7,500. How can one do that? One has to borrow the lot.

So at the end of the year, one still has a car, but one now has a debt of $7,500, and one then repeats the performance, year after year. That has a name, and it is what Sir Robert Muldoon used to do as a form of government. He ended up borrowing to pay for the groceries. Where does that lead us? By 1984 and 1985 it led to one tax dollar in four being spent on interest payments on servicing the Government debt, and that is now the ACT party’s version of neoclassical economics. My God! Adam Smith and all the rest of them must be turning so fast in their graves that if we could stick two wires into them, we would not have a power crisis this winter in New Zealand. But, of course, National is more subtle. When I was asked before the Budget what the reaction would be, I said, “You can guarantee what it will be: business will say it doesn’t do what they want”—

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason I am cutting off the member is that an ACT member was cut off. We had an undertaking that we would be able to speak, and we are now told that the ACT member of Parliament cannot speak on the Budget. The ACT party’s rights in this House have been cut off, not because of points of order—the ACT party has not been raising points of order and objecting to the Budget—but because of institutional racism. One can now get up, speak in Māori, get double the time, and thus cut off the ACT party. If we are going to allow that, then the ACT member of Parliament should have been able to give a speech. It is absurd that we are now in a position where mainly Government MPs can get double the usual length for a speech, and speak in Māori as much as they like, knowing that the effect of that will be that a legitimately elected member of Parliament is not able to speak to the Budget. The Government should have allowed Heather Roy to speak, and I want to record the fact that it is a complete outrage that that has been allowed to occur.

Mr SPEAKER: Heather Roy did have a very short speech—

Hon Richard Prebble: Not the time she was entitled to.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand that, but I did call the member. I am bound by the Standing Orders on page 95. I have no room to manoeuvre. At the end of 13 hours and 50 minutes, I must call the Minister in reply.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: When I responded, I said: “I know what the National Party will say. It will say, ‘We should have surpluses and be responsible. We should spend more money on nearly every vote, and we should cut taxes.’ ” And what did it do?

John Key: What’s wrong with that?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Key asks what is wrong with that—Mr Key, who has pretensions to replace Mr Carter, who has pretensions to replace Mr Brash, who has pretensions to replace Mr English. What is wrong with that is that it does not add up—six into two does not go, in the kind of arithmetic we do in Budgets. Post the Budget, every little back-bench National spokesperson rushed off and said: “What a mean, miserable lot the Government are for not spending lots more money on my bits.” Then Dr Brash said: “We should run good surpluses. It is very sensible and very conservative in this situation.” Then the business spokespeople said: “We should have big tax cuts, starting with those with the highest incomes.” That was the National Party’s form of fiscal management. It was not quite as lunatic as the ACT party’s form of fiscal management, but it was pretty close to it. It wants surpluses, more spending, and lower taxes—it wants everything!

It is no wonder that Mr English is the last of the baby-boomer generation. He is demand-fed, and wants everything instantly at every moment. He was brought up in that atmosphere, and he will carry on with it for the rest of his life. What a dreadful speech he gave when he got up, after me. It was a dreadful, appalling, whingeing apology for a speech, as his eyes crossed round as he wondered what on earth he was saying, as he does, time after time, in this House and outside of it.

What was National’s position? The Government had betrayed students by putting a limit on fees! When he was asked what the National Party policy was, he said there should be no limit on fees at all, and that they should be able to go as high as the institutions want to put them. I have a feeling that students would rather be betrayed by us, than completely shot in every different part of their body by members of Parliament opposite me.

What is National’s position on electricity? The principle of the great market-orientated National Party is that electricity should be free. If we need more generating capacity to have a margin, the extra should be free. Father Christmas is going to come down early for Christmas and build us some more power stations, for which I say thank you to Father Christmas, the fairy godmother, the tooth fairy, or Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith—whoever it may be in that particular case. I have always thought of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith as the tooth fairy. Then we had Mr John Key—who is supposedly National’s new, bright young spokesperson on finance—

John Key: If I do say so myself!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: He does say it himself in every press statement. He said: “What do you do with management of funds? Invest at the top of the market.” John Key’s measure for success as to how to make a million is to buy when the market is at its top. I have to tell Mr Key that that is not how George Soros got there. It is not how the successful ones have operated.

The National Party showed in this debate that it still has no idea of what it stands for. It believes that it is the natural party of government, but everything about National is totally unnatural. There is nothing natural about it at all. I repeat that Mr English looked like a rabbit praying for a rifle and a searchlight to put him out of his misery. The thought among National members is that they should swap him for Dr Brash, and the point of doing that will be about as useless as feeding a dozen oysters to a eunuch.

So what is National going to do? It is waiting for the next generation, but Mr Simon Power is the silent member of the front bench. He scarcely rises to his full bulk and speaks forth in the House. He has gone and disappeared, so now maybe Katherine Rich will come forth at some point in the future and be the new leader of the National Party.

Then we had the wonderful pro-family policy that said: “If you are a low-income family, and your kid doesn’t go to school, you should have your income cut.” What a brilliant idea that is! That will really encourage family life amongst low-income New Zealanders! National said we should also give a tax cut to the rich, because, as we all know, when a tax cut is given to the people at the top, for some reason they all go and work harder, whereas if they get a tax increase, they work less hard so that their income can go down even faster.

I have never understood why the National Party thinks people on high incomes are so stupid that if they have to pay a slightly higher tax rate, they will decrease their income level faster to get their own back on the people who put the tax increase in place in the first instance. It has not worked. We were told we would create no jobs; there are over 100,000 new full-time jobs. We were told that the economy would not grow; it is one of the fastest-growing in the OECD over the last year. I was across in Australia yesterday, and they were very complimentary about this Government and about New Zealand—about what is happening in this country. I have here the latest Macquarie research handout talking about the new tradition in New Zealand of responsible fiscal policy. That is the external view of this Government, and I am happy to be judged by those international standards.

The question was put that the following amendment to the amendment to the amendment in the name of Rod Donald be agreed to:

that all the words after “has no confidence” be omitted, and the following words substituted:

in the Labour-led minority Government because of its failure to invest in achieving a self-reliant economy, its refusal to properly nurture a just society and its unwillingness to seriously protect the environment.

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

Ayes 56

Noes 62

Amendment to the amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

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

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

The question was put that the following amendment to the amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters be agreed to:

that the following words be added:

that this House also records that it has no confidence in this Government’s ability to govern as it only ACTS the part, and even then only in a shallow and hammish way.

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

Ayes 48

Noes 70

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

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

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Bill English be agreed to:

that all the words after “That” be omitted and the following words substituted:

this House has no confidence in the Labour minority Government because it has abandoned the task of lifting New Zealand’s long-term growth prospects, because it is smothering our economic vitality in regulation and unworkable policy on energy and transport infrastructure, because it is overtaxing families and businesses to pay for welfare dependency, political correctness and educational failure, and because it has developed a culture of deceit around public accountability.

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

Ayes 48

Noes 70

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2002/03 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 70

Noes 48

Bill read a second time.

Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

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

Bills

Appropriation (2002/03 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2002/03) Supplementary Estimates Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Minimum Wage Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour): I move, That the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill provides protections to trainee employees, who are currently exempt from minimum wage protections, and can, in theory, be paid very little or even nothing for the work they do while they are in training. The bill does this by removing the minimum wage exemption in the principal Act for employees who are trainees, and in its place allows for a minimum training wage to be set for those employees. The changes the bill makes are based on the principle of ensuring there is payment of a socially acceptable minimum wage to industry trainees, while encouraging training. This will provide a basic equitable floor from which employers and trainee employees can negotiate a fair level of pay.

The bill provides for the level of the minimum training wage to be set by regulation, as is done with the adult and youth minimum wage rates. The training wage rate that will be set will be the same rate as the youth minimum wage, which currently is $6.80 an hour.

Eligibility criteria for the minimum training wage will be the same as those that currently cause a trainee to be exempt from the minimum wage. An employee will need to be undertaking training within the national qualifications framework of at least 60 credits per year. All other employees, including those training outside the national qualifications framework, will need to be paid the applicable minimum wage based on their age. This further protects employees who are new to jobs and still learning the ropes, but who are not undergoing training towards the national qualification.

The changes this bill makes will not affect the vast majority of employers who pay their trainee employees above the minimum wage. The object is not to add undue cost to employers who engage in fair and productive employment practices while training employees. Rather, it is to provide a potentially vulnerable section of New Zealand’s workforce with the statutory right to be fairly remunerated, bringing them into the current framework of protections that other employees already enjoy.

I believe that this bill lays the foundation for a strong and positive training environment where both employer and employee receive worthwhile benefits for participating in training. At the same time, it brings industry trainees within the general framework of minimum wage protection, giving them the opportunity to do a decent day’s work for a fair day’s pay.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): I rise on the third reading of this bill to make some short comment in relation to the bill. For the record, National actually supported this bill going to a select committee to see what it was that the Government had in mind for the bill, and in particular how the legislation would affect young people in training. At that time, the National Party was open-minded about the costs that would be incurred during that process, and how the process would pan out.

In fact, the explanatory note of the bill that was referred to the select committee included a statement that caught the eye of members on this side of the House. Under “Costs”, in the section headed “Statement of net benefit of this proposal”, was the statement: “The proposed change may have a small adverse impact on the Government’s fiscal position. The fiscal impact would come from the increased benefit payments that may occur as a result of potential job losses over time.” The most crucial part, though, of that initial description was the line that followed: “It is, therefore, unclear what the overall fiscal impact would be.” So at that point National supported the bill going to a select committee, to try to get a better handle on what the fiscal impact of the introduction of this type of scheme would be.

Unfortunately, during the course of the select committee inquiry we found that staff of the advising department, the Department of Labour, were unable to advise us how those costs could be measured. They were unable to forecast for us the fiscal impact of this particular legislation, and in my view that made it impossible for members of that select committee rightly to assess the overall fiscal impact of the bill. [Interruption] Well, the member Jill Pettis chirps in, but National did support this bill proceeding to the select committee, in a genuine attempt to find out what the fiscal impact of the bill would be. I was on the select committee at that time; that member who yelled out across the House was not. I say that when the departmental officials came before the select committee, Government members on that committee—one of whom is sitting in the House now—were very concerned that the department was unable to provide accurate information about the impact of this bill. They were unable to provide us with any forecasts about how it would affect the job market, or about the fiscal implications of what this bill would do to young people in training. These are quite serious issues, and not ones that should just be tossed aside, as that member has done.

There are other costs, of course, associated with implementing this legislation. They are broken into two sets, if one likes. The first is the cost to business, in the sense that the bill adds to the already enlarging list of costs that business faces—the renationalisation of accident compensation, the Employment Relations Act, health and safety legislation, and paid parental leave, not to mention current plans to introduce a further week of annual leave. At that stage during the select committee process we were worried that the bill would further increase those costs to business by increasing the wages of trainee employees, who are only there as a result of an industry training organisation arrangement—which is a pretty straightforward and satisfactory way of bringing young people into training in the first instance.

But what made this legislation particularly difficult for members of the Opposition to support was the second impact that this bill would have—the impact on employees themselves. We could not get clear from the officials whether this bill would have an impact on whether business would take on these young people in any event. The issue that concerned members on this side of the House, quite seriously, was that business would simply stop taking young people on, because of the increase in compliance costs that would be brought about by this legislation. That raised the point that the people who would miss out were the very people this bill was designed to help. It was not acceptable to members on this side of the House that we support the enactment of legislation that would have that impact on employees, and would have the impacts on employers that I have outlined. And we were still unable to ascertain from departmental officials what the forecasts of the employment and fiscal impacts were.

I simply say, in concluding, that to pass legislation with all those factors outstanding is simply not good enough, and that is the reason National will not be supporting this bill in the third reading.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): I will take only a very brief call on this bill. I was interested to hear what the previous speaker had to say. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to sit on the select committee, but I have to say that the reasons for not supporting this legislation are very tenuous and very slim. The National Party is saying: “How can you support it going to a select committee?”. Morally, it really had no other option. How can we say we do not support paying young people a decent wage? That was the National Party’s way of politically getting out of it—and then: “Please God, let us find an excuse not to support this bill.” So, hello, it seized upon the excuse of not knowing the certainty of the fiscal impacts. Well, for goodness’ sake!

It reminds me of when Parnell, a man who is much revered by a lot of us in New Zealand, suggested that an 8-hour day would be a civilised way for people to work. The end of the world as people knew it at the time was going to occur because of that. Well, hello, it has not happened. It reminds me also of the Blackball coalminers who wanted a half-hour for their crib—their lunch, in common terminology—but they were denied it, until it was discovered that the boss was having 2 hours for lunch. Then it seemed to be a matter of: “Well, all right, perhaps these poor miserable sods who work down in the black centre of the earth could have a mere half-hour, after all.”

I do not think there was a great deal of conviction in the National Party’s argument that it was because of the fiscal impact that it could not support this bill. That is just a feeble excuse. This bill ensures that young people will be protected during their period of training—and if we do not know the importance of training in the workforce by now, there is something seriously wrong with us. I just have to question the Christian spirit and the good-heartedness of people who do not believe that young people are worth paying a decent, liveable wage to. After all, are not most of us here parents? Would we not want our children to be paid a decent wage while they are in training? As a parent, I most certainly think my children should be paid a fair, decent, and liveable wage.

I am supporting this bill, because it is good for young people and it is good for society—and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First has supported this bill and it intends to continue to do so—

Jill Pettis: Well done!

DAIL JONES: I appreciate the support from Jill Pettis, which is not often forthcoming—indeed, I have to ask myself whether we have made a mistake! But, no, I am positive we have not and that we are making the right move.

The bill is a very short bill. It relates to minimum wages, particularly in respect of young people who are employed under contracts of service. Under these they are required to undergo training, instruction, or examination for the purpose of becoming qualified for the occupation to which their contract of service relates. We can all probably remember when we were at the stage of trying to get our first job, not having had any experience or having gained any qualifications. Often one might be competing against somebody else who does have some qualifications, or whatever. It is always so very hard to get one’s very first job and to gain some experience. I feel that one of the best things I ever did in my legal practice was to give young people their first-ever job. Almost always it was a secretarial job. After interviewing many young people for those jobs, I found it was wonderful to see the look of delight on the faces of those who got them. The fact that those young people would often then stay for many years proved very encouraging all round.

Giving someone his or her first job is probably the best thing one can ever do, and one finds that most people—and we are talking about young people—will reciprocate by working pretty well. I think that would also apply to older people. I expect that this bill should apply to people who want to be retrained so they can move into other areas. There are any number of people who perhaps have had no computing experience, or similar, and who might want to change their lifestyles and are prepared to take a drop in wages. I am not exactly sure whether it is the case that this bill applies to them. Perhaps the next speaker could clarify that.

However, this bill encourages at least some decent payment to be made, although there would not be many employers in any type of industry in New Zealand today who would pay just the minimum wage. It would be very, very unusual to find employers who were paying just the minimum wage. If they were, it would be almost a criticism of them, as much as anything else. If they were able to pay their staff only along the lines of a minimum wage, one would have to wonder just how worthwhile their businesses were.

I guess that that applies to many industries around the country. I am sure that my friend Edwin Perry here will tell me that this bill should advantage people who want to become farming cadets in the Wairarapa, and places like that. Employers in industries such as the motor-car industry are only too pleased to take on young people, probably in places such as the garage, to assist them in getting some on-the-jobtraining, instruction, and so on. New Zealand First believes that education is the key to the future, and this is a form of education, on-the-job education, which is the best education one can possibly get in any industry.

I had many years of education as a law clerk. In those days, by the time one finished one’s degree one had gained a lot of experience—in fact 4 years’ more experience than law graduates today who get their degrees with absolutely no legal experience whatsoever and who are of very little use to employers in a legal practice. One almost wonders whether this particular bill would apply to them, even though they have university degrees. However, those graduates are very well trained in our universities. They are very intelligent people, so they get on and do well.

As I said, New Zealand First supports education in all areas. We have a strong Māori vote, and we feel that this bill will do a lot to encourage young Māori boys and girls. However, more should be made of the legislation so that they are encouraged to realise their rights. New Zealand First supports their right to be paid a reasonable amount along the minimum wage line. We think that when they are undergoing their instruction, they are entitled to that; and that should encourage them to respond to a good employer. New Zealand First supports this legislation.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I personally believe that this bill undermines the privilege that it is to learn, and it puts another unnecessary cost on business in New Zealand. There are many employers in New Zealand who are very happy to employ staff for work done, but this bill requires employers to pay staff even when they are not working, and are instead in a training programme. Many people seem to think that the poor old employer is a bottomless pit, able to pay for all and sundry, but that is simply not true. Many small businesses struggle under a tremendous load.

In my younger days, I personally found it a privilege to learn from those who had experience, and I went out of my way to glean information from others at every opportunity I could. However, it would never have entered my head to ask them to pay me for the knowledge I was receiving; it was a privilege to learn. To have sustained employment we must have two willing parties—a willing employer and a willing employee—and the arrangement must be fair to both parties. However, many small businesses are finding it harder and harder to keep up with the ever-increasing paperwork and compliance costs, and now this bill is asking them to pay staff while they are on a training programme away from their workplace.

This bill enables different minimum wage rates to be fixed for workers who are required to undergo training. United Future did support this bill going to the select committee in 2001; however, I note that even the select committee could not reach a majority decision on the necessity for this legislation. Personally, I believe that most employers do not object to workers being paid a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but it is very one-sided to lay on employers the responsibility to pay for everything along the way. I believe that with all the responsibilities employers currently carry for the staff they employ—which, in my personal opinion, are currently very much in favour of the employee—this is an additional burden that employers do not require. If this measure is passed, I believe that it will be another disincentive to employ staff.

What many people fail to understand is that most employers are people, also. Yes, they may call themselves by a company name, but behind that name is a real person. In many cases, those people receive very little in the way of wages for themselves. Their wages are often far below what they pay their staff. Those people are the ones who often lie awake at night wondering whether they will receive payment for work done, to enable them to pay their staff, rent, power, GST, PAYE, etc. Many small-business owners carry a genuine concern for the families that their small businesses support, and I commend them for that.

I have been an employee and I appreciated my job, but there is something refreshing about leaving work at night, closing the door, and leaving all of the concerns of the day there. The self-employed—and, in most cases, employers—cannot do that. They carry the responsibilities with them day and night. That is a considerable burden that is not often appreciated. I have spoken to many employers over the years and I often asked them: “How many of your employees have ever thanked you for the job you have provided for them?”. Mostly, they look at me in amazement, as it is a very rare occurrence.

In my school days my mother often gave me an apple for the teacher. What was she teaching me here? She was simply teaching me to appreciate those who are instrumental in helping me on life’s journey. She taught me to go through life being a giver rather than a taker, and that principle has never let me down. We are teaching people that it is a right to have an income whether or not they work, rather than teaching them that they have a responsibility to work—if they are able—and that if they continue to learn and to do their job diligently, then rewards will naturally follow.

Most responsible employers train their staff at their own expense to enable them to do the work that is required in that particular business, but this bill is not about that training. United Future could find no information about the likely compliance cost to employers, the effect on the labour market, the impact on trainees, or the physical cost to the Government, nor is there any hard data as to how many trainees are currently paid less than the minimum wage, although anecdotal evidence suggests that there are very few. This bill may even have the perverse effect of reducing training wages to a minimum, creating job losses, or making employers reluctant to take on untrained staff. United Future will therefore not support this bill.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ): No one will be surprised that the ACT party will not support this bill. We regard minimum wage law as slogan law. It is cynical, and it trades on the fact that many people expect and hope the law will achieve what people claim to be its intentions, even when there is incontrovertible evidence that the intentions of a minimum wage law are rarely, if ever, achieved. Indeed, such a law is highly likely to hurt those whom it is most proclaimed to protect. The intention of Parliament, of course, is what the courts must try to ascertain when they are faced with a law, but in looking at a minimum wage law the intention is probably not what the objective is. There is a difference between the two. The objective of the parliamentarians who promote this kind of law is to obtain votes. It is to pay off their supporters, to avoid scrutiny, and to avoid a real look at what the law does in this area, whereas the proclaimed intention is to increase wages.

Of course, the sorts of people who might be covered by a minimum wage amendment are likely to be those who are hired last—the least attractive employees—those for whom it is most easy to substitute a machine, and those for whom it is most easy to look for someone else to do the job and perhaps to pay that person a little more. So often a person on the minimum wage is actually under training. There is a concession, or there may be a genuine feeling of public interest—altruism—by an employer, who wants to give someone a chance. A minimum wage simply interferes with that prospect.

This bill is likely to be an “Anti - Scruffy Person Bill”, or an “Anti - Inexperienced Person Bill”. It will be a bill that achieves more unemployment for people who need a first job, and it will achieve less job training and more frustration by employers. This bill, by imposing a one-size-fits-all approach across the country, states that the employer cannot now take the most simple way of reflecting the fact that the law has also taken away other abilities. How many employers can actually enforce the expectation that when they take on someone, and that person spends 3 or 6 months learning the job, they will at least get a couple of years out of the person?

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.