Wednesday, 23 July 2003

Wednesday, 23 July 2003

Wednesday, 23 July 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Delegation from Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature, South Africa

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Standing Committee on Traditional Affairs from the Eastern Cape Provincial Legislature, Republic of South Africa, led by the chairman, are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that they be welcomed.

Privilege

Hon Harry Duynhoven—Dutch Citizenship

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Harry Duynhoven has raised with me a question relating to the application of section 55(1)(c) of the Electoral Act. The matter concerns Mr Duynhoven’s Dutch citizenship, a citizenship which he has held from his birth but which he lost in 1995 and regained, following a change in Dutch law, last month.

As questions relating to the right of members to sit in the House have always been treated as questions of privilege, I have determined that a question of privilege is involved in respect of this matter. It consequently stands referred to the Privileges Committee for consideration. I hope that the committee will give this matter its highest priority.

I will be guided in my actions under the Electoral Act by the committee’s report and the House’s conclusions on it.

Tabling of Documents

Question No 7 to Minister, 22 July

RON MARK (NZ First): Yesterday in question time, during question No 7, in reply to a supplementary question that I asked, the Minister of Police said: “The police do not have quotas for traffic offences.” I seek the leave of the House to table a report in which Inspector Derek Erasmus from Canterbury discusses the new police policy of issuing one ticket per hour.

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Industry Training—Skill Needs

1. HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): What progress is the Government’s industry training strategy making in meeting the skill needs of business?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): Our new Industry Training 2002 publication, which I will seek to table at the end of this question, reports that a 12 percent increase in trainees, to 106,997, took place during that year, and that a 12 percent increase in participating employers, to 24,576, took place. These are very good results to report as we complete the first year of the second term of a Labour-led Government. According to the Business New Zealand survey released at the Industry Training Federation conference, nearly three-quarters of firms believe that staff training and skill development improve their company’s performance.

Helen Duncan: How broad is the support for workplace learning as a means of obtaining productive and effective workplaces?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We have support from both business and unions. In fact, next week I will be joining with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions to launch our tripartite Skill New Zealand campaign. Surprisingly, support for skill development is not universal. An alternative approach of simply firing employees after 2 to 3 years when they get “a bit stale” was promoted in a recent email newsletter this month by the unofficial leader of the National Party, Mr Don Brash, who has been trying to implement this policy in recent months.

Simon Power: Does the Minister agree that the Industry Training Strategy, initiated by the National Government in the early 1990s, is successful because it is industry-owned and industry-led, and, in the light of recent findings from the Business New Zealand and Industry Training Federation survey that only 42 percent of respondent businesses were aware of an industry training organisation covering their enterprise or industry, how does the Minister hope to achieve his own target of 250,000 in formal industry training by 2007?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think that the secret of success has been the partnership between the Government, the employers, and the trade unions. I point out that, in terms of awareness, the National Party is so out of touch that it sent its early childhood education spokesperson to the industry training conference—who confessed when he was there that he did not know what an “ITO” was.

Craig McNair: What effort has been made by the Minister to integrate the tertiary education system and to ensure that polytechnic courses that offer continued upskilling are not viewed as a second-rate option to university courses?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That very issue has been at the centre of the tertiary education reform process that has at its heart the integrative funding framework, which ensures that skills are treated as equal to other forms of education.

Jill Pettis: What are the future prospects for industry training in New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The prospects for industry training are bright in most workplaces as we move towards having a quarter of a million trainees, with further investment by this Government. But I do know of one workplace—the National Party—where people are not allowed to learn from their mistakes, and where they are not allowed to take their experience and provide for the effective operation of that workplace.

Deputy Prime Minister—Confidence

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in her Deputy Prime Minister; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, but of course it is possible that proceedings in the next few minutes may lead her to change her mind.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise with you a point of order that was raised with you yesterday. I refer to Speakers’ rulings, and in particular the one I raised with you yesterday, by Speaker Tapsell about transferring questions. I seek from you a ruling that Ministers should not transfer questions if they reasonably can answer. The reason I draw this to your attention today is that the situation today is very interesting. As I picked up the Order Paper, I thought: “I haven’t seen this situation for a very long time.” Here is the Prime Minister willing to answer one, two, three questions, whereas, as was pointed out yesterday, the Prime Minister normally answers only one question—a question that can be answered only by her—which is about whether she has confidence in a colleague. What we clearly see is that when Mr Cullen is Prime Minister he is prepared to answer questions—but Helen Clark is not, and I think that is further evidence, and if we see this situation tomorrow, when the real Prime Minister returns—[Interruption]; if she does decide to visit us again—we will have a look at the question of whether she is transferring questions. If Dr Cullen can answer questions, and the other Prime Minister cannot, perhaps the Labour Party might like to take that into account, too.

Mr SPEAKER: That is more a political point than a genuine point of order, because in actual fact there is a Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister leaves the country there has to be an Acting Prime Minister, and Dr Cullen is going to answer in that regard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact is that this Prime Minister this week will answer one question in the House. Yesterday, in answer to an identical question, the Prime Minister said that the statement was made by another member of her Cabinet who was not here, but, nevertheless, she would answer for her. Now, that is it for the week for this Prime Minister. We know that she is there in her room right now—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am going to finish this because it is a major point.

Mr SPEAKER: I want the member to be seated, please. I want the member to come to the point of order. It was said that the Prime Minister was not here. I have said that from evidence that I have. If I am wrong I apologise, but I am pretty certain I am not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, you are wrong. My point is this: yesterday you allowed her to transfer that question, but today it is in her name, now, as the person to answer it, but she is not here. I can raise that fact. What we have here is a Prime Minister who is transparently ducking question time in the House—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and it does not befit any Western democracy—

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I am finished with that point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I have not.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I have. The member will be seated. Points of order have to be put tersely. I have here a circular from the Cabinet Office, which states: “Absent Minister: Rt Hon Helen Clark; 23 [pm] - 29 July.” That means that the Acting Prime Minister is the Hon Dr Michael Cullen.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is 11 o’clock tonight—that is my first point. Secondly, I require a fair chance to put my point of order and get the facts right, as you have not. Thirdly, I was denied a television interview because they were, at the very time, interviewing the Prime Minister. It is all very well to deal with the media, but the fact is that the Prime Minister owes this House her attendance and some political accountability. I for one and my party for another are not going to put up with it. We demand in this House the right to put sound points of order, and not to have this democracy decay into some kind of Third World shambles.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Firstly, this question was not on the Order Paper yesterday, and nothing like it was on the Order Paper—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes it was.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can assure the member that there was no question yesterday about confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister. I would have sat there listening with some eagerness, had there been.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No. 5.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. 5? I think the member means No. 4 or No. 6, both of which refer to a quotation—which is a quotation that the Prime Minister actually made—which is not the case with the question yesterday. The Prime Minister is on her way to Auckland. She is proceeding from there to Townsville to talk with the Australians. She is proceeding from there to Korea for the 50th anniversary of the end of the Korean War. She is not available to answer questions today.

Larry Baldock: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the time that I have been privileged to be in this House, one thing I have learnt is that any member’s word is considered to be absolute. We are never allowed to challenge another member and say that he or she is not telling the truth or is mistaken. If a member says that they are correct, then they are correct. How is it, then, that Mr Peters has been able to stand up in this House and say that you are wrong, and not have to apologise for that?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not require any assistance on this matter. The member will sit down, and he will not interject during points of order. The member knows that rule, and he very nearly left the Chamber. I determined that I might have been in error. I am not perfect, and I have never claimed to be; so I might have been wrong. But in actual fact, I was not.

Hon Bill English: In the light of the statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister that there is no legislation regarding title to the beaches and the seabed, is it the Prime Minister’s intention to introduce legislation to this House that states that the Government now does own the beaches and the seabed?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I invite the member to read more carefully what the Deputy Prime Minister said in that regard. There is no legislation that asserts Crown ownership of all the seabed and foreshore. There is legislation that deems ownership to be vested in the Crown—of the seabed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister’s confidence in him is because he thinks he can answer the questions and he has the intellectual rigour to come down and have a go at it, whereas she cannot—which is the reason that he and a number of front-benchers lined up in September 1996 to get rid of her?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member’s memory is in error: it was not in September 1996. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Does Mr Prebble want to remain in the House?

Hon Richard Prebble: Do I want to remain in the House?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Richard Prebble: I would rather like to.

Mr SPEAKER: Right, well—on this occasion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I said that the event happened since September 1996. Up gets the Deputy Prime Minister, whose hearing has apparently gone on him, and he claims I said “December”. That is what all the laughter was about.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member’s memory is in error. It did not happen in September 1996.

Hon Bill English: Why will the Prime Minister not directly answer the simple question: does the Government intend to bring in legislation that states that the Crown owns the seabed and the foreshore where other people do not own it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: A Government caucus committee is working through reconciling the issue of ensuring traditional access rights of all New Zealanders to the seabed and foreshore, with the preservation of Māori customary rights where they may exist. The answers to those issues cannot be fitted on a taxpayer-paid billboard.

Hon Richard Prebble: What conclusion can the House take from the involvement of the Minister of Finance in the seabed and foreshore issue? Is it that the Prime Minister has no confidence in the Hon Margaret Wilson, or is it that the Labour Government believes that it will be spending very large sums of taxpayers’ money on this issue, hence the involvement of the Minister of Finance? Which one is it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I suspect it is that when volunteers were called for, the Minister of Finance was slowest to step backwards.

Local Government—Funding

3. PAUL ADAMS (United Future) to the Minister of Local Government: Does the Government have any plans to address the pressure on local government funding sources, as illustrated by the Auckland rates crisis?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government): Local authorities set their own rates, and they are accountable for those to their own communities. The Government recently enacted the Local Government (Rating) Act, which ensures transparency in rating decisions, and, at the same time, gives local authorities greater flexibility in how they fund their services.

Paul Adams: In order to address the pressure on local government funding sources, will the Government consider increasing the percentage of funding allocated by Transfund for local roads from the current maximum of 47 percent to a maximum of 80 percent, thereby alleviating one of the biggest drains on local government funds; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: This Government has a proud record of funding infrastructure, which is, of course, the primary cost to local authorities. I could mention, for instance, the 20 percent increase in roading since 1999.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How on earth could that answer be said to be even addressing the question? The member was asked a specific question on whether the Government would agree to increasing the percentage funding by Transfund, and he stood up and said that the Government has a proud record on infrastructure. That may or may not be true, and he could be proud of it, but it has nothing to do with the question he was being asked.

Mr SPEAKER: It is not directly the Minister’s responsibility, but I think the Minister could give a more direct answer to the question that was asked.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: My responsibility as Minister of Local Government is to be an advocate for local territorial authorities. In fact, I therefore was in a position to comment on how much this Government has done for infrastructure support. It is not my responsibility to discuss or comment on transport issues.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He says he is in a position to comment on how much support this Government is giving. Then he leaves it at that. So we are still no wiser as to the primary question and the secondary one. Secondly, when he began his answer, none of us could hear it.

Mr SPEAKER: The only valid point the member makes—because the Minister did address the question—was the business about hearing it. I had some difficulty hearing it. I would ask the Minister to repeat it.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I would be very proud to answer that question again, and I will use my best classroom voice. As Minister of Local Government, it is my responsibility, and indeed my privilege, to act as an advocate for local government. I have done that on the transport issue. I am commenting that this Government has given a 20 percent increase since 1999 in transport funding. It is not my responsibility, or indeed my ability, to comment on individual transport decisions.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely the supplementary question call should go from side to side. That was a Government question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Labour Party, as the largest party, gets the first supplementary question.

David Parker: What other steps has the Government taken to help local authorities fund expensive infrastructure costs?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: As I said earlier, infrastructure is a major cost to local authorities. We have significantly increased funding for roading. We have introduced—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can that question be in order? The primary question dealt with sources of funding causing pressure for local government. Local government these days, with the power of general competence, ranges into all sorts of activities. For the Government to decide to narrow this down simply to infrastructure and allow the Minister some sort of a free hit on the goodies that the Government is pushing out into Auckland is totally unacceptable.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I think the member is right. That question is disallowed.

Gerry Brownlee: Will the Minister accept that rate rises across the country are largely due to the new Local Government Act, which has seen extraordinary extra costs loaded into councils in order that they might meet their statutory obligations; and what does he say to all those residents in Auckland who are feeling that this is excessive, unacceptable, and is, as Mr Adams described, a rate crisis in Auckland?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The new local government legislation increases ratepayers’ opportunity to participate in council decision-making on rating policies.

Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Minister consider it fair that Auckland Regional Council ratepayers are facing, on average, property tax increases of over 30 percent, with some facing several-100-percent increases, to pay for services that they have never used, and never intend to use; if he does think it is fair, could he explain why, and if he does not think it is fair, could he tell us what he will do about it?

Mr SPEAKER: There are three questions there. The Minister can comment on two of them.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I repeat my answer to the initial question. Local authorities set their own rates, and they are accountable for them.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sympathise with this junior Minister, who has clearly run out of notes and is starting again, but that is not how question time works. If the member had wanted to ask the first question he would have asked it. The Minister was asked a completely different question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister was asked to comment about Auckland Regional Council increases in rates. I ask the Minister to continue his answer.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Ultimately, the decision by Auckland Regional Council councillors will be judged by their constituents at next year’s local body election.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very precise: does the Minister consider it fair that those property taxes are going up, on average, over 30 percent? I want to hear the Minister’s view. He just told us that he has responsibility for local government. I want to hear his view. Does he consider it fair?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is not forced to give an opinion like that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister is not forced to give an opinion like that, why did you allow the question? The question was about whether he thinks it is fair, and what the Minister said was that, ultimately, the decision as to its fairness would be made by the local ratepayers. Frankly, he is not an expert on electoral law, democracy, or anything else, by the sound of it. Surely, he has been asked to address the question, which you thought was proper when it was put to him.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought that the original question, the primary question, was proper. I may have been a little more generous on the supplementary question.

Paul Adams: In order to address the pressure on local government funding sources, will the Government commit to providing local authorities with a GST rebate on the amount they collect from rates, which is nothing but a tax on a tax, anyway, and which currently costs ratepayers an extra $200 million annually?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Not at this time.

Paul Adams: Noting the Minister’s answers to my previous question, I ask this: has he seen any reports that at the time of the passage of the GST legislation it was the Government’s intention to remove the GST component from local rates bills, and will he advocate for this with the Minister of Revenue?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is another one of those questions that take up heaps of time. It is way wide of the wicket. It was something about funding pressures on local government. The Minister has made it clear that the Government does not care about that—it is not going to help local councils. So why did we get this question?

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is being a little unreasonable. I try to allow reasonably wide questioning. Technically, the member is absolutely right, but I was going to allow the Minister to comment. But the member has properly raised a point of order. The question is out of order.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I actually do recall the matter, and I am quite happy, with leave, to give the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: So could I, but neither of us can.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I also recall the answer to the question, because I was there, as well. But I submit to you that the primary question relates to the current rates crisis in Auckland. The supplementary question addresses ways in which that might be alleviated. Surely it is in order for the member to ask the Minister what his response is to particular funding solutions that might alleviate that crisis.

Mr SPEAKER: I have thought about this. I think the member is perfectly correct. I will ask Mr Paul Adams to ask the question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the voting record, which shows that both Mr Dunne and Mr Prebble voted for rates to be GST taxed.

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

Paul Adams: Noting the Minister’s answer to my previous question, I ask this question: has he seen any reports that at the time of the passage of the GST legislation it was the Government’s intention to remove the GST component from local rates bills; and will he advocate for this with the Minister of Revenue?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I personally have not seen any of those reports. As far as being an advocate for this particular issue, I point out that Government—the Prime Minister, and other Ministers, including myself and the Minister of Revenue—meets with mayors every 6 months. If this issue is raised, I am sure we will discuss it.

Larry Baldock: Noting the current funding pressures facing local government, is the Minister aware that the Inland Revenue Department is looking at requiring councils to pay GST even on rates the council has remitted, such as on multiple-owned unused Māori land, as per its rates remission policy, mandated by the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002; if so, does he agree that this would seem to be an unfair additional burden on ratepayers?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have not been aware of that information, but I am happy to discuss it with the member further.

Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “Ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown …”; if so, will her Government legislate to ensure that the Crown has exclusive title to the seabed and foreshore?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): The Prime Minister stands by her statement. The Government is working on a statutory framework that ensures that private exclusive titles are not created over what has always been considered the public domain. Customary rights are provided for in that framework.

Hon Bill English: If the framework is going to prevent private exclusive title, is it going to establish public Government-owned exclusive title, or not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member will have to wait to see the proposals as they emerge. I think he will be surprised by the creativity that has been applied to the problem.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree that Māori have simply asserted their customary title as the exercise of their rangatiratanga, which is distinctly different from a private exclusive Pākehā model of title; and what is the Government doing to allay the scaremongering tactics pursued by other political parties, and provide information on the differences between private exclusive Pākehā title and Māori customary title to the New Zealand public, who desperately need to hear this?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There has certainly been a great deal of talking at cross-purposes on the issue, as the member’s question implies. A Government caucus committee is working on the issue. When a more full proposal is ready we propose to consult on that with other political parties, with Māori, with local government, with recreational interests, and with others.

Rodney Hide: When the Minister of Finance said that negotiations with Māori over customary rights to the foreshore and seabed were on track for a win-win solution, what was in the Minister’s mind that Māori might win and non-Māori might win out of those negotiations?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I understand that what was in the Minister of Finance’s mind is that traditional access rights of all New Zealanders to the seabed and foreshore would be asserted and preserved, and that the right of Māori to apply for recognition of Māori customary rights through the Māori Land Court would also be preserved.

Hon Bill English: To relieve public concern, why does the Government not tidy up its mess by simply stating that the Government will bring in legislation that will confirm or state that the Crown owns the seabed and the foreshore?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Even if we did that, it would not prevent the assertion of Māori customary rights.

Child Abuse—Crimes Act

5. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Justice: Why is the Government not moving to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 immediately as one means of addressing the increasing abuse of children identified in the most recent Social Report?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): The Social Report does not show an increase in the rate of child abuse over the 6-year period its statistics cover in this area, nor does section 59 of the Crimes Act provide a defence to the types of abuse and neglect of children recorded in that report. However, the Government is currently putting in place a public education campaign on alternative and more effective forms of disciplining children, rather than smacking. Changes to the law on physical punishment of children will be considered, once the campaign is under way and has been evaluated.

Sue Bradford: In the light of the fact that the Minister will not move to repeal section 59 immediately, under what circumstances does he think it is OK for parents to hit or physically assault their children?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Section 59 of the Crimes Act sets out quite clearly the answer to that question—that is, every parent of a child, and every person in place of a parent of a child, is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable under the circumstances. The cases referred to in the Social Report would not be regarded as reasonable by anyone in the community, let alone any judge looking at that.

Mita Ririnui: Why is it considered important that a public education programme precede consideration of changes to the law?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Law change without attitudinal change and an awareness of alternatives to the use of force is unlikely to be effective.

Sue Bradford: How does allowing parents to, for example, beat their children with a stick or a piece of hose, comply with provisions of the new Care of Children Bill, which states, amongst other things, that: “The welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration … in any other proceedings involving the guardianship of, or the role of providing day-to-day care for, or contact with, a child.”?

Hon PHIL GOFF: It does not. I am aware of four cases determined by jury trial where the use of a physical implement was regarded by the jury as constituting reasonable force. One of the options open to this House is to redefine what is reasonable force, in the same way the Parliament in New South Wales has. The survey of public opinion in New Zealand shows overwhelmingly the public belief that reasonable force is only smacking with an open hand and then not about the head or the neck.

Sue Bradford: How can the Government persist in justifying this legalised physical abuse of children, when we do not tolerate it legally with adults?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member will find, if she looks at the research I had done through the Ministry of Justice, that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders—in fact, 80 percent—do not believe that a person should be prosecuted for smacking a child, as a form of discipline, with an open hand.

Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Ownership

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: When she made her statement reported in the New Zealand Herald of 24 June 2003 as “ownership of the seabed and foreshore had long been considered to lie with the Crown and legislation would clarify that”, did she personally have confidence in herself to make that statement; if so, how does she reconcile that statement with the Labour Maori members’ statement given on the same day?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): The Prime Minister has complete confidence in the statements she has made on this issue, and has no difficulty reconciling them with other statements she has seen and heard on this issue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is so, why, with regard to question No. 3 yesterday—of identical intent and meaning and from the same source—did she duck it, and why was she not prepared to face up to this House and answer the question yesterday, and, more important, tell us how she reconciles it with the Māori members’ statement?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The question yesterday referred to a different statement. The Prime Minister has checked the press conference and cannot find any record of her having made the statement referred to yesterday. The Attorney-General certainly did make that statement.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister intend to stand by the substance and intent of the statement made about a month ago, referred to in this question, that ownership of the foreshore and seabed has long been considered to lie with the Crown and that legislation would clarify that?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Legislation will certainly be used to clarify the fact that all New Zealanders have rights of access to the seabed and foreshore, and that they cannot be affected by any title being granted that gives exclusive rights.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister seeking to duck the issue, which was that on 24 June the Dominion Post reported: “Ms Wilson and Prime Minister Helen Clark said the planned law change would clarify that the Crown, and thus the general public, owned beach foreshores and the seabed.”; and why was it, yesterday, of such moment to duck out of that, were it not for the fact that she is too scared to come down here and—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise for that last comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise—were it not for the fact that she is lacking what it takes to come down—

Mr SPEAKER: That is out of order, also. The member is just trifling with me, as Chair. He is very close to being sent out. That last part of the question is struck out. The first part can be answered.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: It had better not be in any way challenging my ruling.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise, and I want to complete the question.

Mr SPEAKER: It has been completed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it has not. You have ruled it out.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am sorry, I did not rule the question out. I ruled the last part of it out, and I want the Minister to answer it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have apologised twice for imputations. Now I want to complete the question the way it was properly phrased in the first place, otherwise it is just an open question on fact. I want a conclusion out of this from the Minister, and I think I am entitled to it.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member has asked the question. He can queer his own pitch by saying what he said, but then the whole question will be ruled out. I am being very generous in allowing the Minister to comment on the first part.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister does not duck anything, and certainly will not duck anything from that particular member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You ruled that in; you ruled what I said out, which actually underscored what I said in the first place. My real point is that yesterday’s quote and today’s quote are from the same press conference, by two different reporters, but the import is identical. You allowed the Prime Minister yesterday to refer that question to Margaret Wilson, who she knew was not here. So it came back to the person answering today. This circuitous route towards democratic accountability is a disgrace, and we do not wish to put up with it. I am asking, fairly, why she could not answer yesterday the question of the same import today. The answer seems to be, she is not prepared to answer, on either day. That is why he is answering.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I said yesterday—speaking now as Deputy Prime Minister—the Prime Minister did not find in the transcript of the press conference the quote that was used yesterday. That quote certainly referred to a statement made by the Attorney-General, therefore the question was referred. The quotation today was included in the transcript of the press conference. The Prime Minister will not duck anything from that member. She is prepared to meet him anywhere, anytime, except at a Courtenay Place bar in the early hours of the morning. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am dealing with a point of order. There is nothing for me to rule on at this particular point. The comment made by the Deputy Prime Minister was not insulting; it just merely made a statement. It certainly did not reflect on any other member of this House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact is that yesterday that was not the logic that you accepted for the reference onwards. The logic you accepted yesterday was that because Margaret Wilson had also made the statement, and she being responsible for these issues, she should answer it. That is what you said yesterday. Now today we find out that although there was no denial for a whole month from the Prime Minister as to the propriety of that reporting as to her comments, it now is an issue. That is a disgraceful abuse of this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not because, in fact, I did not say that yesterday. I said it is up to the Government to determine who answers the question. It is not up to me. Supplementary question, the Hon Bill English—did he have one?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is my turn, then; I am on my feet.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has had two. Mr English has had one.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, he is sitting down, and I am standing, and every precedent says that you should ask me.

Mr SPEAKER: I am now finished with the member. He may leave the Chamber. I am not having that constant—[Interruption] I asked because the member had originally stood when it was his turn to ask a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: I am now calling the Hon Bill English. [Interruption] The member did stand before, and I called him.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it now in order in this House for a member to be able to get a question at question time when he is sitting on his bum, as opposed to a member who is on his feet and seeking the call? In this particular case Mr English was still sitting down. Mr Peters was standing up, and you have thrown him out of the House because he was exercising his parliamentary responsibility to question the Government about what is happening. The Government may not like it, and other Government members may not like it either, but he is entitled to the call if he is the only one standing up—surely. Please rule.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member does not recollect accurately at all. Mr Peters asked the first supplementary question. Mr English asked the second supplementary question. Mr Peters asked the third supplementary question, and at the conclusion of that, during it, the Hon Bill English stood up. I automatically assumed he was next. As far as I am concerned I did not throw the member out of the Chamber for raising a point of order; I threw him out because he is defying the Chair and everyone in this House knows it.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened to your recollection of events, which I have to say does not concur exactly with mine. I recall seeking the call only once, and it is unfortunate, perhaps, if the consequences of that are that Mr Peters ended up challenging the Chair. So in his defence I would say that I share Mr Peters’ understanding that I had sought the call only once, and did not actually seek the call a second time.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really appreciate the statement from the leader of the National Party. As I understand it, what he just said is that he was not seeking the call. Therefore it was perfectly appropriate for Mr Peters to be on his feet and to seek the call—which is what he was doing, and for which you have ejected him. Now we have Mr English supporting Mr Peters’ approach. We are very concerned about the way in which you are conducting question time.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that I did not eject Mr Peters for raising points of order; he has raised so many, and I have heard them all. I ejected him for being rude to me, which is not acceptable in this House.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether, later in the day, you might be able to look at the transcript, the Hansard, of the proceedings around this particular question. I think that tempers certainly do become a little bit frayed when answers come from Ministers that are generally well outside the requirements of answers, as set down in the Standing Orders. In particular, Mr Peters would have had some justification for being a little hot under the collar at the earlier response by the Acting Prime Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, to the part of his question that you had actually ruled out of order. Those sorts of responses from Ministers do lead to disorder in the House. I think it is very unfortunate that Mr Peters has found himself getting so frustrated that some of his frustration has been vented as disrespect for the Chair. There is no disagreement with your decision, but I think it worthy of your time to have a look at the Hansard and perhaps give some Government Ministers an instruction that they are as much responsible for disorder occurring in the House, because of their answers, as is any other activity that might come from this side of the House.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Speaking to the point of order, I say that I have answered every question addressed to me today, directly. You ruled out of order, as I understood it, a reference to the Prime Minister being scared. The first part of the question referred to ducking the question. You said that the first part of the question could be answered, and that is the part I answered, absolutely directly.

Mr SPEAKER: That is absolutely correct. I want to say that as far as I am concerned Dr Cullen has answered questions directly when he has been asked them today. As everyone knows, I did not ask Mr Peters to leave because of that. I thank Mr Brownlee for the comments he made inside his point of order.

Health and Safety—Workplaces

7. DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister for ACC: What action is ACC taking to implement improved health and safety provisions in workplaces?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): I had great pleasure recently in launching the first-ever training programme for elected workplace health and safety representatives. The Accident Compensation Corporation has developed this programme in partnership with the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. The Accident Compensation Corporation and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions aim to train 5,000 health and safety representatives during the next 12 months. This initiative will play an important role in reducing the toll of workplace injuries.

Question interrupted.

Points of Order—Question Time

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been reflecting upon the proceedings this afternoon. I will ask you to note at this point that all of the New Zealand First members are vacating the Chamber. I want you to consider that we are consistently running into this problem where tempers become frayed and frustrations rise, to the point where people object, possibly do challenge you on occasion, and do make statements that are unparliamentary. All of that has its root in this question time being turned into a sham by Ministers who refuse to answer questions, who duck issues, and who shuffle questions from one side to the other. I want you to reflect on that. I know it is difficult for a Speaker to make a ruling that sets a precedent, but I think we are getting to the stage where outside, on the airwaves, people are looking at question time as being an absolute farce.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I have to say that members on this side of the House have spent a considerable amount of time becoming increasingly concerned about the rudeness of Mr Peters, day after day, when raising points of order. Today we have seen other members of the Opposition—Mr Prebble, Mr Brownlee, and Mr English I think, but I cannot remember—raising points of order that, even if they were ruled against, were raised properly with you and in an appropriate manner. It is intolerable that you are subject, day after day, to yelling from Mr Peters, to insults, to refusals to obey your orders, and to interjections whenever you are giving rulings. On that basis, he cannot claim that answers were not given. As the Speaker has already ruled, I gave direct answers to every question Mr Peters raised.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow just one final comment on this point of order.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): At least twice today you have asked Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise, and he has adhered to every request you have made along those lines. Question No. 6 relates to an issue that is of particular concern to many people, and specifically to members of New Zealand First. Mr Peters was going to ask four supplementary questions on that issue and you effectively curtailed that. I would ask you to allow Mr Peters back into the Chamber, because he stood his ground firmly. You might have thought that Mr English was going to take a call. Mr English has now admitted that he was not going to take a call. Mr Peters stood his ground firmly to say that he wanted the call for a third supplementary question, and he would have taken a fourth one after that.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Peters would have been given five supplementary questions if he had wanted them, because it is still within his allocation. He was not ejected for that, at all. He was ejected for being rude to the Chair, which he has been constantly over the past few weeks. I have heard that point of order now.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): Could you please clarify what exactly he said that was rude? I can understand that he was frustrated, because he stood his ground—

Mr SPEAKER: I keep a record of each day’s question time. I would be able to point out to the member occasions here, here, here, and here. It is obvious to most members of the House.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker, while Mr Mark is still here. In fact, three members of New Zealand First are here, so it is a bit of an odd walk-out. I was listening to Mr Mark, and I think he picked his words with care, but I want an assurance from him that the remarks he was making were not a reflection on the Chair. If he is walking out because he does not find question time worthwhile, that is his right, but if he is walking out as a reflection on the Chair, that is a reflection on the whole House. I think you should clarify that matter with him; otherwise, he should walk out for a long period of time.

Mr SPEAKER: It is up to members as to why they withdraw from the House. I am taking it that they have made a decision. They do not want to be here and that is their business. I hope it is not a reflection on me. Mr Mark indicates that it is not, and I accept his word.

Question No. 7 to Minister

Question resumed.

Dianne Yates: What other initiatives have the Government introduced to reduce workplace injury rates?

Hon RUTH DYSON: There is no doubt that more effective accident compensation legislation that emphasises injury prevention is playing a significant part, complemented by modern industrial relations legislation that is more conducive to good health and safety. My expectation is that injury rates will continue to improve over time, with prevention measures further enhanced by the Government’s changes to the health and safety legislation and implementation of the New Zealand Injury Prevention Strategy.

Dr Paul Hutchison: In 1998-99 there were fewer than 25,000 moderate-to-severe workplace injuries, and under the Labour Government that figure has risen to over 30,000 per year. With that poor record to date, why should we believe that the latest interventions are likely to be successful?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am very reluctant to ever use a year-by-year change in figures as the basis of a trend, but I will give the member some better news in terms of both new and ongoing claim numbers than he is able to report to the House. In 1997-98 the figure for new claims was 73 and for ongoing claims 356. In the following year, there were 53 new claims and 296 ongoing claims, compared to, under this Government in 2000-01, 25 new claims in that year and 26 in the following year, and 281 and 285 ongoing claims respectively. That is a significant decrease in claim numbers.

Lynne Pillay: How have employers benefited from the Accident Compensation Corporation’s investment in numerous workplace initiatives?

Hon RUTH DYSON: If I might use the past year as an example, employers who were assessed as having a safe workplace in terms of their practices received levy discounts totalling $17 million.

Sue Bradford: When will the Government accept that sawmill workers in Whakatane injured by long-term exposure to pentachlorophenols and other solvents are entitled to accident compensation?

Hon RUTH DYSON: A lot of work is going into detailed consideration and support of the claimants throughout that process, but in terms of the specifics of the question, the only way individual claimants can have their claims accepted is if they meet the criteria of the legislation.

Gordon Copeland: Is the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions being funded through accident compensation employer levies to provide the workplace health and safety officers to which she referred; if so, is funding also being provided to private training providers to assist employers who choose not to use the Council of Trade Unions service; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The funding for that is part of the overall injury prevention account. In answer to the second part of the question, yes, other organisations have applied. None have yet been accepted, but I know that the Employers and Manufacturers Association is one that is getting very close to finalising its contract negotiations for the provision of health and safety training.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister briefly outline how she—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Peter Brown: What is this member talking about?

Rodney Hide: I thought you walked out.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Hide, you do not know how lucky you are. There is not to be one more word from you this question time while questions are being asked—not one!

Peter Brown: Will the Minister briefly outline how she believes that employers should handle “stress”, because it is not defined in the Act, it is not confined to the workplace, and the issue is causing huge concern amongst genuine employers?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I would happily do that if it were covered under my portfolio, but I regret that that question should appropriately be directed to the Minister of Labour. [Interruption]

Phil Heatley: There has been a mass “walk-in”, Mr Speaker!

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really think it would be helpful if the Green Party were to give New Zealand First a lesson on how to do a walk-out.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need this continued. Supplementary question, Dr Paul Hutchison.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Can the Minister give the precise cost of her interventions; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: If the member is referring to the precise cost and effectiveness of our injury prevention programmes, the answer is “Yes”. In order to do that, and to save the House precious time, I would be happy to foreshadow the tabling of six pages of exactly that information.

Mr SPEAKER: A request has been made to table that information. Is there any objection?

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

Offence Notices—Quotas

8. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Police: Do the police have a national policy on traffic ticket quotas?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): No. However, police do set performance standards to enforce the law. I am advised that when patrol staff are tasked with policing our roads, it is not unreasonable to expect them to enforce the law—especially given that one in 12 drivers does not wear a seat belt, and one in 10 drives at speed. Drivers actually need to break the law to get a ticket.

Dr Muriel Newman: Does the Minister realise that while police are busy fulfilling his performance standards by issuing a quota of one traffic ticket per hour to largely law-abiding citizens, criminals are busy converting four cars, committing five violent crimes, six drug offences, seven burglaries, and 15 thefts—a total of 50 recorded crimes an hour—and why does he not focus the police on catching real criminals and reducing real crime instead?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Because this Parliament has said that people who break road rules and laws should be apprehended.

Russell Fairbrother: Why do police enforce speed limits so vigorously?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Police have implemented a policy to strictly enforce speed limits 10 kilometres over the limit. In Victoria, Australia, it is as low as 3 kilometres over the limit. That is because people involved in a crash at 120 kilometres an hour are twice as likely to die than they would be if a car was travelling at 100 kilometres an hour. Also, a child hit by a car travelling 70 kilometres an hour has a 96 percent of chance of dying, compared with a child hit at 50 kilometres an hour, who has a 40 percent chance of surviving.

Richard Worth: If there is no quota for traffic tickets, why does the Police annual statement of intent set a goal of issuing between 275,000 and 325,000 tickets in 2003-04—or is there some difference between a quota and a goal?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The member must realise that the police cannot give anyone a ticket unless he or she breaks the law. The police are getting tough because we want the road toll to come down.

Hon Peter Dunne: Is the Minister aware of, and does he condone, the informal internal police practice known as the “attitude test”, whereby drivers who express disappointment at being detained at the side of the road are deliberately held for up to 15 minutes while police officers decide whether to give them a ticket, and then let them go, and how does he consider that that contributes to both road safety and positive police-community relationships?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I agree that it does not help those things at all. If the member knows of any cases like that, he should report them to the Commissioner of Police.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that in some communities there is a concern that the quota system is prohibiting some members of the public from assisting police officers when they really need help in dealing with violent criminals?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I believe that all New Zealanders should make sure that they do not speed so that they do not kill people, that they wear seatbelts, that they do not drink when they drive, and that they avoid all other traffic offences, so that we can have a better New Zealand.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answer, but he did not answer the question I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought the Minister addressed the question very specifically.

Dr Muriel Newman: What does the Minister say to the mothers caught by armies of police as they drive their kids to school, who get fined for forgetting to put their drivers’ licences in their dressing-gown pockets, only to arrive back home to find their house burgled, with a 19-hour wait for the police to get there?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police enforce the law as they see it. If people choose to drive without a licence when taking their children to school, they should be very careful indeed. Taking kids to school is an important job, and it should be done safely.

Justice—Information

9. TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What progress has been made in coordinating and managing justice sector information?

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice): Very good progress. Today I am launching a new Justice Sector Information Strategy for the next 3 years. This strategy represents the cumulative efforts of all of those within the justice sector, such as the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Courts, the Police, and the Department of Corrections, to ensure improvements in the quality of information across this sector, and to address those areas of information that require improvement. This strategy will also result in better justice information for the whole community.

Tim Barnett: What events have led to the need for a justice sector strategy?

Hon RICK BARKER: After 30 years of service, the law enforcement system, the Wanganui computer, has outlived its useful life, and a decision has been taken to replace it with a number of departmental systems instead of a single system. That means that, although we will have a cheaper system in total in terms of hardware, and the opportunity to better tailor systems to the individual needs of each department, there could be a possible loss of integration across the sector. This strategy ensures that that does not happen.

Deborah Coddington: In the light of the Minister’s answer, can we now take it that this Government’s policy is to do nothing about violent crime, which has risen by 13.3 percent since the election, and that that does not matter, because the bureaucrats are improving their filing skills? What is it going to be: getting tough on violent crime or having better-performing bureaucrats?

Hon RICK BARKER: That is a very interesting question, and also a bit facetious. Of course the Government is concerned about violent crime, and this Government is committed to doing everything it can to reduce it. We are also concerned to ensure that we have good records.

Nandor Tanczos: What consideration did the Minister give to directing the justice sector to investigate the use of non-proprietary justice sector information systems, given the international reputation that non-proprietary software has for cost-effectiveness, stability, security, and being easy to manage?

Hon RICK BARKER: No instruction was given to the justice sector to that effect, but it is interesting to note that a number of other countries are looking at using non-proprietary systems. The systems’ attributes that the member raised are true, but those systems are also much more complicated to use. That is one of the issues we have to address in the future.

Paediatric Neurologists—Nationwide Service

10. Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) to the Minister of Health: Why, 5 years after the National Review of Paediatric Specialty Services, does New Zealand still have only three paediatric neurologists and no nationwide integrated service?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Contrary to the member’s assertion in her question, the first time a specialist neurology service was proposed was in 1994-95, according to Dr Nick Baker, the President of the Paediatric Society. For 4 years, until the national review of paediatric services, nothing was done. On becoming the Government, our first priority was to establish a nationwide oncology and metabolics service for children—both recommendations from the review. Work is now proceeding rapidly on an integrated paediatric neurology service.

Dr Lynda Scott: Why are New Zealand children with complex seizures, cancer, and other complex neurological conditions being subject to huge delays in obtaining specialist assessment because this Government has failed to act on any of the recommendations of the paediatric specialist services review, unlike Bill English—not this Government but Bill English—who, when he was Minister, immediately funded and established the nationwide paediatric oncology service?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member’s memory is poor. In 2000 the paediatric oncology service started to be funded. In fact, the review said there ought to be one oncology service in New Zealand, based at Starship Children’s Hospital. I rejected that and said there needed to be oncology services in Wellington, Christchurch, and Auckland. That is what happened. However, the establishment of paediatric neurology services has been slower. The reason, as Dr Jan White said this morning, is not funding; it is a human resource shortage.

Steve Chadwick: What are some of the constraints in the provision of nationwide integrated paediatric neurology services, other than those mentioned by Jan?

Hon ANNETTE KING: One of the first things that needed to happen was the establishment of the guidelines for such an integrated service. I would like the House to note that it took 5 years, from 1995 to 2000, to draw up the guidelines for paediatric oncology—that has been one of the constraints. There is also an international shortage of paediatric neurologists. The Auckland District Health Board has been advertising for 1 year to fill a vacancy.

Heather Roy: In relation to the Paediatric Society’s tertiary services review, which declared that all children should have the same level of access to specialised paediatric services as adult patients have to specialised adult services, why is she still overseeing a near crisis, after 4 years in the job; or is Dr Ross Wilson, a paediatrician at Wellington Hospital, correct in saying: “Annette King has finally admitted that, to her, children’s health needs are not as important as adult health needs.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That is incorrect. This Minister has been very committed to children’s health services. The Well Child Framework has proceeded very quickly under this Government, including funding to go with it, and the establishment of the paediatric oncology and metabolic service. However, I do believe we can do more for children in New Zealand, and we are committed to that.

Sue Kedgley: Given the acute shortage of paediatric neurologists and lack of any integrated service, how is the health service coping with the increase in reported childhood autism cases in New Zealand, and does the ministry have an integrated nationwide service for diagnosing and treating autism?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am unable to answer that question. I would bow to my colleague the Minister for Disability Issues, who has done considerable work on autism. If I remember correctly, there is an autism service—one service for all children. The Minister for Disability Issues would be able to give the member a fuller answer on that.

Judy Turner: Can the Minister confirm whether the Ministry of Health is committed to providing funding for paediatric speciality services for children suffering from epilepsy, to provide both support and education programmes to promote epilepsy awareness, in the same way as is done with diabetes and asthma education awareness; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Each district health board now is funded for the services that it is to provide within its district. The district health boards have the ability to fund education services for not only epilepsy but also a whole range of conditions that face children and adults. That is where the decision needs to be made.

Dr Lynda Scott: Why are child health experts warning that this specialist service is on the verge of collapse, with two and a half specialists doing the work of eight, with a child specialist having to travel to Auckland from Christchurch, which places an intolerable workload pressure on him such that he will burn out, and with children in Wellington, Otago, and Northland having very little access to a service; and if the Ministry of Health’s chief paediatric adviser says the service should be organised nationally, when will she show some leadership and ensure this happens, rather than passing the buck to the 21 district health boards?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I certainly have not passed the buck to the 21 district health boards. One of the reasons that Dr Jan White is leading this work is that her district health board is the lead district health board, and is pulling together the work for all of New Zealand so that there will be an integrated service. I am pleased that this progress is being made under this Government. After all, I have pointed out that the issue was first raised in 1994, and was neglected for 6 years under a National Government.

Dr Lynda Scott: Is it not a ridiculous situation, when there is clearly a pressing need for New Zealand children to have equal access through a nationwide service contract, that she is insisting on the 21 district health boards sorting out the problem, when all that the 21 district health boards are responsible for and funded for is their local areas; and when will she act to provide New Zealand children with adequate and equal access across New Zealand?

Mr SPEAKER: That question was too long; there were three parts to it. The Hon Annette King can answer two of them.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I will say that the member is wrong in practically everything she said.

Question No. 11 to Minister

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Brian Donnelly, I want to say he has referred me to the fact that the name of the school should be Arorangi. If the Minister himself had any difficulty with that particular word, then he would have to explain that, but I will allow Mr Donnelly to change the name to Arorangi.

Arorangi School—Kura Kaupapa Funding

11. Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Why has he agreed that Arorangi School and Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tawhiuau will not have to repay the $71,000 accidentally paid to them by the Ministry of Education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)), on behalf of the Minister of Education: The schools were given incorrect advice by the Ministry of Education about a satellite arrangement, for which the ministry has apologised to both schools. The money was paid out by the ministry in good faith, and used by the schools to pay staff at Arorangi School for the first term of this year. In the light of the misunderstandings surrounding this arrangement, the ministry recommended the money not be recovered, and the Minister agreed with that view.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is it not true that ministry officials were encouraged by his office, on his behalf, to facilitate some sort of satellite arrangement to enable Arorangi School, a private school, to achieve its ends?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have no knowledge of any encouragement, but I would point out that, as the member just said, this is a private school. It is a school that does not have the same kaupapa as the kura. The way that satellite arrangements are usually put together is that the philosophy, the language, the pedagogy, and the kaupapa of the schools do match. That is why satellite arrangements are put together. That is not true in the case of these two schools.

Jill Pettis: Why did the Minister refuse a request from Arorangi School to integrate into the State system?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: With a declining population, and therefore falling rolls, Tokoroa has an oversupply of classrooms in primary schools—an excess of 14. In the light of this, the taxpayer does not need to provide further places or classrooms. Also, the Kinleith mill has announced further restructuring and loss of jobs in the area. I encouraged the school to form a satellite arrangement with another local school, but, in the event of other schools in the area not being interested, such an arrangement was not put in place.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Why did the Minister of Education’s office send an email in late January to the Hamilton office of the Ministry of Education stating: “Trevor has sympathy for this school and would like us to see if we can facilitate some sort of satelliting.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Once again, I cannot go over the details of the email because I do not have that information with me. However, if the member has listened to my answers on behalf of the Minister of Education so far, he will have heard that advice was given about satellite arrangements, that it was given in good faith, and that that is why we are not asking that the $71,000 be recovered. But the member will know that satellite arrangements are encouraged with schools that have a similar way of teaching, a similar programme, and a similar language; that is how those arrangements are put in place. In this case, that would not have resulted; they are quite different schools.

Hon Brian Donnelly: In terms of his answers already given, and the agreement that, under the legislation, it would have been against the law for the Minister, in these circumstances, to accord this particular school integration status, with the resources that go with that, surely this arrangement was simply a mechanism to get round the Act; can the Minister confirm that?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, I cannot because, as the member knows from listening to the answers that I have provided, this was a case of a private school obviously seeking to find an arrangement to keep itself in existence. In good faith, advice was given; in good faith, we are not requiring that the $71,000 be paid back. But this private school has a very different way of going about teaching, and therefore could not have gone into a satellite arrangement with the other school. Therefore, it has a choice. As a private school it gets some money from the State, as the member knows, and the rest needs to come from the fees paid by the parents. If it wishes to continue, it has the choice of obtaining funding in that way.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Agricultural Levy

12. Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) to the Minister of Agriculture: Will the Government legislate to enforce the collection of the agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research levy; if so, what is the timetable for such legislation?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy), on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: Yes, by the middle of next year.

Hon David Carter: How can the Minister argue that this is a levy and not a tax when yesterday in this House, when he was asked how the Government proposed to deal with people who refused to pay the tax, he said: “… we would no doubt do exactly the same as we do with people who refuse to pay their income tax or other taxes.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The reason that it is a levy is that it is being collected for a specific purpose. It will not go near the consolidated account. In trying to work out whether to call it a levy or a tax, my preference is to call it an investment.

Clayton Cosgrove: Could the Minister outline the reasons for the Government’s decision to impose a small levy on farmers for research into agricultural greenhouse gas?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The emissions are waste products, and reducing those will increase animal weight and growth. The results from the research will benefit farmers and farmers have to expect to pay for that, as the editorial in this week’s Straight Furrow, the publication of Federated Farmers, agrees.

Dail Jones: How can there be any benefit to New Zealand farmers under the Kyoto Protocol, bearing in mind that the USA and the Russian Federation have not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and while they do not it will never come into effect internationally?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is true that if the Kyoto Protocol does not come into effect internationally, then it will have no effect.

Gerrard Eckhoff: If the Government is so concerned about methane emissions in New Zealand, why will the Government not include landfills in this new tax or levy, as they are the second-biggest emitters of methane?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is because the Kyoto Protocol is constructed around the idea of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister think of any sector of the New Zealand economy that is more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than agriculture, and, in addition to climate protection in the future, what other benefits to farmers does he expect from the research that will be funded by the levy?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am sure that there is no sector more at risk from climate change than our agricultural sector. I am sure of that. I am also sure there is no sector that has been alleviated of a tax to the extent that that sector has.

Hon David Carter: Is the Minister genuine about consultation with farmers, and why has he instructed his officials and all Labour Party politicians not to attend any of the numerous public meetings being held to discuss this stupid tax?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have had, I think, two, or perhaps three, invitations now, most of them at about 5 minutes’ notice, so I have had to decline them. But in all cases I have said that I am prepared—and I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture feels similarly—to attend meetings where there is an opportunity for further discussion. We did have some consultation last year. There were 49 meetings, and 11 of them were farmer only.

Hon David Carter: Will any of the 52 Labour members of Parliament attend the public meetings being held in Masterton tomorrow evening and in Hamilton on Monday evening—any of them?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not entirely sure, but the Minister of Health said she is busy, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment said he would go to a meeting in Palmerston North if one is held there. I guess they will all make up their own minds.

Question No. 7 to Minister

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to illustrate how frustrated we are on the Opposition side of the House when we ask questions. I asked a question of the Minister for ACC about the effect of workplace stress—an Accident Compensation Corporation opinion. She referred me to the Minister of Labour—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. The member has a slot in the general debate, and he can certainly talk about that matter then. It is a debating issue, and not a matter for a point of order.

PETER BROWN: I ask you to reflect on our concern—

Mr SPEAKER: I have reflected often on that matter. All I can say is that question time in this Parliament is a very vigorous and open one, and it flows very smoothly. Occasionally, we do have too many points of order. However, the matter is a debating one, and the member can raise it in the general debate.

General Debates

General Debates

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I rise on behalf of the ACT party to raise three issues quickly in this general debate: the issue of the foreshore, the issue involving Mr Williamson that we see on television, and the very interesting deputation to Parliament this week from representatives of the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Firstly, on the issue of the foreshore, I recommend to members of Parliament that they take the trouble to do something that I do not think the Government has done—that is, to read the Court of Appeal’s decision. No judge in the Court of Appeal ruled that any Māori has any right to the foreshore or seabed. In fact, when we analyse what the Court of Appeal did, we find that all it stated was that under the rule of law a citizen can go to the court to assert his or her rights of ownership. The question that I ask Government members—and they should be answering it—is this: why are they not allowing the court cases to proceed?

As a lawyer, I advise the House that Māori will have great difficulty in succeeding. Indeed, in the particular case of Marlborough, the Chief Justice expressed a doubt as to whether they would succeed. Why is it a good reason to go for a court case? Well, we should look at the possible outcomes. A case could go to court and be turned down. In that event, we do not have to legislate or do anything. If a case went to court and Māori won, at that point the Government would know exactly what property rights Māori have. If the Government is saying—and I support this—that the public should have access to our beaches, then at that point we could work out exactly what property rights, if any, need to be bought by the taxpayer.

But what we now have is a lose-lose-lose situation. Every young Māori in the country thinks that every Māori owns the foreshore, so young Māori have a great sense that there is an injustice. They think the Government will pull out its chequebook and write out huge cheques. It is not just young Māori but young and old Māori who think they own the foreshore, when they possibly do not.

Darren Hughes: How do you know?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I have been watching the television and hearing the statements that are being made, and I wish the Government member would also do that.

Government members should stop playing politics. I tell them that I made a similar recommendation to the Lange Labour Government in respect of the fishing case, which I said should be taken to court. I predicted that if we did not take it to court, there would be a huge bill. Who has been proved to be right? That matter still has not been settled. I remember Geoffrey Palmer telling me that it might take 6 years to settle if the case were taken to court. Well, it has now taken more than 12 years, and there has been no settlement.

On the question of Mr Williamson, I say to him briefly that I would love to see him back at the Commerce Committee. I do not get there as often as I would like to, but I think it would be a good idea if he went to the committee. It would be a good idea if he and the National Party recognised they should settle the issues. It takes two to settle, so I say that to both parties. I warn the National Party and Mr Williamson that if there is a by-election in Pakuranga, the ACT party intends to win it.

Peter Brown: Ha, ha!

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: If the member wants to laugh, let him make my day! But he should not tell me later that we did not give him fair warning of that.

Finally, I ask the Government why representatives of the Sensible Sentencing Trust turned up in Parliament this week. They turned up—[Interruption]—and the member should have gone and met those victims of crime, instead of laughing as he now is. They turned up because under this Labour Government violent crime has gone up by 13.3 percent, robberies have gone up by 15.8 percent—those are the Government’s own figures—grievous assaults are up by 21 percent, and sexual offences are up by 16 percent.

This Government’s soft-on-crime approach does not work. It is a disgrace that the Prime Minister could not find time to meet the victims of crime. She is prepared to meet the Government’s own pet groups, but she did not have time to meet the victims of crime. The No. 1 responsibility of the State is to provide order and the rule of law, and this Government is failing to do that. I also give notice to the Government that the ACT party will respond to the sensible sentencing legislation.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There was, I think in the words of Winston Peters, a palpable and demonstrable excitement amongst the few remaining National Party members at the prospect of the recent National Party conference. After the election loss in 1999, the dumping of Jenny Shipley, the dawning realisation that the brat pack, as it was called, moved too early, the election thrashing in 2002, horrible polling, leadership rumbles from Gerry Brownlee and the new Mogadon man, Don Brash, the conference looked like an opportunity for the National Party to get together and maybe to start again. But, proving that even in the age of the decriminalisation of prostitution the National Party could not organise a good time in a house of ill-repute, it all went wrong.

Striding into the midst of the celebrations like a demented morris dancer came the lowest-ranked National MP, bells clanging, and handkerchiefs waving. Night after night on the television Maurice Williamson pointed out that the National Party was going nowhere, and that the No. 1 issue for the National Party conference was to find out the reason for that. National Party officials were stunned. How could Maurice Williamson do that to them? How could he not dance in uniform round the maypole with the rest of them? The National Party might have been wondering why Maurice Williamson acted as he did. The rest of us were wondering why the National Party did not fix that matter before the most important conference in 30 years took place.

Why did it not fix it? After all, Maurice Williamson has constantly criticised the National Party. From his lowest-possible position in the National Party, after he was demoted, he has told National that it was not doing well, and this is what he said: “I haven’t criticised Bill English. I’ve talked about the fact that we need to deliver a performance that the public sees as credible.” He said that English lacked “excitement, charisma, humour, personality, or talent”, and what is wrong with that? He described the National Party as being like the Titanic: “I’m yelling. Will somebody tell the orchestra to shut up? Will everybody get on deck and man the lifeboats? I am not prepared to sleepwalk to defeat once again, having done just that the last time. I guess”—speaking of Bill English, the leader—“he’s the 2000 equivalent of Bill Birch. You vitally need people like that in the team, but there’s no way you would have thought that Bill Birch would be a leader. Bill was about as boring as watching paint dry, and that’s probably a bit unfair on the paint.”

Those kinds of statements were summarised by Maurice Williamson’s electorate vice-chairman, John Upton, who said: “Maurice doesn’t suffer fools gladly.” Linda Clark, the interviewer, asked him: “You mean Bill English?”. John Upton said: “Well, yes, that’s exactly who I mean.” One would think that if one were running the National Party and somebody who had been demoted to the lowest-possible position in the National Party had been frequently saying those kinds of things, one would get alongside him or her and ask to sort the matter out before it got to the conference. But the National Party did not do that. Maurice Williamson arrived at the conference, National did nothing, and it turned into a farce.

Mr Brownlee and Mr English were screaming at Mr Williamson, the soon-to-be-defunct women’s branch moved a motion of censure for the not-yet-put-in-place board to carry out, Mr Williamson was threatened with being cut off from being in the party, and the whole thing looked, as one person said in the media—and with great sympathy in my heart I say this to my friend Mr Power over there on the Opposition benches—like one was watching a slow-motion train wreck take place over that whole weekend. It was like watching a slow-motion train wreck.

Members on the Government side of the House just watch Simon Power and the National Party in amazement. We watch them in amazement as they continue to unravel, without being able to break out of that. The National Party is now a fiction. As Mr Williamson said, National members are irrelevant. They stand for nothing; they have no policy. Their constituency has gone to New Zealand First, to United Future, and, in the case of the central part of the constituency, to Labour. That leaves them being no Opposition at all.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura): The New Zealand beaches belong to everybody. The seabed, foreshore, and beaches of the Marlborough Sounds belong to everybody. The issue of ownership of the seabed and foreshore is the line in the sand for New Zealanders. I grew up in the Marlborough Sounds. As a child I played on the beach, took the mail boat home on a Friday night, and fished in the Marlborough Sounds. It is the New Zealand way of life to be able to walk on a beach and to be able to fish. It is part of the freedom that is at the heart of all New Zealanders.

I went to the Chatham Islands a few years ago. I got up in the morning and went for my usual run, and was ordered off the beach. It belonged to somebody else. That really brought home to me that the beaches should belong to all New Zealanders, and that we should all have access to them. Māori try to reassure us that our access will be maintained, but that cannot be guaranteed if ownership passes to the hands of individuals or groups. That would be a creeping erosion of the rights of New Zealanders. The Māori Land Court should not have jurisdiction over the foreshore and the seabed. The land is the land. The foreshore and seabed must remain in Crown ownership, for the benefit of all New Zealanders. If Labour does not introduce legislation to confirm the title of the beaches, foreshore, and seabed, and to extinguish any claim for customary title, National will do so. That legislation does not give rise to any matters of compensation.

We have had enough of Labour’s spin and duplicity, and of Labour holding secret discussions behind closed doors. I recall that when I came into this House Tariana Turia said to me in a speech that I was a visitor in her House. I tell members that I am no visitor to New Zealand. I am a fifth-generation New Zealander who loves this land as much as anybody, and I will not have my rights as a New Zealander of European descent trampled over. This issue is causing a great depth of feeling, an outpouring of emotion in New Zealand society, anger, frustration, concern, and distrust of this Government on the part of the New Zealand public. Labour MPs need to listen to the public. They are misjudging the depth of feeling amongst the New Zealand public about this issue.

National has given members of the public a chance to have their say. I shall read a few of the things that they have been saying. “If we divide the country by race, we fall into the age-old race / religion / ethnic issues that have destroyed many countries.” That is from a person in Auckland. This is from someone who is overseas: “There is a time when all people of the land, everyone who is a proud New Zealander, must pull together and fight for common sense and the rights of the people.” This is from another person in Auckland: “I agree. This is the greatest issue of separation of Crown and Māori in New Zealand for a long time. I agree that Māori have had past injustices done to them, but which people have not? That does not justify anything. It is a fact. Would the treaty have been created if such claims as this were possible? I think not. We as a whole country must work together to solve this issue, or I fear we will wake one day in a nightmare.”

Someone from Hamilton wrote this to the Prime Minister, Helen Clark: “I am a 34-year-old married male New Zealander, driven to anger and frustration by the current claim of ownership by Māori of the foreshore and seabed, and how it has been handled. This claim undermines the very essence of our country’s freedom. What is compounding the matter is Labour’s decision to deal with this behind closed doors. This is a national issue, not one to be discussed behind closed doors. Essentially, a wedge is being driven into our community by this claim, and the way it is being dealt with. It tells me that I am not, in fact, a New Zealander but maybe an individual renting a spot in a country owned by a small minority of its population. I am ethnically inferior. If the claim is ratified, my tenancy agreement is dissolved.”

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): I want to present a bit of a ballad this afternoon during the general debate. It is called the “Deadwood - Blues Brothers Blues Ballad”.

I want to dedicate my ballad to a young east Auckland man—a young east Auckland man who has been described by his constituents as honest, and as being the only one who is prepared to stand up and tell the truth. His constituents say he is their MP, and they are proud of him—

Phil Heatley: From Whangarei?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No, they are not from Whangarei; they are from Pakuranga. The man from east Auckland has been described by his former friend and colleague Bill English as being “capable and talented”; and is described by other current friends and colleagues as “energetic and able”. This same man, in a TV3-NFO poll last week was described by 66 percent of people as a person whom they did not want the National caucus to suspend. So 66 percent of the people who vote National said no to that, and 74 percent of National voters said he should not be expelled from the party. That same man, Maurice Williamson, once said: “This is a job where you are a rooster today and a feather duster tomorrow.”

Maurice Williamson has been in Parliament since 1987, and I frankly hope he is here for a lot longer—and not just for fairly obvious party political reasons. Leaving all party politics aside—[Interruption] well, perhaps not all, but a lot—I say Maurice Williamson is a capable, energetic, talented, and able person. He has always been someone to speak his mind, and, clearly, is one of the few people left within the National caucus who have the ability to do that. He said, a little while ago: “A few ill-informed commentators have said, ‘There’s only one way for National from here, and that’s up.’, and I say they’re wrong. If we don’t make significant changes, if we don’t go back to our grass roots, then we’re doomed to languish in the mid to low 20s.” Yet again, he was right. But what was his most recent error, in the view of his former friend and colleague Bill English? It was to say that Bill English should be put on notice, and should be sacked as National’s leader if the party does not get two decent poll results during the next 12 months. So for saying that, Maurice Williamson is out.

The editorials around the country have been absolutely consistent on this issue over the last week. They have stated a lot of really good things, but one of the best comments is from Hawke’s Bay Today. I must admit I do not quote frequently from that newspaper in the House, but this quote is well worth reading. It starts off by asking:

“What on earth is up with the National Party?”, and ends with this statement: “Mr Williamson may be irritating, but National is not going to rise to challenge Labour by shooting the messenger. It would be better listening to the message.” Every single editorial and commentator has said exactly the same thing. Maurice Williamson is the only person in the National caucus who is prepared to say publicly what I know many of his other colleagues have been saying not very quietly and not very privately.

There are a lot of reasons that Maurice Williamson would say negative things about Bill English. I thought one of Maurice Williamson’s more astute comments compared Bill English to Bill Birch, who made an extraordinary contribution in this House. I did not agree with his politics, but I found him to be an extraordinarily competent member of Parliament. Maurice Williamson said that Bill English is the “2000 equivalent of Bill Birch. You vitally need people like that in the team, but there’s no way you would ever have thought Bill Birch would be the leader’’—and nobody thinks of Bill English as the leader, either.

Bill English has been very quick to defend his own position, unlike most of his front-bench and other colleagues, with the exception of Nick Smith. In fact, when Bill English was discussing this issue with the media he said that the issue was not about his leadership, of which Mr Williamson had been a harsh critic. “I don’t think it is seen by anyone as about the leadership.”, he said. “The point here isn’t what I think about it. The point is what everyone thinks about it. It is not about my leadership. This is a very big step to consider.” After saying it was not about his leadership, Bill English went on to say: “It’s not about free speech, either. It’s about whether people can work with people or not. It is not about my leadership.” The National caucus then went on to suspend Maurice Williamson, in a secret ballot.

SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei): I trust—[Interruption] Well, Government members have finally woken up. After listening to Ruth Dyson, who put them to sleep, they have finally woken up. I hope that members on this side of the House will also be granted an hour each, because that is how long that speech seemed to go for. I say to the member who has just sat down, that she was about as sincere in that speech about Maurice Williamson as she was when she was president of the Labour Party, defending David Lange and Roger Douglas around New Zealand. I have to say, there is a member who could do much better than that; and there are members opposite who sat through that speech looking like they were watching their cat being spayed: “It was something you have to do, but you just don’t enjoy it.” Steve Maharey spoke. Nobody chipped in; nobody was behind him on that.

I tell the House, the reason is pretty simple. That caucus knows that it is on a hiding to nothing, over the foreshore and seabed issue. Let us see whether Georgina Beyer, who represents a general electorate rural seat, turns up to the Federated Farmers meeting tonight to talk about the flatulence tax. Let us see whether Georgina Beyer is walking around Wairarapa talking to the constituents of Wairarapa about seabed and foreshore rights. I bet a pint those words have not come out of her mouth, while she has been walking around the Wairarapa electorate.

Although Darren Hughes, the member from Otaki sits there and is busy telling us the foreshore issue will be solved, we on this side of the House know that another devious, slippery deal is getting done behind closed doors about that issue, and we will be monitoring that, right from start to finish.

Parliament can legislate to fix this issue, very, very quickly. What we have seen from this Government is the proposal to do that—a back-down; other MPs saying that it will not happen; other MPs on the radio saying that it will happen. I say this to those members opposite sitting in those Government benches, that talking about the possibility of mooting things like “dual title”, or “honorary title”, or “guardianship” will buy one thing for that Government—that is, an election hiding like they have never experienced before.

I want to follow the comments made by my colleague Dr Scott and say that any compromise this Government thinks it can put into place, using terms like “guardianship”, or “honorary title”, will only result in this issue coming back to bite them in a big way, when we are standing on the platforms around this country during the next election campaign.

We have, as my colleague Dr Scott pointed out, spent some time finding out what the public of New Zealand is saying about the Government’s oscillation on this issue. At 11 o’clock on Monday we set up a website to monitor what New Zealanders had to say. Since that time 10,000 hits have occurred on that website. I say to members who represent general constituencies that 10,000 hits is big trouble for those of them sitting on majorities of 5,000 or less. It is big trouble, indeed.

Comments like this have been flowing in: “Labour stands for hidden agendas. I don’t trust their management of our natural assets, at all.”; things like: “I’m a long-time user of the sea, seabed, and beaches, and it’s a great shame not to be able to use certain pieces, because this Government wants to let us down.” The foreshore and seabed issue is the last straw, constituents say, and another says: “I’d be prepared to fight for the right of myself and my family to freely wander on beaches, and fish in waterways.” I say that members opposite have badly misread the New Zealand public if they think that members on this side of the House will not represent those views, right to the bitter end. The slipperiness that the deputy leader of the Labour Party and the Attorney-General have indulged in over the different use of terminology relating to this issue will come back to haunt them. There is no consistency in the approach that is being taken from members opposite, and New Zealanders have had an absolute gutsful.

As one visitor to the website said: “One country, one law for all, with the same rights for everyone. It is time for this nonsense to stop.” One further submitter to the website had this to say: “I am European, Ngāi Tahu, but most important of all, I am a New Zealander.” I believe that New Zealanders all over this country are appalled by the slipperiness and deviousness with which this Government is undertaking this issue, and we will hold it to account.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): Let me say to that member that he should just be a little careful about believing his own rhetoric. I remember some very, very brave words being said about Iraq. I wonder whether they have set up a website to say: “We’re sorry. We got it wrong on Iraq.” That member is young enough to have a bit of promise in this place, and could be around for some time. It is right that he is not in the leadership yet. It is right he is not there yet, but his turn is coming, and I say to him that there is an old saying: “Act in haste and repent at leisure.” I counsel him to think on that.

I want to talk about Bill English. I really do not know why. I suppose it is because he is so incompetent. He cannot even manage a sacking. He is so in control of his political party that he allows an advisory committee to hijack his conference. Let us get that clear: it was not Maurice Williamson who hijacked the conference. It was Bill English’s little friends from the south on the Women’s Advisory Committee who, without Mr English’s knowledge, decided to do something about Maurice Williamson. Why did they do that? Because they are the last vestige of Michelle Boag’s supporters.

Of course, Mr English was a very strong supporter of Michelle Boag, and we all remember what Maurice Williamson said after the election. He said that it was time to lance the boil on the bottom of the National Party. He was talking about Michelle Boag, and, unfortunately for Maurice Williamson, the boil bit back. The boil bit back with Bill English’s knowledge and support, and it destroyed the entire National Party conference.

How is that for management? Here we are listening to an Opposition that is trying to make out that the Government is in some trouble. I say to Simon Power that they will never be seen as an alternative Government while this side of the House laughs at them. When they stand in the House and make speeches, they are laughed at because they are simply not believed. That is a shame for a once-proud political party, and I tell him and his party that they have to start looking.

We also remember that Bill English is blaming Maurice Williamson for the National Party conference debacle. Well, let us go back to another thing that Maurice Williamson reminded Mr English about. It goes this way: it is a bit rich to blame the assistant tea boy when the ship is sinking, rather than the captain and the officers on the bridge. That is the issue. What has happened as a result of the conference? Well, Mr English’s little cheer squad is no longer around. The women’s organisation has been restructured. Not even Georgina te Heuheu could support Bill English’s rather badly chosen words about Māori recently. She could not support him, and she is embarrassed by him.

Who is the only woman on their board? There is one woman on their board, and that is poor old Judy Kirk. I suppose Eric Roy will end up being the women’s officer on the National Party board. That is Bill English, though. That is him—no judgment, no strategic vision, and no future. But that also explains one other thing. The question, really, is this: was yesterday’s decision to exclude Maurice Williamson from the conference unanimous? Was it? No. There are some wise people in the National Party, led by Don Brash, who were not prepared to back that resolution. Don Brash is prepared to lead a group of people who actually want to see some strategic vision and some thought put in.

Who are the people who are actually supporting Don Brash in his sensible approach? None other than a very credible and thoughtful lawyer: Richard Worth! He is prepared to support an alternative approach to what the National Party has adopted. Also, supporting Don Brash is the new face—the face that is actually going to push Simon Power into a position where he will have to compete—and that is John Key. Those members know that they cannot treat a member of Parliament the way they have treated Maurice Williamson.

They know that; and let me tell them one other thing: while Mr English has been going around closing his electorate offices in Balclutha and Invercargill, he has been putting up billboards, going on about one standard of citizenship for all. What about one standard of citizenship for the National Party caucus? What is wrong with a member of Parliament taking on an alternative point of view when he does not agree with the leader? The message for the country is this: “If you disagree with Bill English, we will get rid of you.”

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): A couple of weeks ago the Government finally released the report of the panel set up last year to review the capacity and the capability of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to carry out the increased responsibilities it will have if the moratorium on the release of genetically engineered (GE) crops and animals is lifted in October. I have to speak about this matter during the general debate because it was judged yesterday not to be sufficiently important to require the time of the House in an urgent debate. But that report should worry every member of this Parliament who voted last year to lift the moratorium and who will shortly have to vote on legislation to facilitate that release by allowing for conditions to be set.

The Government has said repeatedly that it is proceeding with caution in the release of GE organisms. Its whole case for allowing release rests on the cautious, case by case assessment by an expert body, which is the Environmental Risk Management Authority. Keen to wash its hands of any political responsibility for the possible consequences of release, it is leaving more and more to the expert judgment of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. Yet this review, initiated by the Government and commissioned by the Government, with terms of reference agreed with the Green Party, has now shown that this expert body is not sufficiently expert; that it is dysfunctional; that the authority has allowed the staff to usurp its role of making judgments; that its chief executive regularly rewrites staff scientific reports without giving reasons; that it is rule-bound and has a culture of ticking the boxes to avoid judicial review, rather than taking a strategic approach in considering the big picture; that it weighs evidence from applicants more heavily than evidence from submitters; and that it is more concerned with the risk of missing an opportunity to profit from genetic engineering than it is with the risks of damage from a consent gone wrong. If this is a picture of the body that is all that stands between us and the destruction of our agricultural markets, then we should be very, very afraid.

The question is: can it be fixed by October? Replies to my questions in the House yesterday by the Minister for the Environment are not reassuring. Challenged with the finding of the review team—that the authority has a skewed approach to risk, treats applicants more seriously than submitters, and does not give the same attention to the benefits of caution as it does to the benefits of taking risks—the Minister could only quote, out of context, a remark that the authority should be more flexible. This related in the review to the tendency for the authority to merely tick boxes and get bogged down in a rigid process, but the Minister has seized on the word “flexible” and used it to mean that the Environmental Risk Management Authority should be even more tolerant of risk than it currently is.

The Minister continues to claim that the authority and its staff have the necessary skills and expertise to do their job. That is in direct contradiction of the review, which states that authority members lack skills in gene technology, ecology, and social science, and that staff are missing expertise in environmental or public police development and strategic planning. These are not minor matters, one would have thought, given what the authority is in charge of.

The review also referred to monitoring mishaps, tardy compliance reports, non-detection of errors, and tensions between the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on regulating compliance matters, which in its opinion is where the environmental risk management system is most vulnerable. The Minister has moved, in new legislation, to clarify that the ministry is responsible for compliance, but the new system has not been tested and it will not have been by the time it is required to cope with the release of GE organisms.

The key issue for those anxious about whether we have an adequate system in place is that the Government, in the 4 months since it received this report, has done nothing of note. The same members and the same chief executive are in place. The public is not confident that the remaining 3 months until the lifting of the moratorium are sufficient to address all these deficiencies, if in fact the Minister wants to address them, which is not clear. The sole safeguard on the release of GE organisms is a supposed strict regulatory system, managed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. This has fallen down, to the point where we can no longer claim that release is subject to strict oversight and safety systems. It must, at the very least, be delayed until these matters are remedied.

Evidence is accumulating that the public agrees. In the last 2 weeks one poll showed that 54 percent of New Zealanders, including two-thirds of Labour’s own voters, want the moratorium extended in its totality. Today’s release of a Colmar Brunton poll shows that 80 percent of New Zealanders want the moratorium continued for food, at least until our export markets will accept GE products.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future): Today I want to share the fact that life is not a game of Monopoly. My brief appeal today is for every member of this Parliament to stop playing Monopoly with other people’s precious lives. Yesterday, a very small number of brave MPs attended a meeting, and heard and saw heart-wrenching, graphic, life-and-death stories from some mums and dads and friends of people who have been murdered in this country. Each of them expressed the point that as a result of a vicious murderer, they were now innocent victims of what is no more than a gutless justice system. As a result, in their minds people are saying that the murderer is out of jail, but they, the victims, are still in jail. They made a very strong plea for all MPs, and this Parliament in particular, to give actual meaning to the words “Life means life.”

So today, along with those who were there, and together with my United Future colleagues, I join their cries for justice. They meant there should be no parole ever again. Many of the murders we heard about yesterday were committed while the murderer was on parole, or indeed on bail. As in the game of Monopoly, “Go to jail.” means just that, not: go on some well-kept visit or holiday programme for a few years. As in the game of Monopoly, “Do not pass Go.” must mean that. There is no revolving door; the door is closed, once someone is inside. As in the game of Monopoly, “Do not collect $200.” means just that. No financial help for the murderer is required. As in the game of Monopoly, I notice that everyone else can then go about their lives peacefully and gainfully.

Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister stating that a dog that had mauled a child should be killed and the owner face serious charges, and at the same time making a speedy promise to put legislation into place to stop vicious dog breeds—with which I believe that everyone agreed. But is there any urgency about the two-legged mongrels who have killed innocent citizens in this country? The answer is no. These victims come from next door. They come from every walk of life, from all around New Zealand. They voted us to be here in this building, in Parliament, to be their voice. They are disillusioned—yes, some even mentioned they were bitter—by our New Zealand justice system. They cried out against the liberal do-gooders who somehow have hidden themselves in this Parliament.

As an MP, I am ashamed at the lack of fortitude among us all. My colleague Marc Alexander in February this year, in this Parliament, called for a cross-party voice for these victims. I sincerely reopen that invitation to us all. New Zealanders want some hope from us. Let us return their trust by doing something together in this MMP environment. United Future members add their voice to the Sensible Sentencing Trust and to the tens of thousands of Kiwis who, by the way, have had enough. A life sentence must mean life, with no parole. That, surely, is a clear, common-sense message.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): The United Future MP, the man who sits on the Sensible Sentencing Trust, Marc Alexander, did not negotiate one of the things mentioned in that speech at the time that that party gave its support to the Labour Party. Enough said! A number of years ago a famous Englishman, Winston Churchill, said: “The truth is so precious it must be protected by a bodyguard of liars.”—everywhere but here

He was referring, of course, to the English Parliament. We New Zealanders claim to live in a democracy, and in a democracy Parliament holds the executive accountable. That is done in a number of ways, in and throughout Western societies that have had democracy for centuries. One of the most critical means of accountability in Parliament is question time, which should be substantial and it should be real. In New Zealand’s Parliament today, question time has become a veneer, a charade, a sham, an abject disgrace. For the first time in New Zealand’s political history, a Prime Minister is failing constantly to front at question time in Parliament, and hitherto she has got away with it.

This is the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who will go anywhere and everywhere for a photo opportunity or for a soft news story—anywhere and everywhere, but Parliament. Her first duty is to Parliament and to the people of this country—but she will not front up. She operates in a cocoon of spin and image creation, such that her whole public relations image is unrecognisable from the real person—so much so, that when she went overseas recently to Asia, the people, having seen her climb off the plane, were still waiting for the Prime Minister whose photograph they held. That is what they pass in the Labour Party as a fair presentation, and she thinks she will get away with it. Our warning from New Zealand First to this Parliament, and to those who would seek to circumscribe our rights, is that she will not succeed in doing that. She will answer in this Parliament this week, after a 2-week break, only one question, and then she will vanish.

She has been asked countless questions, all of which have been wrongly referred to other Ministers, and in some cases to Ministers who are not present. That is a disgrace. She has used every parliamentary device to avoid being accountable, and she is being protected. She is being shielded and she is being wrongfully cocooned, to avoid exposing her most serious shortcoming, the inability to front on the political stage as every other leader has done and is required to do, both in this country and in every other Western democracy.

This idea that she can have one public meeting and vanish for the rest of the day and get the 6 o’clock news is going to stop the moment we have an unbiased, neutral parliamentary reporting system. This idea that she can avoid coming to this Parliament is going to stop the moment people stop trying to protect her in this House.

Today’s question time, according to this parliamentary transcript, was an abject disgrace. We have the tape, and we intend to prove just what a disgrace it was. Members should check the record of question No 6. Mr English was sitting. He had no intention, by his own confession—and I am grateful to him that he admitted it—to ask any question, yet someone got expelled for demanding his right to ask a question. How can that be explained?

Members should go and look at the Hansard record of the numerous explanations as to how it arose. The fact is, that if someone’s behaviour is being objected to, parliamentary precedent requires that the objection be at the first available opportunity. That so-called defence is not available to him. It is a disgrace, and we will not—unlike other parties—sit here mute, without a syllable, a sound, a mutter, or a murmur, and put up with it. We have the record, and we say that it has to stop. We will not go on being warned every time that there is a challenge to the correct proceedings of Parliament.

Members should remember this: every warning is a spur to us. Every slight is a motivation to us. We do not intend to put up with it. We know why it is going on. Members can laugh, but I know how people are bought off in this Parliament. The venal preferment or promotion elsewhere for their silence constantly contaminates the proceedings of Parliament. We know why it happens, but we do not intend to put up with it. In a court of law, the person charged with giving evidence is required to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The New Zealand people deserve an apology, and so do I.

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua): I want to speak about one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders. It is becoming very apparent to us in this very united party on this side of the House that it is fine for all of those people in the National Party who sit outside their caucus, because they believe in one standard of citizenship for New Zealanders, but within their own caucus they do not. What do you do with the one person who is prepared to challenge you and the dominant view? You sort him out and send him out. You cannot stand to be challenged. You have to have a dominant view, and you do not want to listen to minority views from those outside the caucus.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member used the term “you”, I think, four times. Colleagues on this side of the House have kindly pointed that out to her directly. She used it another four times—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for that.

Phil Heatley: I am concerned for you, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I accept that. The member will desist from using “you”.

STEVE CHADWICK: Let us look back at what the Leader of the Opposition believes that one standard of citizenship actually means. When they were polled, 60 percent of New Zealanders did not even know what it meant. It is a slogan; it is all about the rhetoric that the Opposition stands for.

I say that we are a party that will sort out those issues. We are prepared to front the difficult issues of access, customary rights, seabed ownership, and the Supreme Court. When I see our Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations walking out with the Minister of Māori Affairs to hui in this country—two people walking together to build a nation that gives my children hope for the future—I am glad that we are in Government. The Opposition simply stands for divisiveness and destruction of nationhood. That is an Opposition that cannot stand minority or other points of view.

Why on earth have National Party members shot themselves in the foot trying to wrench a loaded gun off Maurice Williamson? Even two senior MPs in the National Party have said that Mr English showed really poor political skills and a lack of a political nose in allowing that entire debacle to overshadow the conference. That conference was to be the flagship of new policies and new radical change. Where on earth will that come from in that wretched Opposition? It will certainly not come from Nick Smith, who was out paddling his waka on our lakes. He comes up there every now and then when he needs to get away from the heat in his own mates’ kitchen and wants to boost National Party membership. I want to read the House a letter from someone who wrote: “To see the Opposition spokesman on the environment paddling on Lake Rotoiti with a face mask on Sunday made our blood boil. I guess he did not think what the downstream effect of his grandstanding would do for our business and other small businesses who use Lake Rotoiti and other lakes in our region.”

It is strange how a few years in Opposition dims some memories. What did his Government do about the water quality in our lakes when it was in power? Absolutely nothing! Nothing will be coming from Nick Smith while he is paddling in our waters. I am very proud that he got access to our lakes, and he will always be guaranteed access while we are in Government. We will ensure that that continues for all New Zealanders, and we will do that by consultation between two peoples—tatou tatou, we together. We will sort out the waters of our taonga in our region, and it will be a joint approach, with the oversight of authorities, local government, and Government.

That Opposition spokesperson then invited someone quite close to him, the Commissioner for the Environment, to oversee our lakes and sort out water quality. We have sorted it out. Before he even invited the commissioner, we had set up a joint committee to look at water quality and oversee the two authorities that have an action plan and are getting on and doing it, with some contribution from the Crown.

Where else will those new ideas come from? We heard appalling comments in the Chamber last night from both ACT and National about race-based funding in health, and we are sick of it.

PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei): We have had 10,000 New Zealanders visit our website on the beach issue. They are appalled that Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark are selling the beaches down the road, and they do not like the idea of Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark selling the beaches down the road.

Darren Hughes: If you’re going to exaggerate, say a million.

PHIL HEATLEY: Darren Hughes might pipe up. I would like members to know that of the 10,000 people who have visited our website, 2,000 came from Otaki. They said they would like to object to Helen Clark and Margaret Wilson selling the beaches down the road. Do members know what those people’s question was? They wanted to know who their local MP was, because they wanted to write to “her”. I said that it was Hughes, and they said: “Mrs Hughes? What’s her first name? We want to write to her.” Two thousand New Zealanders from Otaki do not even know who their local MP is.

Of those replies, a third talked about the stupidity of this Labour Government pandering to its voter base and selling the beaches down the road. One person said: “I can’t believe we’re even discussing this. Keep our treasures for everyone to enjoy, please. Definitely, all foreshore to be owned by the Crown. We are all New Zealanders, and it’s time for all who live here to realise we’re not living in the past. We all have the use of our wonderful land—beaches, sea, to look after and pass on to our children to do the same, with no segregation of race or otherwise.”

New Zealand is very, very upset about this issue. New Zealanders know that this Labour Government is all at sea over it. About 3 weeks ago, New Zealanders saw Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark say that they would legislate to secure what everyone has always known to be true, which is that the beaches and the seabed belong to all New Zealanders. In fact, in our local paper, the Northern Advocate, Margaret Wilson said: “The Crown is going to clarify this. In fact, the seabed and foreshore is owned by all New Zealanders in the form of the Crown.” She said: “Everybody has always believed that that situation already existed.”

That is what Margaret Wilson said 3 or 4 weeks ago. That is what Helen Clark said 3 or 4 weeks ago, but they have done nothing in that month except to have hui and meetings, and, behind closed doors, chat to their voter base. They have no interest in all New Zealanders, Māori included, visiting the beaches, taking their kids out for a picnic, going fishing, mooring a boat, or doing anything else. That concerns me; it concerns 10,000 New Zealanders—2,000 from Otaki who do not know who their local MP is—and I bring that information to the House today.

Do members know what Māori are saying about this issue? Māori are saying, for example: “I am a Ngāpuhi descendant, but a New Zealander first and foremost. All New Zealanders should have equal rights regardless of race if we are ever going to achieve one unified country.” Another response to our website was: “I am a Māori, a Kiwi, and proud of it, but this is just insane. What next do these radicals want to take ownership of—the air from me and all my fellow Kiwis, the air that we breathe? We play sport together”, this New Zealander said, “so we should share the beaches together.”

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I wonder what the other MP from Whangarei, Brian Donnelly, thought of that speech. I think Mr Donnelly would have been embarrassed to think that someone from up his way would have said something like that. Mr Heatley said that 10,000 people were visiting his website. Well, have not the National MPs been busy over the last little while? Their research unit, their members of Parliament, and the half dozen members of the National Party are now all on the website day and night, trying to get the numbers of people up to 10,000—but no one, of course, believes that.

There should be one standard of membership in the National Party, but unfortunately we now have two standards: Koru Club members, who are those who support Bill English, and the economy class—the ones down the back—who are Maurice Williamson supporters. I would venture to guess that those two members over on the other side of the House, Phil Heatley from Whangarei—I bet he is a Koru Club member and voted against Maurice Williamson—

Phil Heatley: Are you a betting man?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I am a betting man. Did he vote for Maurice Williamson? He will not say that. What do members reckon about Simon Power—a man with an eye for the future? If he is the future leader, God help the National Party! Did Simon Power vote for Maurice Williamson, or not? No, he is not saying, either, but I reckon both of them put their finger up. They tested the wind and—well, we will not go there. But Simon Power would have tested the wind, and both of those members would have voted against Maurice Williamson. That is a shame and a tragedy, because we have not come here to bury Maurice Williamson. We have come to praise him, because he is somebody who does understand the new, modern economy. He is the only one, actually, who understands anything to do with information technology, communications, or anything new. The National Party is locked in the last century, and without Maurice Williamson it does not have a hope.

What was poor old Maurice Williamson’s crime—

Clayton Cosgrove: Telling the truth.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: His crime was exactly that—telling the truth. Simon Power voted against Mr Williamson because he told the truth. Maurice Williamson said that in business excuses do not get accepted. No one cares if people have been working hard and putting out lots of brochures and other material. If their sales are low, they will not be kept on. He was proposing a performance agreement.

Clayton Cosgrove: Did Murray McCully vote for him?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Murray McCully would not have voted for Maurice Williamson. Murray McCully used to be a friend of his, but Murray McCully is an old yachtsman—the wind shifts, down he ducks, over goes the boom, and he heads off the other way. He is not going to say either, but we know that he would have voted against his old mate. What a shame! Does mateship not count for anything more in New Zealand? He probably does not know—one sells one’s mates out. But Murray McCully has no hope in hell of getting back a decent job in the National Party. In the next reshuffle, he will be sitting out in the lobby, and in the one after that, he will probably be out in the Grand Hall. He is on the way out, yet he would not stick up for his mate.

Maurice Williamson proposed a performance agreement that required Mr English and his front bench to lift the party to 30 percent voter preference by Christmas, and to 35 percent by the middle of next year. If they failed, the party was to look for new management. What is wrong with saying something like that? Well, in the National Party one gets dicked. Maurice Williamson then went on to say that when the ship was sinking, it was a bit rich to blame the assistant tea-boy, rather than the captain and the first officer on the bridge. That is absolutely right. The National Party is in disarray and should do something on behalf of all New Zealand. It is a tragedy.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed on the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill from 22 July.

Vote Education (continued)

METIRIA TUREI (Green): In the estimates report on education there is a small paragraph on student loans and student debt. In that teeny-weeny paragraph the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) admits that student debt in this country “will continue to grow”. This Government has been consistently changing its approach to tertiary education policy since it was elected. Students supported the Labour Government after Labour ran a heavy campaign in 1999 to sort out the student loan scheme. Four years later, the student loan burden is not getting any lighter, and the Government’s policies are not making it any better. The silky-smooth public relations machine even had the cheek to manipulate the line of the Government. It managed to change the pledge from “making” tertiary education affordable to “keeping” tertiary education affordable without it having to make any considerable structural change to the system.

The Government’s knowledge economy policies are premised on the idea that a well-educated society is a public good, yet the tertiary education system still reflects the ideology that education is a private good, still reflects the myth that education is a commodity. Members need to be aware that the majority of the now $6 billion debt owed to the country by students was borrowed to pay for living costs—that is, their rent, their power, and their food. Those same students are trying desperately hard to train to become doctors, nurses, and teachers—professions that this country desperately needs. To so burden those people, and to continue to burden them, is not only wrong but immoral and unethical.

The current student debt burden is now $1 billion more than this year’s Budget surplus. We should not be surprised when students and graduates ask whether their student loan debt is actually a convenient way for the Government to make the books look good. It would cost the Government approximately $400 million to provide a universal student allowance for every tertiary student in this country. That is a comparatively small sum to provide all students with the living support that they need to obtain a quality tertiary education without racking up a huge debt that will hinder them during the most productive part of their lives, as they work hard to secure themselves a future in a very uncertain economic climate.

Likewise, it would cost about $400 million to reduce the fees for tertiary education to a maximum of $1,500 per year. But instead of actually using the money that is available to the Government to better enable students to access tertiary education, the Government has set up the fee maxima system, which simply means that students will be required to pay only an excessively high, prohibitive level of fees, rather than an exorbitantly high, prohibitive level of fees. Labour’s record on student debt and student loans is a total and utter disgrace.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): In these estimates, the Minister of Education has managed to secure $8,200 million to spend on education. One has to feel sorry for education Ministers in this Government, because they are captured by the teacher unions and those in the debate who believe that increased spending on education brings improved education. New Zealand actually spends more on education, as a percentage of gross domestic product, than any other OECD country. In the last 50 years spending per pupil has quadrupled, but has that translated into education standards going up? No, it has not. Education standards have gone down, parents have remained shut out of the picture, and we have a situation now where only middle-income and high-income families have a choice about where their children go to school. We allow parents to choose which doctor they send their children to, but we do not allow poor parents, in particular, to choose which school their children go to.

Unlike my colleague from the Green Party, I am more concerned about those children who will never ever get to the gates of a university, and who will never even have the chance to take out a student loan, because in this vote the Government has ignored the issue of truancy once more. Nowhere in this estimate is the public more badly served than in the area of truancy. We are not investing any more resources in dealing with the growing problem of truancy. I note that the Education and Science Committee made the point that there is still no national database, and that it has now been put off till about 2005. The Non-enrolment Truancy Service has repeatedly called on this Government for help in trying to get children back to school.

I acknowledge that a database is not the silver bullet. There are a number of reasons that children do not go to school. Teachers rely on parents to get children to school, parents blame teachers, and we all end up blaming the Government. Well, I am not going to blame the Minister of Education. I ask him to take some advice, to think outside the square, and to put some more money into the Non-enrolment Truancy Service so that it can explore some of the reasons that children in the crucial age group that is hit by truancy—that is, ages 14 to 16—are school-resistant. They might not necessarily be education-resistant; they might just be resistant to the one-size-fits-all system, whereby they are put in a class with all their peers, and come under peer pressure to be naughty and not go to school. Not all of them have parents who are educationally irresponsible. They might be bullied, or they might not fit the system. We have the classic situation where Auckland Metropolitan College has closed down, and a number of the children who went there are now probably figuring in truancy statistics. They are not necessarily bad children; they just do not fit the rigid structures of other schools.

Why not spend a bit more than the measly $4.1 million that we give to the Non-enrolment Truancy Service? Truancy officers do an amazing job acting as social workers—better social workers than those from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in a number of cases—and working full-time by necessity but being paid for only part-time hours. I ask the Minister in the chair, Steve Maharey, and Trevor Mallard to take some of the $30 million that has been tagged for the America’s Cup and invest it in the area of truancy.

Let us look at how bad the problem is becoming. In case people do not think we have a problem with truancy, I shall share with them the figures I got yesterday from the Parliamentary Library. In 1997 there were 3,172 referrals to the Non-enrolment Truancy Service, and last year that figure went up to 4,345. In 1 day in Manukau City, 1,200 children were identified as not being at school—and those are only the ones the service could pick up. Because we do not even have a database, we do not know about the others we are not picking up.

This Government is wasting money on film makers, musicians, and the arts in order to shore up its voting public at the next election; what about the wasted resource of these children? The Government is not investing in getting these children back to school, but is instead wasting resources on potential artists, film makers, musicians, and those sorts of people. We should look at what truancy costs the country further down the track. In most cases, children who are truants end up in the criminal courts and move on to become repeat offenders, unless something is done to look at why they do not want to go to school. Does this Minister want us to end up in the situation in Britain, where there are police in schools, and where mothers are being sent to jail?

HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on Vote Education. I am pleased to see that extra money is going into early childhood education under this Government. I believe that early childhood education is the absolute foundation, and the most important part, of our education system. If one puts in place a good foundation, it is built on; children have success, and that continues right throughout their education. We will be investing an extra $55 million in early childhood education over the next 4 years to ensure that more children can access early childhood education. A first-rate start is absolutely what we want for all young people. Research shows the significance of that boost at the start of their education; the good effects continue right through to the tertiary level.

The additional funding from the Budget 2003 is specifically targeted to increase participation and to raise the quality of early childhood education. Those are the things that are really important. We need to have increased participation rates, so that every young New Zealander has the opportunity to take part in early childhood education. The other thing is to raise the quality of early childhood education. This Government knows that the most important issue with education is the quality of the teaching that is put in place. That is particularly important at the early childhood level, because those young children are so vulnerable and deserve absolutely the best. This Government is committed to raising the professionalism and the quality of teachers in the early childhood sector.

We continue to build on the important foundations that have been set by the Government and the early childhood education sector working together. We set those foundations in Pathways to the Future: Ngā Huarahi Arataki, which is a 2-year strategic plan for early childhood education. It was launched last year, we are continuing that strategic plan, and we will see the benefits of that over time. There are three goals at the core of the action plan: increasing participation in quality early childhood education services, improving the quality of those early childhood education services, and promoting collaborative relationships. This Budget gives us all—that is, the Government, the workers in the education sector, and parents—the opportunity to continue working together to achieve those goals.

The additional funding brings total early childhood education spending to $421 million in 2003-04. The extra funding that is being put in place includes an extra $1.6 million in capital grants to provide property for licensed early childhood education services in areas where there are not enough services to meet the current demand. Over the next 4 years, nearly $1 million is being provided to the Developing Centres Fund, so that more children are able to attend playgroups in areas where they currently cannot access appropriate licensed and chartered early childhood education services. It is known as the Promoting Participation Project. An additional $1.4 million is being provided over the next 4 years for the Māori-Pasifika early childhood education teacher scholarship programmes, which are aimed at increasing the number of qualified Māori and Pasifika early childhood education teachers. We know that is an area where there have been profound shortages, and this Government is dedicated to making a difference in that area, and to making sure that those children have qualified teachers. There is $39 million to ensure that early childhood education services are compensated for cost increases in both staffing and operational areas. There is $4.5 million in capital funding over the next 2 years to implement a new funding framework for the sector. The number of early childhood education incentive grants is extended by 70 a year, to continue the Government’s commitment to assist early childhood education services to have their staff upgrade their qualifications. This is what is at the heart of improving the early childhood education sector.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): If there is a magic bullet in public policy, this Government believes that it is education. That is why 31 percent of the Budget has gone to education—the equivalent of what has gone to health. In other words, there is no greater commitment that we in this Government make than the one we make to education. That is why we are spending over $8 billion on education, as was pointed out by Deborah Coddington. But when I sit here and listen to debates like this, I know why we are on 52 percent support in the polls, and other parties are struggling to get over the threshold. The debate about education is, fundamentally, the debate that Labour, along with its progressive coalition partner, is having with the country.

On one side of us we have a group of people who regularly travel the country and say that, despite 31 percent of the Budget going to education—over $8 billion—it is OK to spend $400 million more on allowances, to spend $500 million to abolish tertiary fees, and to spend $X million on what it would take to deal with the loan scheme. They say that all of that is affordable, that all of that is OK, that we should pile well over a billion and a half dollars more into just tertiary education, and that then, no doubt, we should turn our attention to the compulsory system, the early childhood system, the transport system, the health system, and so on, and start writing out cheques for them. It is a kind of logic that hardly anybody actually believes in enough to vote for it. Only a few people do. People might go to meetings and say that they wished the costs would go down, but they know that the only people who are serious about that are the people who are in Government now. That is why we are staying in Government. People understand that not only are we running the debate but also are the only people putting forward a genuine solution. We do not spend all our time with our heart on our sleeve. We try to think robustly about what we are doing. We are doing a good job. So when people on that side say that spending another $400 million would be OK, that another $500 million would be OK, and that we should just carry on racking up the amount and should just spend money, I take that to be interesting but not important.

On the other side of the debate we have people who say that we are spending far too much, that we should charge students more, and that the private gain to students during their lifetime from going to university is so great that they should pay for everything they have to face as university, polytechnic, wānanga, or college of education students.

An Opposition Member: What about private training establishments?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: And students at those private training establishments—whoever. I can say to Georgina te Heuheu that we pay them too, the taxpayer pays them, they are publicly funded—[Interruption] Well, Carich Computer Training has to face the same things that all other private training establishments do. National never treated the private training establishments as part of the tertiary education system; they were some kind of limb hanging off the side of it. Under this Government they know that they are in legislation as being part of the tertiary education system, and thereby are secure.

But that side of the debate says that we should not be paying so much, and that we should let students pay for their education as they get a private gain from it. People take one look at that and ask whether that argument means that students should pay the whole cost of training to be an engineer, a teacher, or a social worker. Once again, we think those arguments are interesting but not very important.

So we end up with a debate in here about people who, on the whole, attract a little bit of attention because they are saying extreme things. But in the centre of politics, straddling the whole of the centre of politics—the big tent of politics—is the Labour Government, which is taken seriously because its analysis is the only one in town that results in good, concrete, workable policies.

This Budget carries on that tradition. It carries on that sensible tradition of investment, and it says there are issues beyond students. It invests in the system. I wonder what the people who say we should spend another $400 million on allowances tell students about the quality investment in research, teaching, and so on that this Government is doing. I never hear people talk about that. The talk is always about one part of the equation. People have to be paid, and institutions have to be kept running in a quality fashion. This Budget does that. It puts money into research, innovation, e-learning, and the tuition costs of students. It is a good, balanced education Budget that reflects the fact that we think that if there is a magic bullet, it is called education. That is why this Budget so clearly emphasises education, and that is why I believe that people around the country will carry on supporting exactly what this Government is doing.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): I am very pleased to join in this debate on Vote Education. As the Minister, Steve Maharey, has just outlined to the House, education is very much what the Labour Government and the Labour Party, historically, has been about. Many of us in this Government have an education background in a variety of service. I was not a teacher, but certainly have worked in the education sector before coming into Parliament. It was, in many respects, my passionate belief in education for all, that drove me towards coming into politics in a more formal sense.

I am proud of what our Government has done historically, and currently is doing, for education. One of the reasons we have been successful in that particular policy area is our acknowledgment and practice of the interconnectedness of the compulsory education sector with what happens to people when they go out into the working world. Today Minister Maharey responded to a question about industry training and the fantastic results that are being achieved in this country because this Government works with industry in providing education and training that is responsive to the needs of the modern world.

Our most recent industry training publication reports a 12 percent increase in trainees to a wonderful figure of nearly 107,000. That is commendable and will show tremendous results in the workforce in New Zealand, as New Zealand’s productivity and modern workplace delivery continues to occur. That stands in stark contrast to the practices of those parties opposite that will, I suspect, be on the Opposition benches for many years to come. They certainly do not show any signs of getting their act together with regard to education, which is the core, a fundamental part of governing any country responsibly, and looking towards the future.

A most alarming comment was recently made by a National Party spokesperson on a range of issues but nothing defined, Don Brash, with regard to his approach to the treatment of employees, when he said that every 2 to 3 years they can get a bit stale and can be replaced.

Hon Member: That’s true.

JILL PETTIS: That is true in respect of some of the members of the main Opposition party—or what was the main Opposition party but does not hold that position any longer, at 22 percent and falling. Opposition members’ approach to people is really summed up in that line of Don Brash’s that people in the workplace get a bit stale and can just be replaced. This Labour Party, historically and currently, does not see people as superfluous or expendable and who can be discarded at the whim of those who may be more powerful.

Our philosophy has always been to value people, to give them the skills, to give them the opportunity to be the best they possibly can, and by supporting people through to realising their full potential. One of the ways we have seen that evidenced so obviously in our communities, particularly our regional communities, is the expansion of the Modern Apprenticeships scheme, which we continue to receive very positive comments about as we talk to employers in our electorates. That has had tremendous results. A great deal of work has gone into that, and the partnership between the Government and industry has produced some superb results. It is wonderful to see young people out there in the workforce delighted about what they are able to achieve, to contribute to their own local economy; and the boost to their morale is just tremendous. This is a Government that is serious about education and puts its money where its mouth is.

A party vote

Vote Education be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Labour 52; United Future 8.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Abstentions 9

Green Party 9.

Vote agreed to.

was called for on the question, That

Vote Education Review Office agreed to.

Vote Sport and Recreation agreed to.

Vote State Services agreed to.

Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): I rise to take a brief call on this vote. I wish to deal with the issue of the moment that has preoccupied a number of members in this House, and I am sure that Mr Eckhoff will preoccupy us with it even further in his speech—that is, the agricultural emissions research levy. From the outset I want to say that as a member of Parliament who comes from a seat that is half rural and contains many highly skilled farmers, I have great respect for those farming communities even though I do not come from farming stock myself.

A few weeks ago the Associate Minister of Agriculture was in my electorate of Waimakariri, and contrary to a lot of the bluster and hot air coming out of the National Party with threats of “Will members of Parliament turn up to meetings?”, I know that members of Parliament from this side of the House will show up anywhere at any time to front up to their constituents. I attended a meeting with about 50 farmers in a place called Fernside in my electorate with the Associate Minister of Agriculture, Damien O’Connor. We had a free and frank exchange of views with farmers. We were with the farming communities for 2 hours, and they were not preoccupied with this issue. They wanted to talk about a broad range of issues of concern to them, and they said a large number of positive things about this Government and the direction of agriculture policy.

However, to get back to climate change, we addressed the issue of the agricultural emissions research levy. I want to put a couple of facts and figures to the House. This Government recognises the value of our farming communities and our agricultural sector, the value to our economy, and the backbone of our economy. That is why this Government exempted the agricultural industry from the carbon charge. Every other industry—manufacturers in my electorate—will have to pay a carbon tax. Patience and Nicholson, a tool manufacturer in my electorate, will have to pay a carbon tax. Shoe manufacturers will have to pay a carbon tax, and on it goes.

The Government took the step in recognising the importance of our farming communities by exempting them from that carbon tax. However, the Government said that the quid pro quo for that was that we would ask our farming communities to pay this levy of 9c a sheep, and I believe that it is around 54c per beef animal, and up to about 72c per dairy cow per year. That equates to around $300 per farm per year.

Every other industry in New Zealand is paying a carbon tax. I am prepared to front up to any of my farmers to listen to them, to talk to them, and to debate the issue because it is worth having that debate. The agricultural sector will pay about $300 per farm per year, even though livestock emissions equate to around 54 percent of total emissions in our economy. I would not have thought that that was such a bad deal. Nobody, whatever business he or she is in—and farmers are business people like everybody else—likes to pay additional charges or levies. However, one would have to argue that one of our biggest industries—that is, agriculture, the backbone of our economy—is at the greatest risk from the negative impacts of climate change.

Members should look at what happens in drought conditions in my patch in North Canterbury, and see the deterioration of the quality of livestock and pasture in a dry season. I would have thought that the industry, whilst not embracing this levy, would look upon it in a positive way. I am told by the scientific community that it is a proven fact that if we can decrease emissions from livestock, that can translate into efficiency and productivity with the animal, increasing body mass, and the quality of meat or dairy, or associated by-products. I would have thought that that would have been a good thing that our farming communities would embrace.

We have exempted our farming communities from the carbon tax until 2012. A lot of bluster and a lot of hot air have emanated from the National Party and ACT, which seized on anything negative to try to drum up some support in the farming communities. Members of National and ACT did not give a rat’s about the farming communities for over a decade. They sold out the farming communities completely. We now have a climate change issue that has created some controversy, I will admit. Any time we want to put a levy or a charge on any sector, nobody particularly likes it; I accept that. But as outlined in these estimates, the money that is raised will go into research to try to alleviate some of the problems created by 54 percent of emissions.

In doing that, I think it will translate—if the scientists are good enough, and I am sure they are—into some productivity. Some have tried to fan the flames, appearing on picket lines, and encouraging certain folk to send excrement through the mail—although judging by some of the speeches we have had today from some of the political parties, the excrement could go both ways; one could wrap up some of the speeches on this issue and mail them back, and they would be equal in quality to some of the excrement coming into Parliament. Rather than indulging in those naive, childish, and stupid tactics, I encourage all members of Parliament to go to the meetings, debate the issues, and actually deal with some of the facts.

I enjoyed the meeting in Waimakariri with our farmers. The great thing about rural communities is that when we talk about these issues the farmers give it to us between the eyes. They give it straight, and we can have a good-quality debate—unlike some of the stuff we hear around this place. These estimates are a chance to get out some facts about this issue.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Well, get some facts out.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I would like to challenge Dr Smith and others to stand up and make a comparison between the $300 a year he will be required to pay per farm—I do not know whether he has one, six, or 10 farms, he being one of the landed gentry over there. That charge should be compared with manufacturers, possibly, in his electorate and in others, who will be paying the full carbon tax. As I said before, 54 percent of our total emissions—and Dr Smith is knowledgeable in this area—is from livestock. We are asking for $300 a year, not to spend on ourselves but to go into research to try to find ways to cut down on those emissions in order to increase the quality of livestock and thus productivity.

I conclude by saying that everybody on this side of the Chamber—and, I am sure, on all sides of the Chamber—has respect for our farming communities, although the proof of the pudding is in the eating, of course. Right across the board in agriculture and trade we can stand on our record of support to our farming communities, right through regional development—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: You sure can’t stand on your record of understanding science.

CLAYTON COSGROVE:—unlike Dr Smith when he was in Government with his crew. They sold out on our farming communities and regions. They raised the flag of surrender on our rural communities. Evidence of that can be seen in the result of the last election and in the rural booths in many electorates—electorates in which farmers voted with their feet for a sound Minister of Agriculture and a sound Government. I do not say that in an arrogant way—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Be responsible and face the facts.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: The member should pipe down and breathe through his nose, as one of his former colleagues used to say. Farmers voted for this Government because they could see a set of agriculture policies and regional development policies that would reinforce and assist them. It is acknowledged throughout our agricultural communities that we have a superb Minister of Agriculture who is a true farmer—not a Queen Street or a Colombo Street farmer; a real one—and an Associate Minister of Agriculture who, up until recently, was also a farmer. They go around the country engaging with our farming communities and fronting up. They take a bit of borax, but that is part of the job.

I support these estimates. I think they are sound, and I hope as the debate goes on that we will have a chance to test some of the arguments in respect of the emissions levy without there being a lot of rhetoric and hot air. Let us have a debate on facts, as I have outlined—on scientific and statistical facts—not rhetoric.

GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ): I am sure the Minister in the chair, Mr Hodgson, will not be surprised when he knows that I wish to focus my comments on the climate change appropriation, which is about $27.5 million. Yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton, stood in this Chamber and said that climate change is the biggest issue facing this world of ours. Well, I suspect that back in 1970, after listening to advice from some of the science community, parliamentarians throughout the world stood in their various Parliaments and said that global cooling was the greatest environmental threat facing the world, and that there was a need for carbon dioxide. Here we are 30 years later saying that global warming is the problem, not global cooling.

New Zealand’s contribution to the problem comes from our livestock, which emit methane through belching. Of course, those in the science community will tell us that methane breaks down in a relatively short space of time into carbon dioxide, which is what the plants on our farms, and the trees, etc., throughout New Zealand ingest, and they emit oxygen. It is actually quite a simple and almost closed cycle. But in answer to a question of mine during question time today, the Minister in the chair said that only the livestock in this country are to be taxed, because it is human-induced waste, or methane, that is the real problem.

Yes, one could say that sheep, cattle, and goats on our farms do emit methane, but, according to this Minister, landfills, which we have from one end of this country to the other, are not human induced. Pardon? Landfills are a natural phenomenon? Surely a landfill is human induced; it is human produced; indeed, it is never reduced. A landfill is a direct result of human habitation. That is why the farmers of this country—almost to a man, or, indeed, to a woman—are united in their attitude that this tax is discriminatory. We are going to whack the farmers but leave urban New Zealand alone. Thirty-five percent of the land in this country is locked up in the conservation estate—land on which methane is being emitted from rotting vegetation on a regular basis.

If the Government were totally committed to this concept—if it does, in fact, see this problem as one of the greatest facing the world, then I would have thought that a total appropriation of $27.5 million was peanuts. When we break down this amount, we see that only $5.4 million is being spent on tangible outcomes, and the rest—about $22.1 million—is being spent on monitoring, advice, and departmental outputs. That is the true response this Government has to climate change.

However, as a practising farmer, I would still like to draw this issue to the Minister’s attention. We are told that this tax is not a tax, that it is a levy on ruminant research to reduce methane emissions. I respect this Minister. He is a man of science, a former vet, and he understands these things. I asked the Minister what is this commercial product called BioStart? What is a product called Biolab? There are other products called Ruminant Enzyme, ProDairy; Nutrimol, and there is even good old Apple Cider. All of those products are designed to help microbes in the rumen break down more rapidly the grass, clover, and other crops that animals ingest. The impact of that is to enable the lamb, sheep, cow, or goat to convert grass into protein much more quickly. Those animals are not sitting down chewing their cud like the front bench of this Labour Government does on a regular basis; they are converting that protein more rapidly into their wool, milk, or meat.

Those products have been on the market for many years. I personally have drenched hundreds of thousands of sheep over the years with a product called Apple Cider, and I have used Biolab and BioStart pretty regularly, as well. All of which, in a roundabout way—not directly, I admit—is reducing methane emissions from my livestock. Every other farmer who uses those products—and they are doing so in an increasing way—is reducing methane, because the metabolism of the animal is helped remarkably by those products, and the end result is less methane. So to turn to the farming community and say that there is no research in that area, and no products to reduce methane, is simply wrong.

I have also spoken to—and I invite the Minister to speak to—the mercantile and crop research companies that are found from one end of this country to the other. They tell me that they are spending in round figures, in an accumulative way, around $25 million on better grasses, better clovers, and, of course, better fodder crops, to enable a lamb, for example, to go, in round figures, from an average weight of about 13 kilograms when it was killed a decade ago to about 17 kilograms today. That is a direct result of the research that has gone on in this country, enabling the animal to convert grass to protein so much more rapidly. An indirect contribution, I would suspect, is to ensure that that conversion is made more rapidly, reducing the methane emissions that cows produce when they chew their cud. That is one of the things that the farming community is so upset about, because there is no other industry that thirsts more for knowledge or opportunity than the farming industry. One has only to look at places like Mystery Creek, where farmers in droves go looking for new technology. If there was one product, or one way, that would increase our production, and therefore our bottom lines, it would be grasped and welcomed by the entire farming community.

But that community knows that it is being put upon by this so-called research levy. It is unjustified, and it was not imposed as a result of consultation. Every farmer in this country would be outraged if the Government told him or her to turn up in the middle of winter at a quarter to 10 in the morning and it would consult them. If most farmers could possibly have done that, they would have attended, but they have a duty to feed their livestock at that time of the morning. To say that the Government consulted by making itself available at 10 o’clock in the morning at Invermay, or wherever, is insulting, to say the very least. All those things together make this industry of mine—the agricultural industry, the livestock farmers in this country—absolutely outraged that the Minister, or this Government, would say that we are not doing anything. We are pulling our weight.

The Minister in his wisdom decided to put a moratorium on aquaculture marine areas. He would wait and see what happened as a result of the outcome of the foreshore and seabed situation. After the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification put forward its view that we should proceed cautiously, the Government, rightly or wrongly, decided that it would wait and see what happened. It would put on a moratorium, and then wait for a period and see whether things worked out the way it wanted them to. So I put this question to the Government: why do we not do that with Kyoto? Why do we not wait and see? Increasing evidence is being put forward by internationally renowned scientists—and I have articles flooding in constantly on that very subject—that says no to the global warming concept.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change): The issue of climate change is one that has been driven by science more than any other international public policy issue in human history, and I shall tell members about that. The first decision of the United Nations in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to proceed with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was informed by science that was released the previous year—1991. It was the result of 3,500 scientists around the world putting together their various learnings, and trying to sort out in their minds what might be going on with our climate. They said that they thought there was a problem. The following year, in Rio de Janeiro, at the largest gathering of world leaders in human history, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was born. [Interruption] I do not remember chipping the Hon Ken Shirley when his colleague was speaking. The member asked me to explain why we could not put Kyoto on hold, and I am doing that.

Five years later, in 1996, those 3,500 scientists reported that they were now a little more certain that the climate change effects were coming, and that they were going to be of a certain size and description. On that occasion, the people, including the Hon Simon Upton, were to meet in Japan the following year in a town called Kyoto, which gave us the Kyoto Protocol. Then in 2001 the scientists reported again. The 2001 report stated that they were more certain that there would be an effect, and that they could tell us a bit more about it than they used to be able to. They now knew that the world’s temperature had risen in the past 100 years, on average, by 0.6 degrees Celsius, and they predicted that the world’s temperature would rise in the next 100 years by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius.

Already, two important pieces of information had emerged. The first was that global warming was accelerating. The second was that the range by which it was accelerating was still quite large and still relatively uncertain. However, there was no suggestion of global cooling, no suggestion of plateauing, and no suggestion that there was no problem. The response to that was called the Marrakesh rules, and the following year the Marrakesh rules settled and determined the Kyoto Protocol. All of the rules are now in place, although the protocol might not come into force. Frankly, that depends on Russia. Russia will, I am sure, ratify, but it is not clear when it will.

The member also made some remarkably good points about the history of New Zealand’s increased farm production. He pointed out that lambs are now larger at slaughter, and he is right. He pointed out that the wool clip has gone up—or at least if he did not, he might have. It has not gone up a lot, but it has gone up a little. He might have pointed out that lambing percentages are up hugely over the past 20 years. He might have pointed out that the carrying capacity of our pastures has improved. Roughly speaking, over the last 20 years our lamb production has more or less doubled—that is, the number of animals has halved but production has stayed the same, if one wants to look at it that way. There have been a remarkable set of increases, and there is no indication that they will not continue into the future. Moreover, they are driven by research.

The member pointed out a number of products that he is using on the farm. He talked about the product he got from a mercantile outfit and the one he got from a vet club, or wherever it was. The point about those products is that they are gaining popularity. They probably do reduce methane emissions and increase productivity, but we do not understand why. This economy is based on—at least awkwardly—ruminant physiology, which is a difficult thing to explain to people. If we do not understand ruminant physiology very well now—and we do not—we ought to improve that understanding. We need to understand why some grasses produce less methane. Why has AgResearch carried out research with grasses that produce a 16 percent reduction in methane, lower levels of parasite burden, higher food conversion efficiency, and, they think, general improvement in animal health? Why is it that deer, as opposed to sheep or cattle, produce proportionately less methane? What is different? We think they do, but we are not sure. Why are there differences between animals? So the Government has said it wants to discover why.

But before it said it wanted to discover why, it took another decision. It looked at our agricultural emissions. It found that they were 54 percent of our total emissions—more than half of all our emissions coming from sheep and cattle—and said to farmers: “There will be no emissions tax. We will completely cover it, using taxpayer funds.” And we will; in return for which farmers will pay for a research levy. Then we decided that we had better work out the size of that levy; and the way to do that was to work out how much science we wanted and in what areas. We got together with the farming fraternity. We got together with the leaders of the agricultural community. We got together with Federated Farmers—for goodness’ sake! We got the best scientists from around the world, and we had a 2-day workshop. We preceded that with a search of the world literature, and on it went. We costed what were likely to be cost-effective avenues of inquiry. The cost is $8.4 million, and the reason that farmers are paying for it is that it will go to their bottom line. I repeat, it will go to their bottom line. The other reason they are paying for it is that it is a fair-suck-of-the-sav argument, because had an emissions tax been put on all agricultural emissions, it would not be $8.4 million but about $1 billion.

Gerrard Eckhoff: That would ruin this country.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Would the member please sort out some of the facts? He has a lot of interest in the issue; I admire him for his interest, but he has got a lot wrong. Let us deal with the issue of methane emissions from other sources. He raises questions about methane from waste. He is right: methane from a landfill is human induced, and that issue is covered by the Kyoto Protocol. To give an idea of the size, agriculture emissions are 54 percent, emissions from landfill waste are 4 percent. As opposed to methane emissions—which are rising—methane emissions from our waste are falling rapidly. The reason is that this Government has a very good Minister for the Environment, and she has developed a thing called a waste strategy. She has worked hard, quietly, and well with the local governments of this country, and improvements in the way we manage our waste stream are causing that reduction. What is more, these days a number of people who own landfills are taking the methane off them and burning it for electricity. Therefore it is not emitted into the atmosphere.

On the other hand, because he has an allergy to the Department of Conservation, the member decides that it should be vulnerable too, because it has trees. Not all of those trees are alive—some of them are dead, some of them are rotting, and some of them produce methane. That is not human induced; that is part of the natural methane cycle, and I invite the member to draw a distinction between the two. So those, I hope, are some of the points that he has raised that are now satisfactorily answered.

The member says we did not consult. Was he not around during 2002? We held 49 consultation meetings, 11 of which were farmer-owner meetings. He did not show up; he was not aware that they were going on, yet he comes back to the House a year later and asks why did we not consult. We consulted on a preferred policy outline, which said that this is what we wanted to do, and we took it around the country, endlessly. We made a few tweaks, and in October 2002 we announced our final policy. One of its final ingredients is that no farmer in this country will be charged for agricultural emissions by way of an emissions tax. There will be none. The 54 percent of emissions will be covered, in their totality, right through the first commitment period. It was a core part of our policy, in return for which research will be done to see if we can reduce those emissions. The benefits of that research flow to both the Government and the farmer. The Government is putting up $4.8 million and the farmers $8.4 million—not a bad price compared with $1 billion! That seems to me where the matter rests, and where the Straight Furrow editor of today thinks the matter should rest, too.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency be agreed to.

Ayes 69

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Vote agreed to.

Progress reported.

Valedictory Statement

Valedictory Statement

GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour): This will be my last contribution before I take my leave and resign from this House. I came into Parliament in August 1987, following a fierce selection campaign for the Labour Party for the seat of Porirua. Having spent 25 years of my working life in the trade union movement, I accepted nomination because of my deep concern that a new-right philosophy was in the ascendancy. I was a reluctant politician but I did have a clear mission, and that was to recapture Labour, which had been hijacked by the right-wing ideologues in Cabinet and in the caucus.

Those were tense and tumultuous times, such was the bitterness about the fundamental economic policy differences. It was a searing experience for me, and one that I did not enjoy, at all, during my first term as a member of Parliament. In fact, I can say that I hated every second of every minute of every hour of those first 3 years in this House. Until the Labour-led Government was elected in 1999 I felt that I was in Opposition for all those 12 years, even when we were in Government.

During the late 1980s and in the early 1990s, under the then National Government, ideologically driven politicians privatised many of our publicly owned institutions, contracted out jobs and public services, corporatised and then privatised Government departments, and allowed the gap between rich and poor to widen. That effectively allowed the transfer of much of this country’s wealth and power. New Zealand, I believe, is still recovering from that distortion. I hope there are enough people, both throughout the community and in this House, who will not allow that to ever happen again.

One of the things about my constituency work in 1987 was that a number of people came to my electorate office desperately wanting help with immigration and housing problems. In many of the immigration cases, I imagine they had tried to get their problems solved with my predecessor, and they were trying me out as the “new chum on the block”. In nearly every case, I was offered gifts. In refusing, I had to explain that they paid me through their taxes, and that in New Zealand we did not need gifts to do our job as members of Parliament. Many were very insistent and upset, and told me that offering gifts was their custom and tradition. I had to explain that I would do my best for them, and when some of them would not take their gifts back, I had to arrange, in their presence, for my secretary to call the Salvation Army or the Presbyterian or Catholic support services to come and collect those gifts.

Well, exactly 3 months to the day after I was elected the word had got out, and the offering of gifts stopped permanently. I was always conscious that if one accepted a gift, even a small one, it would only lead to another, and probably a larger, gift the next time. I think that story is important, because I do not want to see our members of Parliament innocently slip into practices that could compromise them or lead to the corruption that is prevalent in the political process in many other countries.

The most significant reason that New Zealand now has MMP is the reaction of the people against the rapid economic and social changes of the 1980s and 1990s. New Zealanders wanted the process of change to be slowed down, and they wanted to exert some control over the political process. As I leave this House, I can observe that that objective has mostly been attained. Under MMP, some parties have come under criticism for having to compromise on their policies in their manifestos, as the price for obtaining agreement with other parties in order to form a Government. I sometimes think that in constantly having to make compromises in order to accommodate minor parties’ support for measures, we can risk ending up looking like blancmange. Is that what the public really wants? I do not think so.

However, at least MMP has stopped New Zealand from being the fastest legislator in the west, and it has forced like-minded political parties to come to terms with policies that are not as extreme as they would otherwise be. Under MMP I have observed that the select committee process is working much better. It is actually really relevant now, and there is a real sense that the public’s and MPs’ input has real meaning. However, there are times when I think the tail is wagging the dog. Some smaller parties that desperately want to make an impression, and to lift their poll rating, push the boundaries of what it is reasonable for select committees and for the Government parties to accommodate in this environment.

In spite of being in Opposition for the majority of my 16 years in Parliament, there have been some high points. I recently looked back at my maiden speech, and in it, amongst other things, I advocated for a New Zealand music quota on radio, and for a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week accident and emergency department at Kenepuru Hospital in Porirua. Up until now, the accident and emergency department was open only during office hours on weekdays. I leave here knowing that finance has been budgeted by the Government for an upgrade at Kenepuru Hospital, with a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week accident and emergency department. I want to thank Annette King, Michael Cullen, and the Cabinet for making that possible. My member’s bill, which went way back to 1989 and provided for a 20 percent New Zealand music quota on our radio stations, failed at that time. But I am pleased that a quota is now being implemented to reflect our identity and culture, even if it is in a different form.

Another effort that I am proud about was the successful campaign I waged to have the New Zealand’s Minimum Wage Act apply to the 4,000 foreign fishing crews who came to New Zealand each year to fish for joint-venture companies. Some were paid as little as US$4.50 a day. I felt totally uncomfortable with the fact that we were building a successful industry on the backs of cheap, exploited labour. That change in 1996 had the effect of increasing the number of Kiwis employed in the fishing industry, as well as of reducing the shameful exploitation of those workers. Only last year, I managed to have a very small member’s bill passed so that those same workers could claim their wages and the cost of getting home, should their vessel be stranded in New Zealand because their employer had gone broke and could not afford to pay their wages.

I recall just one or two particular difficulties I got into in my time here. One of those was when I refused to pay a $31 public hospital part-charge, because I believed it was a Government subjugation of social responsibility to the whims of the competitive market, and that it would lead to the privatisation of our hospitals. After a national campaign, which I helped to organise, the Government dropped the policy soon afterwards. Having recently used the public hospital system, I want to say that it works well. It is efficient, and we are indeed fortunate in the degree of expertise of our surgeons, doctors, technicians, and nurses. I think we can feel proud of our public health system. The second issue that stands out most clearly is the occasion when I was ordered out of this House after criticising the Minister of Housing at the time, because he would not agree to place smoke detectors in State houses following the deaths of two pre-schoolers in my electorate. Shortly after that, as though by magic, $8 million was found, and the installation of those fire alarms was authorised throughout the country.

One of the more onerous jobs that falls to constituency MPs is the constant fund-raising for one’s party for the next election. On one occasion I arranged a fund-raising debate between politicians and secondary school students, and the subject of the debate was “That youth is wasted on the young.” David Lange was one of the debaters. He was in full flight, and somehow drifted into talking about sex. He said: “I’ll bet there’s no one in this audience who hasn’t thought of sex in the past week. Put your hand up if you haven’t.” Well, to his great surprise, from the back of the hall an older grey-headed woman teacher gently raised her hand. He looked at her in astonishment and said: “And who are you?” And she said: “Sister Anne.” So there can be some fun in politics.

Of course, the most satisfaction in Parliament has been derived from being part of a Government implementing one’s own polices—policies that one can believe in. I was very proud in the year 2000 to shepherd the accident compensation bill and the Employment Relations Bill through the select committee process, in spite of the massive campaign of the Opposition—and some technical difficulties—that attracted over 16,000 submissions on the Employment Relations Bill. The downfall of civilisation has not occurred with the implementation of that legislation, as was predicted by everyone who opposed it at the time. In fact, quite the reverse has occurred, and workers are now required to be treated with dignity and respect, which they, of course, deserve.

Given the nature of the electorate that I served, public housing was always a major issue. I spent thousands of hours on dealing with the consequences of housing policies, both as a constituent MP and, for a time, as Labour’s spokesperson on housing. Because of the market rents policy of charging low-income families more than they could afford to pay—in some cases, up to 70 percent of their household income—I saw first hand high levels of overcrowding and poverty, and very bad health. I found that very distressing, and I often came home at night and found it difficult even to eat a meal. But I am delighted that, as the result of a Labour Government, State houses are now affordable for those families, and that the old housing stock, which, in many cases I think should have been bulldozed down, is at last being upgraded.

I want to say something about the effects of MMP on our politicians. After a very bad start, as many of us will remember, in 1996, MMP is, I think, working reasonably well. However, under the system there are pressures on constituency MPs that, compared with the pressures on list MPs, are simply unfair. Members of Parliament work extremely hard, whether list or constituency MPs. Compared with many occupations, members of Parliament make great sacrifices to serve the public, often at the expense of their families and their health. I acknowledge the members of this House for their contributions to our country in the various ways they represent their parties or constituencies, or both, and as parliamentarians generally. Most of the public have no idea of the long hours, the intensity of the work, or the range of issues that MPs deal with, or of the pressures that they are under.

However, when constituency MPs leave this place on a Thursday, they are faced often on that night and on the next 4 nights with meetings or functions in their electorates. Rarely would they not have a meeting on at least three of those five evenings, before they return to the House. Additionally, much of their Fridays, weekends, and Mondays would be full of meetings and engagements within their electorate. Maybe, like me, many members would have had just half a day free with their family on a Sunday. They do regularly work 15-hour days and mostly 7-day weeks—certainly if a member is a constituency MP. The point is that the work is intense, and it is rare to be able to escape it.

I know that in our party’s case, list MPs are specifically allocated electorates to work in, and act like constituency MPs. So they do work very hard. But while list MPs do work hard, I do not believe they are under the same pressure as constituency MPs. Only a fortnight ago I heard from a minor party’s list MP that he had had around 10 constituency cases to deal with, over 3 years. In my electorate office we would regularly get 10 cases each day, and often very many more. Constituency MPs cannot escape dealing with their constituents, nor should they. If they do, they suffer a fate at the next election. They are expected to be at meetings or functions, like it or not, day and night. In addition to their electorate work, which I have mentioned, there are portfolio responsibilities that will take them out of the electorate and around the country.

A list MP is not, and cannot be, put under the same scrutiny or microscope by the thousands of organisations and people who live in the same community. I believe an inherent unfairness is placed on constituency MPs because they are subjected to constant pressure from the demands and workload of their electorate, as well as having to handle their other responsibilities. The differences, in my view, are significant between list and electorate MPs, and a way should be found to ease the burden on MPs in what are now far larger electorates, since the advent of MMP.

There is another factor that I think affects the behaviour of constituency MPs. If they made some of the more outlandish statements that I have heard from some list MPs—I have to say mainly in the minor parties, in order to increase their profile and their poll ratings—their constituents would eat them alive when they visited the local bowling club, school, or supermarket. I am now more aware that an MP’s behaviour is, in part, modified because of that direct and immediate accountability.

So do I have an answer? I do, and it is to relook at the type of proportional representation that we have. It would be far better to give every MP a patch or a constituency, and for that MP to be directly accountable to the people he or she lives amongst. In my view, that would greatly enhance our democracy. If and when there is a review of MMP, or of any other system for dealing with how people get into this place, I hope the comments I have made will be considered.

My constituency work was demanding, and it was often frustrating having to deal with difficult and complicated cases for constituents, but it had its rewards. I thank the thousands of constituents whom I represented for allowing me that privilege. Of course, as an MP one is expected to attend events and functions. In my first term I had a call from the mayor of our city, who asked me whether I could get a Minister to officially open a new sewage treatment plant. Because it was close to the 1990 election, that was very difficult to arrange. By then, David Lange had resigned as Prime Minister and he agreed to do the job.

When we arrived we had to inspect the plant, and we had to walk on platforms above the holding tanks. At the best of times I have a weak stomach, and that exercise really tested me. The official party at the opening was at one end of the building, on a wide platform overlooking the machinery three floors below. At the other end of the building there was a similar platform, with the guests and staff. When it came time for David to speak he ignored the typed speech that the Department of Internal Affairs had prepared, and complimented the council on building the plant, having it commissioned on time, and delivering it under budget. He then went on to make some wonderful comments about Porirua City and the councillors’ role in the city’s rapid development. By that time one could see the councillors rising above the ground with pride, much like the rising stench from below. After largely ignoring the typed speech, he came to the end of his comments by saying: “I am declaring this plant officially open, so it’s bottoms up!”

I want to express my appreciation to those members of the Labour Party in my old electorates and elsewhere whom I have worked with and who made it possible for me to represent their interests in Parliament. I always tried to advance issues from a philosophical position that reflected Labour’s roots and traditions. I also acknowledge and thank the staff who worked for me. My electorate secretaries,

Lynne Renouf and Caroline Mill-Moses, each worked for me for 15 years, and John Grundy and Jane Blaikie worked for me for 6 years each. Like many electorate secretaries their knowledge of local issues, of Government policies, and of how the public service works, and their dealings with constituents, were truly outstanding. So I say a big thankyou to them all. And with regard to my various parliamentary secretaries over 16 years, Mavis Van Dalen, Margaret Abbott, Moana Ekenasio, Kay Martin, Pam Lobb, and Stephanie Greaves, I salute them all for their commitment and professionalism. May I thank the many staff in the parliamentary complex who help to make our job here just a little easier than it might otherwise be. We are very grateful for that.

Before I conclude, I want to thank my family for their support and encouragement over these many years. I want to recognise and acknowledge the work that my wife Janette has undertaken in my absence, in terms of raising our five children, running the household, and organising party and electorate events. I know she must have wondered at times why she was doing that, and being left alone at night and at weekends. But I am extremely grateful for and proud of her contribution, of the practical advice she gave me, and of the constancy of her commitment to me, to the Labour Party, and to the constituents. To my children and grandchildren, I want to say that in their lives, events and functions often occurred without me. I am grateful for their understanding and forbearance. I hope there may have been some compensating factors in that period.

I have enjoyed my extra work and involvement in the parliamentary Amnesty International group, Parliamentarians for Global Action, our work in helping to establish the International Criminal Court, the many MPs’ friendship groups with other countries, and, of course, the Harmony in the House fund-raising concerts for the Mary Potter Hospice. One of my most satisfying achievements as a member of Parliament is the Porirua City Community IT Educational Trust that I established in that city 3 years ago. That trust is placing 1,000 computers into 24 low-decile schools and 600 computers into the homes of parents who do not have a job. It will substantially raise the achievement levels of those pupils faster than the system can provide, and will reduce unemployment by training those parents in the use of computers.

In conclusion, I say I have had a lifelong interest in international affairs. I have been extremely proud of our country’s involvement in the wider world over very many decades. As a small nation we have played a significant and positive role in international agencies, in disarmament and peacekeeping, and in many other important areas. New Zealand is held in high regard by other countries because of that. Our independence and ability to stand up for principled positions has made me proud to be part of New Zealand and part of this Government. I look forward to continuing with that work as New Zealand’s High Commissioner in Canada and the Caribbean countries. Of course, besides promoting our trade, I will want to enhance the close cricketing relationships that we have with the West Indies while I am down there. I am sure I will be able to sell some butter during overs, while I am there.

As I take my leave, I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to be a member of Parliament and to be part of this unique place. I thank my colleagues for their camaraderie and friendship, and for their concern when times were difficult. I thank them all for their commitment to the people they serve and to our democratic institution, this Parliament. We are one of only half a dozen countries in the world where a gun has not been fired at the time of a change of Government, and for that we can be proud. Members’ future role is to uphold that democratic tradition. It is all that we have, so members should work hard to protect it. Goodbye.

Sitting suspended from 5.51 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

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

Vote Crown Research Institutes

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): I wish to address the—

David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You will be aware, as I have just raised this issue with you, that the matter of the proportionality of Parliament and the allocation of time in this 8-hour debate is at issue here. Can you confirm my understanding, please, that of the 36 minutes that were allocated to the ACT party—with the agreement of all parties, I hasten to add—35 minutes have elapsed, and that Mr Shirley’s speech will therefore be for a maximum of 1 minute?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is my understanding that the Standing Orders give a total of 8 hours, maximum, for the debate. How the whips divvy that time up is determined between them; it is an informal arrangement between the parties concerned. I will attempt to ensure, of course, that everybody gets a fair go when the occasion arises.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I totally concur with the statement you just made. My understanding is that we are governed by the Standing Orders, notwithstanding any Business Committee arrangements, and that the Standing Orders provide for 5-minute speeches in this debate. I am seeking the call, and if granted the call my expectation will be to give a 5-minute speech.

David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The issue is that with the agreement of all whips, including Mr Shirley’s whip—and he may not have discussed this matter with Dr Newman, but she indicated her agreement to me yesterday afternoon, as did all other whips in Parliament—we allocated the time across all the estimates. That was done so that we could cooperate as best we could in ensuring that the relevant Ministers were in the Chamber and in the chair, in order to facilitate the most rational and well-informed debate and response. To date that is exactly the pathway that has been followed, with only one exception, and in that case Mr Tisch informed me immediately that there had been a reallocation of one of National’s speaking slots.

I certainly have no direct difficulty with Mr Shirley having a full call of—hopefully—no more than 5 minutes on this estimate, but I would like the Committee to understand that that was the exception rather than the rule. Given that, on the basis of the agreement between whips whereby speaking time has been allocated according to respect for the proportionality of each party’s membership in the Parliament, other people have not spoken, it would be most inappropriate if they were to lose that entitlement because of one party—or, potentially, of more than one, I guess—not sticking with the deal that was clearly agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say again that members must realise that points of order take up debating time. I remind members they should be aware of that.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. David Benson-Pope mentioned me. Could he clarify that reference please? I was not sure what it was.

David Benson-Pope: I am happy to do so. It was in reference to a call that Dr Smith took last night that had not been signalled, but when I checked it with Mr Tisch I found it was a swap with one of those that had been previously indicated to me—with which I have no difficulty. That matter was dealt with appropriately and professionally, but I am finding it difficult to be told now that there is a call on an issue that the ACT whip had not indicated. In fact, if it is a full call—which, as I have said, the Labour Party will agree to—it will take the ACT party over the time allocated to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I wish to rule on this matter. I will say that again: I want to rule on this—

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am speaking on behalf of the ACT party, as I know that Mr Shirley may be taking the call himself. According to that party’s reckoning it has had only five speeches, which have not been 10-minute speeches. The ACT party was entitled to seven 5-minute speeches, which is the 35-minute allocation. The whip tells me that the party has only had five 5-minute speeches, so maybe I should hand it over to—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Hand over to the Hon Ken Shirley.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Speaking to the point of order, I have just been in touch with our whip, who is somewhat concerned about the matter raised. She advises me that her records are that we have had five speeches, which is a total of only 25 minutes, so we are well within our allocated time as agreed by the Business Committee. There may be a misunderstanding in the calculations on this matter.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Informal arrangements between whips are something that I cannot rule on. I will attempt to ensure that there is a fair basis of proportionality, and I say that the first two speeches on this estimate will both be for a maximum of 10 minutes each.

David Benson-Pope: First of all, in terms of the records that were confirmed with me by the Clerk this morning at my request—to confirm or amend my records of the elapsed time from last evening—the confirmed figure, which the Clerk will be able to support, is that the ACT party spoke for 20 minutes yesterday, and therefore had 16 minutes remaining today. Members will appreciate that I have not been in the Chamber; I have been on parliamentary business with the other whips this afternoon outside the building. But consulting the record of today’s discussions tells me, on my first assessment, that Ms Coddington and Mr Eckhoff of the ACT party have spoken for 5 minutes and 10 minutes respectively, leaving 16 minutes minus 15 minutes—that is, 1 minute—remaining of the agreed time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say again that I cannot rule on agreements between whips. I understand that was not a determination of the Business Committee, and I seek the indulgence of the House because I want to ensure proportionality. That is necessary in order to do this job properly. I am prepared to take a call from someone.

Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I speak in the interests of making positive progress, but I also want to make this point: whereas it was strictly the case that there was not an agreement of the Business Committee, it certainly was the case that there was an understanding that the whips would reach this arrangement on this debate. I do not think that anyone would dispute that. So, yes, it is not a formal resolution. But I think it is important—indeed, crucial—for the proper operation of this Parliament that when deals are struck with whips, they just have to be adhered to by everybody, to respect the fact that this place will not work otherwise. In the interests of seeing good progress I will, on behalf of the Government side of the Chamber, suggest that we will accommodate a 5-minute speech from Mr Shirley in this debate. That will enable him to make a proper contribution, but it is fair to acknowledge that that is in excess of the time that is actually available by common agreement among the whips. If we do that it will allow us to continue on, and we will then absorb that additional time.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that all of this is coming out of their time. We have lost nearly 10 minutes.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: No, this is important. Speaking to the point of order, I am grateful for that consideration, but there is a misunderstanding here. I have been in touch with my whip in the last few minutes. Her understanding is that we had 35 minutes, which I think Lindsay Tisch indicated. She advises me that we have had five 5-minute speeches, which is 25 minutes. The understanding of the whip is that there are 10 minutes remaining, and two speeches to be given. I am to give one, and Muriel Newman is to give the other. So I seek clarification of where the misunderstanding may be, because our understanding and expectation is that we have two more 5-minute speeches remaining.

David Benson-Pope: I can help. I have just put down a phone after a call from the previous speaker’s whip, who informs me exactly where the misunderstanding is: Mr Eckhoff was not intended to speak for 10 minutes, but he did so. However, we are quite prepared to make the accommodation—and Mr Shirley can confirm that with Dr Newman; everyone who was in the Chamber prior to the break will confirm that. I am quite happy to listen to—no, perhaps that is an overstatement; to accommodate—Mr Shirley’s full speech, but I think that this is an unproductive waste of Parliament’s time.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I understand that I have 10 minutes in which to try to convince the member—[Interruption] The Standing Orders provide that I have 10 minutes.

Hon Mark Burton: Come on; be reasonable.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: The comments the member made were not reasonable. I have sought the call, and the Standing Orders give me 10 minutes. Without those comments, I would have stuck to 5 minutes.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The reality is that we have already wasted 10 minutes on this matter. The speech could quite easily have been made in that time, which means that members have wasted their own time. There needs to be some sort of compromise. I cannot rule on private arrangements between whips; that is something that they must do themselves. I am guided by the Standing Orders, which state that when I call the first speaker on any estimate in this debate the first two speakers have 10 minutes.

Hon John Tamihere: In speaking to Vote Crown Research Institutes—

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I had the call.

Hon John Tamihere: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is quite clear that you gave a ruling, and you sat down. At the end of your ruling, I was given to understand that there was an opportunity to take a call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thought you were raising a point of order. I had already given the call to the Hon Ken Shirley, and I have to abide by Speaker’s ruling 23/3 on that.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: At the outset, I would like to say that science is of critical importance to New Zealand. I think it is perhaps one of the most under-rated endeavours. Our whole economy is dependent on good science, from the production and processing of our primary industries right across the economy. I acknowledge the contribution of successive Ministers of science, and I believe the Minister in the chair, the Hon Pete Hodgson, is making a valiant effort in scientific endeavour.

The challenge is that as a society we do not recognise the importance of science to the extent that we should. Scientific method transcends all cultures and creeds; it is the pursuit of physical truth. Whether it be in physics, chemistry, biology, or genetics, there are universal standards of research that have stood the test of time. Whether we are talking about the work of Aristotle or Galileo, or right through to that of Pickering and Rutherford, there has been a scientific method that has stood the test of time. We should not forget that scientists through the ages have withstood social pressures. Galileo was charged with heresy by the Christian church for having the temerity to suggest that the earth went round the sun.

The point I want to make is that we in this country are at the point of abandoning reason and giving way to mythical spiritualism in our science. Other cultures have done that through the ages, but one does so at one’s peril. We have now had a proposal that there is some form of Māori science, and that is nonsense. Certainly, Māori can endeavour in science, but not through a separate methodology. All cultures have a major contribution to make to science; I acknowledge that. There will be new ways of doing things, and new suggestions and methods based on traditional Māori culture will be of value to science, but one does not give way to the physical pursuit of truth in the name of pursuing a metaphysical cultural belief. That is the reality. That is what Galileo faced when he suggested that the earth went round the sun. When people start to talk about leprechauns, hobgoblins, holy ghosts, or whatever else one might want to talk about, they are abandoning science. I fear that, unfortunately, we are seeing too much of that in this country.

In particular, I would like to refer to the work being done by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, because it confronts that very issue in its research into the volcanology of Lake Taupo. I think many New Zealanders do not appreciate the importance of that work. Lake Taupo is one giant volcanic crater. Its last major eruption was in AD 186, when it spewed out something like 40 cubic kilometres of magma. One can go to the Chatham Islands today and still find 6 inches’ depth of explosive material in the soil from the AD 186 eruption of Taupo. Chinese culture still talks about the summers that country did not have, because of the Taupo eruption in AD 186. There was an even larger eruption some 20,000 years ago, when 400 cubic kilometres of material blew out. The AD 186 eruption was the biggest eruption in recorded history, but the one 20,000 years ago was 10 times bigger than that, and about 400 times bigger than the Krakatoa eruption. So that is what we have in New Zealand with Lake Taupo, which is a volcano.

When the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences brought out the mini-submarine from the Max Planck Institute in 2001 with the intention of doing important volcanological survey work on the bed of Lake Taupo, that submarine sat in its packing crate for over 6 months on the wharf. The institute would not confront the opposition of kaumātua from Ngāti Tuwharetoa, who were holding it to ransom and wanting extortion payments for allowing that important research to take place. The Minister of Māori Affairs is sitting there chuckling, smiling, and laughing, and I challenge him to rise and explain that. In 1993 the Jim Bolger - led National Government transferred ownership of the bed of Lake Taupo to Ngāti Tuwharetoa. But there were important conditions attached to that transfer of ownership, and I will remind the Committee of what they were.

One of the conditions of the transfer of ownership was that free, unfettered access would be permitted, in order to allow people to engage in all recreational pursuits and all forms of scientific research work. [Interruption] For the benefit of the member for Rotorua, who does not even seem to understand the nature of the problem, I tell her that there was to be free public access for all recreational pursuits and scientific endeavours. It was a condition of that transfer to Ngāti Tuwharetoa that those activities could continue, at no fee. It was on that basis—

Hon Mark Burton: Ken Shirley can’t even keep his word in this Parliament. He can never be trusted in this Parliament again. He has broken yet another undertaking.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: Mr Chair, is there a doctor in the Chamber? Minister Burton seems to be having a seizure over there on the Government benches.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I caution members that they are becoming very unruly, and it is leading to disorder. There is no need for that in the course of this debate.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I shall continue.

Hon Mark Burton: He can’t be trusted.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: The member for Taupo should be very, very interested in this issue. The Crown agreed in 1993—[Interruption] Mr Chairman, we have a barrage of interjections here.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 51/4, which states, “Strictly speaking, a member is entitled to be heard without interruption”, although members may ask reasonable questions to elicit further information. This is getting beyond that. If members wish to take a call, they will be able to do so next time.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I am happy to respond to any reasonable questions. I reiterate that in 1993 the Crown transferred ownership of the bed of Lake Taupo to Ngāti Tuwharetoa, on the clear condition that free access for all recreational activities and scientific endeavours would be permitted—at no fee.

The Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences brought out the mini-submarine Jago in 1999 and did some major work on the volcanology of Lake Taupo. It was very important work, and Television One did a splendid programme that screened on Labour weekend of that year, showing the underwater pictures of that research work and the seismology associated with the bed of the lake. When the institute wanted to repeat that critically important work in 2001, Ngāti Tuwharetoa said it would not give the institute permission to do that research work unless the institute was prepared to pay it a quarter of a million dollars. Ngāti Tuwharetoa said the institute had to pay it to do that research work, although that is absolutely against the condition of the transfer of ownership.

I say to the Committee and to the Labour Government that in the work the Government is doing now on the foreshore and seabed—and I know the complexity of the issue; I am not trying to understate it—for goodness’ sake, it should think very hard, because those precedents exist out there. The Prime Minister and members on the Government side of the Chamber actually say that Lake Taupo is a good example of how wonderful things will be in respect of the foreshore and seabed. All I say is that they should look at the facts and at the truth of what has happened.

However, my question is more fundamental. I say to the Minister for Crown Research Institutes that when the board of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences was confronted with that dilemma, the board had meetings with the Minister—or his predecessor; perhaps the Minister could clarify that point—and asked him to confront the issue that the Crown had transferred ownership of the bed of Lake Taupo on the condition that free access without fee was permitted and required as a condition of the transfer. That was reneged on by certain kaumātua of Ngāti Tuwharetoa. I say at the outset that there were many in Ngāti Tuwharetoa who did not agree with that, and who were against the opposition to the undertaking of that very important and critical work. I would like the Minister to answer me on that, and to explain why he did not back the institute up in doing that work.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Crown Research Institutes): This is my 13th year in this House, and I do not think that in 13 years I have heard a speech from anyone as disgraceful as the one that has just been uttered by the Hon Ken Shirley. I do not believe I have heard a speech as disgraceful—actually, I think “despicable” is a better word. I want to lay out why. I will come later to the issue of how long the member spoke, agreements, and so on. I want to talk about science, science models, and whether the member has the faintest idea about a philosophy of science—the idea that science is nestled in the culture in which it finds itself; that science is informed by the culture in which it finds itself.

Hon Ken Shirley: So Galileo should have been persecuted?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, Galileo should not have been persecuted. Galileo suffered from a different problem—that of a lack of academic freedom. That is the issue. There is academic freedom—

Hon Ken Shirley: Absolutely that is the issue.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I did not interrupt the member at all during his address, his most provocative address. I uttered not one syllable agin him. But I am doing it now, and I suggest that he sits and takes it as well as he can give it.

I say to the member that that despicable address was based on the idea that there is only one culture, not only in New Zealand but in the world. Chinese science is different from Western science. The Western medical model is different from the Chinese medical model. It is vastly different. There is Chinese medicine in this country and there is Western medicine in this country. What needs to be said about this country—New Zealand, Aotearoa—is that there are two cultures predominant. One of them is Māori, and the Māori way of thinking about science is different. Eliciting Māori knowledge through that cultural lens, if you will, will give a different insight. What is truth, then, is that which is discerned by the society in which the science finds itself. So we do not believe a lot of Chinese medicine, but the Chinese do, and they do not believe a lot of ours. As those cultures come together—which in my hometown of Dunedin they are doing, wonderfully well—we end up with some very, very interesting synergies and explosions of understanding.

That is a possibility in New Zealand with Māori science and European science. What is more, it can only happen here, because this is the only country in the world in which Anglo-Saxon thinking and Polynesian thinking collide, and the collision continues. I say to the member that if he wants to be so unilateral, monocultural, and linear in his thinking, he is the worse for it.

Hon Ken Shirley: What about Taupo?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will talk about Lake Taupo in a minute. The member should not worry; I will get to that, no trouble at all! I am currently giving the member a towelling for being stupid. He ought to try not to be. He has a good head on his shoulders; he just has a linearity that, as he gets older, gets worse.

That member should remember that he comes, as I do, from a culture that not only has leprechauns in it, as he mentioned, but also Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the Loch Ness monster, and on it goes. All of us are informed by the culture in which we find ourselves.

Let us go to Lake Taupo. The story the member told is almost certainly wrong and quite possibly libellous. I was the Minister at the time, I did have discussions with the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences at the time, and, actually, I did speak with the paramount chief at the time. As far as I am aware, and it may be that I do not know everything, it is my understanding that there was no requirement for quarter of a million dollars, or any other sum. I am not aware of that. So that accusation of extortion, made freely in this Chamber by that member, is probably, to the best of my knowledge, wrong. Actually, the sister-in-law of the paramount chief has just spoken to me about this. She is a member of this House; she is from the National Party. She came over to me and said she is unaware of any extortion. I have to ask the member who has resumed his seat why he made that claim. The Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit, the board of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, the scientists who were involved, the paramount chief, and the sister-in-law of the paramount chief, who is an honourable member of this House, did not tell me that that was going on, so why should the member take it upon himself to make an accusation of that ilk? I think that is a very, very disgraceful thing to do.

I will say something else. The really important thing about this story is that the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences and Tuwharetoa have a hugely improved relationship because of the learning of one another’s positions that has been derived from it. I say to the member that next time a submarine wants to go to Lake Taupo everybody will know how to make it happen.

Hon Ken Shirley: So there was a problem.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Absolutely a problem. But the problem was not to do with money.

Hon Ken Shirley: It was politics.

Hon PETE HODGSON: It was not politics; it was serious cultural misunderstanding. Because the member himself has serious cultural misunderstanding, he will be the last to get it. It is just not going to happen to him. I think he is going to die before he gets there.

Another issue needs to be addressed, and I want to address it here and now. The reason that a mistake occurred in the time allotted to the ACT party is that nobody could shut up the ACT member from Otago, who wanted to talk about methane emissions. Mr Gerry Eckhoff went on for two 5-minute speeches. That was where it happened. The Labour Party, courtesy of the acting Leader of the House, Mark Burton, donated time to the ACT party in order to progress harmony in the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the Minister that we are supposed to be speaking about the spending plans, not what formal agreements were made between whips or otherwise.

Hon PETE HODGSON: And in one sentence I will return to them. In taking that extra time, and using the Standing Orders to his fullest advantage, the member has done the ACT party very serious damage, not just with the Labour Party but with all other parties. The member’s arrogance is compounded not by what he said but the circumstances in which he said it.

The last thing I want to say about science is this. The Government holds science as one of the cornerstones of our progress. The role of Māori in science is improving significantly, not just in terms of Māori knowledge, not just in terms of taking what is often narrow caste knowledge, and codifying it, and broadcasting it, which is difficult in Māori culture; what else is happening is that young Māori are stepping up to PhDs in rapidly increasing numbers, and some of them are just eye-wateringly good. I say to the member Ken Shirley that a bit of change is going on. The future of this country is browner than it is now. The contribution that Māori will make to science, both through a Māori ethos and through a Western ethos, will be remarkable indeed.

Vote agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Hon Pete Hodgson has three more votes. Previously, we have put votes together but have taken separate votes at the end. I ask the Committee whether there is any objection to our doing the three together, then taking separate votes at the end. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Vote Energy agreed to.

Vote Fisheries agreed to.

Vote Research, Science and Technology agreed to.

Vote Attorney-General

Vote Labour

Vote Parliamentary Counsel

Vote Serious Fraud

Vote Treaty Negotiations

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I suggest that all these votes be debated as one debate, but that at the end we have a separate vote on each one. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki): Kia ora. Whilst I stand to speak in the estimates debate about Vote Treaty Negotiations, I want to take a little time to acknowledge the valedictory speech made by Graham Kelly prior to the dinner break, to wish him and his family the best in the years ahead of them, and to thank him for his comments about his experiences in this Parliament. So to him and his family I say ngā manaakitanga.

I also want to acknowledge comments made in the previous debate, in particular the words of the Hon Pete Hodgson in response to the accusations made by the ACT member Mr Ken Shirley in relation to extortion by Ngāti Tuwharetoa kaumātua. Because I have an association with these people, I think that particular matter needed to be addressed, and I thank the Hon Georgina te Heuheu for providing that information.

I will now take Mr Chairman’s lead and get back to the topic at hand. Whilst treaty negotiations is a quite wide portfolio I want to speak specifically to progress in that area. Before doing that I acknowledge the Hon Margaret Wilson and the hard-working staff of the Office of Treaty Settlements for much of the work they have done in the past year, and for the programme they have laid out for the 2003-04 financial year. As we are all aware, Vote Treaty Negotiations contributes a major outcome for this Government in terms of a fairer and more credible and effective justice system through the immediate outcome of fair and durable settlements that resolve historical grievances relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. I underline the term “historical grievances”, which means that we are dealing with grievances related to whenua; we have yet to deal with contemporary claims in terms of natural resources and adverse effects upon Māori of land confiscations.

The Office of Treaty Settlements told the Māori Affairs Committee that the rate of progress of historical treaty settlement negotiations has increased. There are now more claimant groups in negotiations than ever before. A new settlement is expected to be reached every 6 months. The reasons given for the increased rate of activity include recent Government commitments, such as the decisions to enter pre-negotiation discussions with five central North Island claimants, they being Te Arawa, Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngāti Manawa, and Ngāti Whare, and to engage in intensive negotiations with Whanganui River claimants, Ngāti Whātua o Orakei, and Ngāti Kahu; the new claims development team established in 2002-03 to assist claimant groups to enter into the negotiation process, to provide advice on mandate issues, and to ensure greater integration between the Crown and the Waitangi Tribunal at the pre-negotiation phase; the Waitangi Tribunal’s new approach to researching, hearing, and reporting on historical treaty claims, with the expectation now that hearings will be concluded by 2010 or 2011; and the progress made on Taranaki and Bay of Plenty claims, which has encouraged other groups to enter into direct negotiations with the Office of Treaty Settlements.

The Taranaki claim, as well as the claims of the far north, are very interesting claims. In the past they have been considered so difficult that they have been placed in the too-hard basket. But through the commitment of this Government, particularly the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, a road ahead has been found, and we are now dealing with many Taranaki claimant groups. We recently settled the Ngāti Ruanui claim, and a lot of credit is due to them for their commitment to their own development. Whilst there are a lot of issues ahead of Ngāti Ruanui, in terms of reconciling differences between themselves and other Taranaki hapū, I have no doubt that in the future they will resolve a lot of those issues, and will work together to promote their future generations, and to develop not only their own economic potential but also their economic independence. Similarly, we are experiencing a lot of progress in the far north. Although what was once described as the Muriwhenua claim had a lot of traction in earlier years, in more recent times it has been very difficult to make progress on it. But through the leadership of the Minister, many of those individual iwi have come to the table and entered into negotiations with this Government.

All of that has happened in a very, very short of space of time, if we compare it with the progress that was made over the last decade. The previous Government hung its hat on two major claim settlements during its 9-year term—and they were very, very difficult claims to settle. There has been a lot of criticism by the other claimant groups, and by members in this House, that the treaty settlements process is far too slow. However, those concerns, whilst well justified, do not take into consideration the difficulties that this Government and the previous Government have faced in working through some very, very difficult issues with regard to those claims.

I understand that the Secretary for Justice previously estimated a period of 25 years for the completion of settlements, but we are also aware that the Waitangi Tribunal re-estimated the date for completion of claims to somewhere around 2014, and has reduced it to 2010 or 2011 under this new approach of hearing claims on district inquiries—that is, a lot of the large, difficult claims are being broken down into smaller groups. There is a schedule of claims, and the claimant groups are now looking to make considerable progress in relation to their claims.

The Māori Affairs Committee will be travelling to Taranaki tomorrow to hear submissions on the Ngāti Tama settlement. That also was considered to be a reasonably difficult claim to progress, but given that the Ngāti Ruanui people broke through a lot of the attitude barriers that they were confronted with, other Taranaki tribes are now seeking to make that same step. At this point I want to congratulate not just the Minister and staff of the Office of Treaty Settlements but also the people of Taranaki on taking such a huge step.

In the central North Island, a number of claimant groups will be looking to make progress over the next year. It is interesting that the Te Arawa lakes negotiations, while quite intensive, are starting to gain traction, and I am sure that their negotiators will be looking to set a date to sign up to a deed of settlement. I will be talking to them over the next few days to make sure they understand that that needs to happen.

I do not want to boast about this Government’s achievements too much, but, as members will be aware, there are some—

Hon John Tamihere: Special!

MITA RIRINUI: Yes, we are a very modest Government, and I am a very modest member, but the achievements of the Labour Government 1 year into its second term are highlighted in the document I have before me. It identifies the area of treaty settlements as quite crucial in terms of the acceleration of Māori development—in particular, those in the central North Island, the people of my electorate, my people of Ngāti Awa, those of Te Arawa, of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau, and Takitimu.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): The report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2003-04 estimates for Vote Treaty Negotiations raises several areas of concern, and I urge the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations to give serious consideration to them, particularly as most of those concerns were shared by all the committee members.

The manner in which they were discussed in the committee shows, I guess, continuation of bipartisan support for treaty settlements. National, of course, continues strongly to support any and all efforts to settle historical injustices, because until we do that and put those injustices behind us we cannot look forward to building a nation. It is because of that wish that I want to raise in some detail one of the areas we traversed in the select committee. It underpins, I think, how critical it is that the Government understand the need properly to resource all parts of the claims settlement process.

There is no doubt that claimants over the last 4 years, as much as they have wanted to move to negotiations, have shown a strong preference to go to negotiations armed with tribunal findings, or, at least, armed with the historical casebook that shows, by and large, the nature of the breaches. They want their day in court, and the Government needs to keep that firmly in mind. It should underpin the funding decisions that it makes.

This year the Office of Treaty Settlements has received additional funding—and I will come to the two main areas—but the Waitangi Tribunal has not. In my view, that will quickly cause a bit of a bottleneck. I heard Mita Ririnui gloat a little about the Government’s achievements; I will not be churlish, given the discussion that went on earlier with Pete Hodgson in relation to science. If settlements are moving through, that is good. The additional funding this year is mainly to enable the Office of Treaty Settlements to strengthen its negotiating capacity; it includes pre-negotiations, and also includes better integration between the Office of Treaty Settlements and the Waitangi Tribunal. Secondly, the additional funding is to strengthen Crown representation at the Waitangi Tribunal hearings.

The new funding is predicated on increased negotiation activity due to, so we are told, a recent Government commitment to enter negotiations with five central North Island iwi, comprising over 100 claims, and, secondly, the Waitangi Tribunal’s new approach to researching, hearing, and reporting on claims, which has caused it to revise its hearing schedule. The hearing of historical claims will be finished, it thinks, in 2011-12 instead of 2014-15. It has been able to revise that date downward to 2011-12. Again, that is promising.

There is a problem, however. It arises, in National’s view, because there seems to be an assumption that streamlining the tribunal’s process means spending less or the same money. National refutes that assumption. In fact, streamlining the process, which means doing the same thing in a shorter time frame, probably means that more resources need to be applied. I understand that the Government, having put a priority on the central North Island claims, expects that the Waitangi Tribunal will hear the claims in tandem with the negotiations activity. One may ask what happens when the Government has this expectation. The answer is that the Waitangi Tribunal must still do the same amount of work but with the Government’s priority in mind, and it must do it on the same funding that it has had in previous years. So it is going to refocus its resources—in fact, it has had to refocus its resources—on the central North Island claims.

But if it does that, it creates a bit of a bottleneck in terms of the work it already has in progress. I understand that the Gisborne report, which was scheduled to be made public in December last year, is 7 months behind. As of today, those claims have not been reported back. The Tauranga report, which was scheduled to be released midway through this year—and we have now passed to the second half of this year—will now not be out, on current timetabling, until the end of the year. In terms of the Tauranga claim, which has focused on the raupatu question, there was going to be a report, and then it was going to move to the next phase. That cannot now be done. The Hauraki hearings have been put back. Although the Government has increased the funding of the Office of Treaty Settlements to get better settlements, it is absolutely clear that those settlements will not occur in the way that they should. When one claim is given priority, it means that other claims already in the process are put on the backburner.

I know that this is not this Minister’s directresponsibility, but she, like all of us, wants to see these historical claims resolved. I would urge the Government to consider putting equivalent increased funding into the tribunal; otherwise, it will get sorely behind. While the central North Island claimants might feel happy that they are getting priority—and while, as a potential beneficiary of those claims, I might be happy about that—I am not happy for that to happen if it means that claims that have already been in the process for some time, and that came in ahead of the central North Island claims, are now being delayed and put back down the programme.

That is a real issue. The committee has discussed it in its report, and I would ask the Minister to urge her colleague the Minister for Courts to consider giving some additional funding to the tribunal, particularly in the light of the fact that the Government seemed willing enough to pump $6.5 million into her treaty education programme. I guess that the bulk of that will go to consultants to hold more seminars, and the gravy train will grow even bigger, while the poor old tribunal struggles along on limited and meagre funds.

One of the other areas of concern was the policy of settling with “large natural groupings”. Concern was expressed by all members of the committee that the Government must take care not to submerge the interests and the identity of smaller groups, of individual iwi, hapū, and whānau, in its wish to encourage the settlement of claims with “large natural groupings”. Obviously, that is proving to be an issue, and National thinks that some effort should go into that area to make sure that nobody is left on the sidelines. Although settlements are coming through this House, Mita Ririnui and the others know very well—and possibly this will happen tomorrow—that there will always be those who feel that, in the push to settle with the wider grouping, others are left out. That is what we cannot afford in the resolution of these claims.

Lastly, there is the issue of the ratification of settlements and governance entities. It seems that there is reasonable buy-in of claimants to the actual deed of settlement—the settlement itself—but there is real concern, which the committee looked at in some detail, about the lessening proportion of eligible voters buying in to the ratification of their governance entity. We wondered why that was so. Certainly, the issue of resourcing is part of it, and we urge the Minister to look at that area.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri): For a moment I want to concentrate on the debate on Vote Serious Fraud Office. I rise with a little bit of sadness in one respect, in that when one reads in the estimates some of the work that the Serious Fraud Office is engaged in, and some of the people it is chasing in order to stitch together the lives of some Kiwis who have been done over, it is quite heartbreaking. I know that last year both John Tamihere and I tried to assist a number of people who were ripped off in scams and dodgy investment schemes. They still lost their dough, their life-savings.

In referring to the estimates, I congratulate the Minister in the chair on the Budget for 2003-04 with funding of $5.365 million. One of the primary roles the Serious Fraud Office will be concentrating on, as it always has done, is white-collar fraud. That is something that I know nearly every member in this House would want to stamp out.

Hon John Tamihere: Not ACT, the rort party.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: Although the rort party from ACT, of course, may take a different view. I want to—

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Possibly, you were not listening, because I am somewhat surprised you did not intercede on what the member who is speaking has just said. Perhaps your attention was distracted, but he accused another party of being the rort party, and made a lot of derogatory statements that are clearly unparliamentary and unacceptable in this Chamber. I would ask that you call upon him to withdraw and apologise. I certainly took offence at the statements he made.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Any reference to a party is taken in the same way as to an individual. If the member has taken offence, under Standing Orders 116 and 117 on personal reflections I ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw and apologise. Maybe my language was slightly tough. Maybe I should be more precise. If members look at the trends in the appropriations, in relation to the Serious Fraud Office it is interesting to see the ongoing trends of mortgage frauds and overseas investment scams that continue to feature amongst its work to try to protect New Zealanders. It notes that New Zealanders lose literally millions of dollars a year to overseas investment schemes, despite warnings, and despite the work of the Serious Fraud Office in prosecuting some of those people.

If members look at the money that will be used in this year’s estimates, and then to the statutory management issue that is in process—which I will not allude to, because it would be wrong to do so—in Tauranga, where I believe Mr Shirley lives, from the work Mr Tamihere and I did last year on the Investors International scam I recall in those speeches we said that people must be warned, and the work of the Serious Fraud Office must be reinforced. I recall asking Mr Hide, who participated in the famous Fiji conference—the investment scam conference—why he did not use his position as a member of Parliament to warn people not to be involved in those schemes.

A year later, the same problem is in Tauranga, where I note that millions of dollars have been fleeced out of a community. The funding in the estimates of $5.3 million will be used to chase those criminals out of town. My point is, did Ken Shirley, the ACT party representative here, do anything about that? He lives in the area. No, he did not. I note the $5.3 million that the Serious Fraud Office will use; still my question to Mr Hide is: why did the great scambuster not warn people, use every office he could to warn people not to invest, and warn them that they could be ripped off by those scumbags in those investment schemes.

He remains silent. Yet tonight we see, and over the course of this Parliament, we have seen, that the ACT party is very quick to expose anything Māori, any corruption, or any scam; it is into it. But do ACT party members of Parliament get off their chuffs to assist the Serious Fraud Office? I commend the director of the Serious Fraud Office, who will be charged with actioning the Attorney-General’s $5.3 million spend. I commend David Bradshaw for the work he does. Like any person charged with upholding the law in this country, every citizen’s duty is to assist the police and the law-enforcement agencies. That applies to everybody, especially members of Parliament, except those gurus in the ACT party. If members want to know why, it is patch protection. That is what it is about. If anybody in this House would know about white-collar scams—and Mr Shirley can take this in any way he likes—it would be him and Rodney Hide. They have uncovered a few, that is true, but they are very selective about the ones they uncover, and they do not like it—

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Again, I am somewhat surprised that you have not interceded. Clearly, the member has breached a whole succession of the Standing Orders. Furthermore, the specific reference to Rodney Hide has been the subject of a personal statement in this House. The member has been banging away on that now for about a year. He has been brought to order before on it and he continues to breach that. Mr Chairperson, I ask you again to ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise for his outrageous, unfounded, inaccurate statements that caused offence.

Hon Mark Burton: I was paying very close attention to what the member said. In fact, in the part the member has taken exception to it seems to me that clearly, the member was simply suggesting that Mr Hide and Mr Shirley had indeed engaged themselves in uncovering some scams, but of a selective nature. I cannot see how he can possibly take exception.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I refer to Standing Order 117, which deals with personal reflections. The member has taken offence, and I ask the member on his feet to withdraw.

CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw. I want to talk about one point that has been raised about a personal explanation.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I shall speak to a number of the votes—Attorney-General, Serious Fraud, and Treaty Negotiations—and I mention the Serious Fraud Office first. Interestingly enough, one of the people involved in these types of arrangements—mortgage refinancing purchase arrangements—came to see me as a lawyer about 18 months ago. It was fairly obvious that the person, of Fijian extraction, did not understand what was going on. As a lawyer, I told her not to go ahead with it, and she did not go ahead with it. Unfortunately, the situation that arises in many of these cases in west Auckland is that people are up to their limit on their financing; they need to refinance to be able to keep their house. They refinance by way of selling the house to the lender—having what used to be called “equity and redemption”—and the whole situation just falls apart.

Technically, it is not a scam, but, as a lawyer, I advised my client not to go ahead with it. Sadly, she was so over-financed that there was a mortgagee sale anyway. I just make that point. Of course, as far as the ACT party is concerned, and as far as the Labour Party is concerned, I am sure there is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty to fraud.

Hon Ken Shirley: No.

DAIL JONES: There is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty to fraud—

Hon Ken Shirley: Or uttering.

DAIL JONES: —or uttering, and had that conviction discharged by the court. I am sure there is no one in the ACT party who has pleaded guilty and had an initial conviction for fraud.

Going back to the estimates, all I can say is that from New Zealand First’s point of view we have an absolutely hopeless Attorney-General in the Chamber tonight. As we all know, the role of an Attorney-General, by convention, is that the person must exercise independent judgment impartially, without exceptions for party political goals; the incumbent should be free of any compromising portfolio or policy obligations, although it is permissible for the Attorney-General to consult Cabinet colleagues on issues having political implications. Does this Attorney-General come within these categories? Of course she does not. She holds other Cabinet portfolios and takes an interest, especially, in items like the Supreme Court Bill, which are mentioned in the estimates. As a member of the select committee, I asked her what sort of consensus there was amongst Māori people for support for the Privy Council.

Clayton Cosgrove: What would you know about that?

DAIL JONES: We got a letter from the Attorney-General, which I will read to that honourable member. That letter, dated 23 September 2002, referred to various meetings: “These meetings resulted in a general consensus that the time is right to remove appeals to the Privy Council and establish a court of final appeal.” She was saying that that is what the Māori people of New Zealand had said at those various meetings. Now, we know that that is very far from the truth, because submission after submission to the select committee has indicated that that is not the case. Up and down this country Ngāi Tahu do not agree. They say they want constitutional change before any consideration is given to the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. This Minister misled, I believe, the select committee at the time last year, and continues to do so.

We were told that the thing we should do is go to the hui at Turangi over the weekend, and we would get the real indication from them, and that we in the select committee, and New Zealand First, would be proved wrong. So what do we get from the hui report, which I have read, and I am sure members of the Labour Party do not even know exists? I shall quote from some of the answers regarding the final Court of Appeal: “Important issues require wider debate within Māoridom”; “Lack of information sharing at the Auckland hui”—the one to which the Minister referred; “Dissatisfied with consultation”; “No adequate consultation on bill. Consultation was bad. There was no notice. Need to go back to people, hapū, iwi.” That is the message to the Minister; and the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs supports the view that we should have much wider consultation on this bill. It is clear that the select committee was misled by this Minister last year, and the Labour members, especially the Māori members, I am sure, are now greatly concerned about the trend being taken in this legislation.

As far as Vote Treaty Negotiations is concerned, we have been talking about the year 2014 tonight! The answers we have been getting from the Minister in the chair on this issue indicate that it will be hundreds of years before the young Māori lad in Otara, or up in Whangarei, or in Porirua ever sees a fish, or a dollar, or anything. All the money is going to the consultants; all the money is going to the lawyers, as I know from the way in which lawyers charge; and it is going to those people who get up there, run around, get briefs as bureaucrats, sit on the tribunal, and collect all the money. This situation will go on for ever. It is a disgrace, and New Zealand First is going to do something about it.

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General): I would like to make a few comments on the matters that have been raised in the estimates debate. First, I would like to add my compliments to the Serious Fraud Office on the very good work it does, and the fact that it has been warning the select committee of an increase in the number of scams. At times the select committee has been perhaps a little distracted, if I may say, with events of the past, but that warning has been heard, and taken up by this Government, and it is consistent with the approach of the Serious Fraud Office, which is a pre-emptive approach to the issue; it has sought and received some extra funding in its investigations.

I might also touch on a second matter that has been raised by the member from the New Zealand First Party on the Supreme Court. Of course there are various views within Māoridom. The correspondence the member referred to was obviously in that time and context. There have been continuing discussions and debate, of which he has been part but which he obviously did not put in the context of the written communication he had, which was some time ago. Why should people in the Māori community all be of one mind? Certainly people in the Pākehā-European community, and people in other communities in our society, are not of one mind. So it is really important that we get the diversity of views.

It is just a pity that the member did not take advantage of the opportunity to join us on the weekend—a beautiful weekend in Taupo—to be able to get, for the full 3 days, the absolute benefit for that total time, rather than dipping out of the issue to suit one’s own position.

I want to make my substantive comments relating to the portfolio in the estimates debate on treaty negotiations, and I wish to acknowledge the comments made by my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, and say that I do appreciate her acknowledgment that there is a bipartisan support for the settlement of historical grievance process. I appreciated that, and took her comments on that process in the spirit of those who wish to ensure the claims are settled as quickly as possible.

I draw the previous speaker’s attention to what was in the estimates. As members are aware, the Crown’s objective has been to settle historical grievances in a timely fashion, but it recognises that if we try to hurry this process artificially, as the fiscal envelope process attempted to do, we will delay what will be full and final, and what we would call “durable settlements”, which is what we intend to achieve.

It is important to realise that in the estimates, increased funding was given in support of this process, and two particular output classes are relevant to this debate. The first is funding that assists the claimants to enter negotiations—negotiations with the claimants on behalf of the Crown—and, second, the implementation of those agreed settlements. It is important to acknowledge that $895,000 has been allocated, in addition. We have now an increased level of funding so that the negotiation activity can be consistent with the number of claimants who are entering into the process.

It is important to acknowledge that whereas 12 months ago the funding was given to set up claimant development teams—and that was important at the time, to assist claimants to be able to get to the position of negotiations—this year, the success of that process means we need additional funding for the actual negotiations. Therefore the funding will be directed to assist those in the negotiating process. So the increased funding means, in practical terms, that the Office of Treaty Settlements can establish a further negotiating team, and that, I think, demonstrates our commitment to that process.

I also would draw members’ attention to the second output class, and that is representation of the Crown before the Waitangi Tribunal. I acknowledge the comments of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu in this respect. It is important to understand that just funding to the tribunal itself will not necessarily increase the process. What was important, we found in the analysis into how we increase the timeliness of the tribunal’s capacity to be able to hear and produce reports, is that that is to a large extent dependent upon the input from the Crown into that process. Therefore the output class has increased by $302,000, and that is funding that will go to the Crown to ensure that our funding will enable us to not delay the tribunal in its hearing of claims that come before it.

It is also important to acknowledge the progress that has been made, and although my colleague Mita Ririnui has made some reference to this, it probably does bear some repetition. The first point is that we have made significant progress in the Taranaki claims, and what that means is at times somewhat forgotten. Not only have we settled Ngāti Ruanui, and we have Ngāti Tama’s bill before the select committee, but also we are making considerable progress with Ngā Rauru, and Ngāti Mutunga has come into negotiations again. So we should see a timely settlement there. Most important, the Whanganui River Māori are also entering negotiations with us.

Progress has been made in the Bay of Plenty, the central North Island, and in other parts of the country, particularly Auckland and Northland. It is important because people are beginning to realise that this is a comprehensive thrust on the settlement of claims, and not just a settlement in one region. At the moment I notice that the focus has been on the central North Island, and although that is important, it is not draining resources from other areas, because that has been factored into our planning. If the mandating process is successful, then over 100 claims will be able to be settled through that particular negotiation; that does not mean we are not attending to the needs of Ngāti Whātua o Orakei in Auckland or Te Rarawa in the north, or Te Arawa in terms of the lakes claims. All those claims are proceeding at the same time.

The honourable member Georgina te Heuheu did raise some issues that were raised at the select committee and were heard by the Government in terms of its approach to this. We tried to explain in some detail, and with a great deal of transparency, the process that we are following here. Certainly, we are always open to ways we can improve it. But the truth is that on issues like large natural groupings—and such issues were raised by members of the select committee—one cannot in fact have every particular claim, particularly every whanau claim, settled individually and, at the same time, argue that there should be a timely settlement of all claims. That lies behind the large natural groupings policy of the Crown and why we do not enter into negotiations with claimants until we get a consensus on what that grouping should be. I agree that ratification rates should be higher in some instances, but in other instances it is very high, so the question is whether there is evidence of uneven ratification numbers in that respect.

Finally, a great deal of discussion was had at the hui on the weekend as to how we can improve the governance arrangements, and the Crown was certainly open to hearing how we can ensure we get the resources that will come through the historical process of settlement of claims to the beneficiaries, which is the ultimate purpose of this process. So I would argue in this estimates debate that the Crown is placing its resources where they are most needed.

Vote Attorney General agreed to.

Vote Labour agreed to.

Vote Parliamentary Counsel agreed to.

Vote Serious Fraud agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Vote Treaty Negotiations be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Labour 52; United Future 8.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Abstentions 9

Green Party 9.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Māori Affairs

MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki): Before I launch into this particular portfolio area, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Hon Parekura Horomia, in what we can describe as a very difficult portfolio. He has been under considerable pressure over a number of weeks, but he has come through it with a big smile on his face, and that is something that the Committee needs to appreciate.

As a member of the Māori Affairs Committee that reviewed these estimates, I am pleased to recommend them to the Committee—[Interruption] I welcome into the Chamber Mr Rodney Hide, who, in his absence, took a considerable battering from both sides of the Chamber. In 2003-04 the increases in Vote Māori Affairs primarily relate to the non-departmental output classes in the area of Māori broadcasting—in other words, Māori television and Te Māngai Pāho—organisations that have been subject to considerable scrutiny in this House. The appropriation sought for Māori Television Broadcasting increases from $30.5 million in 2002-03 to $37.9 million in this current financial round. The appropriation sought for the Māori Television Service increases from $5.9 million in 2002-03 to $12.9 million in this financial year. This level of funding is to be maintained in the out-years, and I am sure that both sides of the Chamber are very pleased to hear that. This funding builds on the work already undertaken towards the establishment of the Māori Television Service. It includes the passing of the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act earlier this year, which marked a new era in New Zealand broadcasting and, more important, in Māori broadcasting. That legislation established the Māori Television Service as a statutory corporation, providing it with full powers and abilities to proceed with the development of a Māori television channel.

This channel, as we know, has been a long time coming, and has been eagerly awaited by Māori and non-Māori around the country. I look forward to sitting in front of my television and viewing, with the rest of my family, some of the wonderful work that we can expect from Māori television. I was fortunate enough to get a glimpse of some of the material that Aotearoa Television produced, and I have to admit that it was well beyond my expectation of what can be achieved in Māori broadcasting. This channel will provide us, as Māori, with a vehicle to tell our own stories in the way that we have traditionally told them, in our own language, and in a manner that will educate, inform, and entertain our young people—although there are members on the Opposition benches who do not appreciate quality broadcasting.

These estimates also provide an increase in the appropriation to local Māori broadcasting. By that, I refer to iwi radio. Funding for iwi radio is appropriated through the non-departmental output class 04, Māori radio broadcasting. That output class increases from $10.3 million in 2002-03 to $10.5 million in this current financial round. The additional funding of $250,000 will be allocated to Te Māngai Pāho for training and upskilling staff employed by iwi radio stations, including technical, managerial, and governance training. I am sure that Mr Rodney Hide will appreciate that.

These iwi radio stations are a part of the Māori communities that they provide coverage to, and are at the very heart of the work this Government is doing to promote and revitalise the Māori language. The Government’s primary interest in Māori radio is in the role it can play in regenerating te reo Māori. It also has a major influence on increasing the amount of popular music in Māori, further heightening interest of rangatahi in learning their language. Currently, there are 21 iwi radio stations, which provide Māori with the opportunity to tell stories about what is happening in their communities. Those stories might cover the swimming sports at the local school, or events at the marae. That is what public broadcasting is all about.

Speaking of local initiatives, I can say that I was recently visited by the manager of Moana AM, the Māori station in Tauranga, which, throughout the day, has a component by which it educates the public—not just Māori, but non-Māori as well—in local Māori history. It also provides classes in Māori language. Some innovative projects are currently taking place at the local level, and I am sure they will be applauded throughout the country.

In this particular portfolio, I also want to touch on the subject of building the capacity of Māori organisations. My colleague the Hon John Tamihere and myself were fortunate to receive a delegation from East Africa yesterday, and its mentors were present in the House today. One thing delegation members were interested in was learning about Māori structures, both traditional and contemporary. They themselves are going through changes, and want to learn from other indigenous peoples. I was very impressed with the quality of their presentation to us, and the intensity of their inquiries. They were surprised to learn that after so many decades of colonisation, traditional Māori structures still existed. We were pleased to advise them that, by and large, they existed partly because this Government, and the previous Government, were committed to building their capacity, and that new structures were being designed to accommodate contemporary organisations. In that case, we were referring to urban Māori authorities, which play a major and important role in providing services and opportunities to urban Māori populations. The delegation also drew comparisons between the roles that their leaders and many Māori leaders play in the development of their people. There is not a great difference in how those leadership roles operate, but it was good to see that there were some comparisons.

In relation to capacity-building funds, we heard criticisms in the Māori Affairs Committee that a lot of the organisations receiving assistance were conducting programmes that were considered to lack credibility. I think those criticisms were made only to gain political points at the select committee level, because I was well aware of the programmes referred to. In fact, those programmes are targeted at young people in high-risk communities whose opportunities in life are pretty limited, or do not exist. The communities they belong to have a very high gang involvement.

I recall the questions asked in this House by the Hon Murray McCully in relation to a capacity-building grant given to a skateboarding organisation in Gisborne. He considered it to be a waste of taxpayers’ funds. I can tell the member that that organisation looked for ways to work alongside a lot of the young people from a very high-risk community where gangs are active on a daily basis. It was an innovative programme that gave young people—even children of pre-school age—the opportunity to experience a lot of what the children of members in this House experience on a day-to-day basis. Whilst we might think that skateboarding is probably a waste of time, it is, in fact, a highly skilled international sport.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): Given the major controversies that have surrounded the Māori Television Service and Te Māngai Pāho in the recent past, it is a pity that the major increases in funding to Vote Māori Affairs this year have gone into those areas. I say that because there are still so many areas where real impacts have yet to be made in the area of Māori moving forward. I am talking about the rise in obesity and diabetes, which are reaching epidemic proportions in Māori communities. While we might listen to the applause of members on the other side in relation to the money that is going into Māori television, there are many who would say, and I would be one, that they would rather see money being poured into improving the life chances of our little ones—mainly into their health, and into the basic things they need to learn to improve their opportunities in life.

As I say, it is a pity that the major increases in funding have gone into Māori broadcasting. There is an increase of approximately $7.3 million for the making of programmes, and $7.075 million for the operation of the Māori Television Service. We voted against the bill that set up the Māori Television Service. From my point of view, that was difficult, but the reason we voted against it was that its history has been so shambolic. We still have no date for that service coming on air. There is nothing yet to indicate to us that the people responsible for setting it up know what they are doing. They have gone quiet. Other than a massive advertisement in the newspapers calling for appointments to 140-odd positions, we have no idea whether the money that has gone in so far will have been worth spending. We say that, not on our own behalf, but on behalf of the taxpayers whose money it is.

I would like to see the Minister move to make some real progress on the health of our little ones and the well-being of our elderly. The recent report on mortality rates among Māori and Pacific Island people gives one great cause for concern. How much will a Māori television service help those issues? In my view, it is very doubtful that they will have any impact at all.

The other area I want to spend a little time on—

Hon Dover Samuels: They’re sick of watching Coronation Street.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I do not think they will stop watching Coronation Street, unfortunately. Like most New Zealanders, they are glued to it, just as they are glued to Shortland Street. However, people are entitled to spend their recreational time as they see fit, just as long as while they are doing so they think about the fact that we are all getting overweight in the process. That is looming as a major issue for health funding and health needs in the future.

The other aspect of the vote is a slight reduction in real development activities, which is to be regretted. There is less for facilitation and brokerage and more for State sector performance monitoring. That is a whole saga of its own, particularly when Te Puni Kōkiri has shown itself incapable of monitoring the body for which it is directly responsibility, Te Māngai Pāho. Te Puni Kōkiri was asked during the estimates process whether it had a robust process in place to avoid the kind of debacle of recent months, when members on this side of the House were telling the Minister what was going on in Te Māngai Pāho. That is an absolute disgrace.

In addition to that, we see money going into Te Puni Kōkiri annually to monitor the big State sector agencies. It cannot even monitor Te Māngai Pāho properly, so we are kidding ourselves that it is capable of monitoring big-spending agencies. After all, while we might review the spending that goes on in Te Puni Kōkiri, who will be accountable for that spending? Nobody seems to be chasing down the millions of dollars that are going to waste in big agencies on the closing the gaps programme, or reducing inequalities, or whatever one wants to call it. Whatever it is, nobody is monitoring that. It is time that some focus was put on the money being spent in those big agencies. If major health issues are looming for Māori people, we have to ask what was the purpose of “gaps” money going into, for instance, the Ministry of Health? Until some proper benchmarks are set, and some proper monitoring is going on, we will never know the purpose of it. We will only see the results, and the results are shameful, so on and on it goes.

In slight defence of Te Puni Kōkiri—and the committee certainly realised this—the issue of its ability to monitor the big spending agencies is a farce. Trevor Mallard announced a review of Te Puni Kōkiri following the debacle over Te Māngai Pāho, and as part of that review, I hope that the ministry’s “sheriff role”—it is like a sheriff riding without guns—will be reviewed. The committee expressed concerns about whether Te Puni Kōkiri was properly resourced to monitor the big agencies, particularly when it has had difficulty monitoring Te Māngai Pāho, and whether it gets cooperation from the big spending agencies, because they appear to be very clever at avoiding monitoring.

While I am mindful that Te Puni Kōkiri has a role in that area at the moment, I reiterate the concerns that members of the committee expressed about whether that role is appropriate for a ministry that calls itself—and would like to see itself—as a development ministry. In my view, somebody else should chase the big-spending agencies. Maybe Te Puni Kōkiri would like to see itself free of that role, anyway. There are other departments and agencies, including Audit New Zealand and the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit. Why could they not monitor the big agencies? Why should taxpayers’ money be spent on a small agency like Te Puni Kōkiri that has difficulty monitoring another small agency like Te Māngai Pāho, so that it can chase down the big agencies? The Minister should take note of that issue, and if it is not included in the current review, it should be.

Lastly, I come to the issue of the Minister himself. I certainly saw the Minister in full force at the hui in Paeroa. Yes, he is right—on the marae, he is great, and I support him. He gave a great performance at the foreshore and seabed hui in Paeroa, but the fact of the matter is that when one takes the ministerial warrant, one takes the responsibilities that come with it. Being able to engage with Māori up and down the country is a very small part of the responsibility that goes with that warrant. A big part of it is discharging one’s responsibilities here in Parliament, being accountable for the money being spent—

Jill Pettis: And delivering to the people, which we are doing.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Did that member hear me? Is she worried about the health of little Māori children, and the poverty that exists in various parts of the country ?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs): Ā, ki a koe e te rangatira. E te whanaunga, rangatira, kei te Minita, kei te mihi nunui ki a koe mō tō mahi kei te awhi i a mātau. He iwi kotahi tātou mō ngā motu. No reira, tēnā rā koe. Kai wareware i a mātou mō ngā mema ki tēnei taha, kei te mahi kaha mō ngā kaimahi mō te Tari o Te Puni Kōkiri. No reira, Leith, mō tō rōpu, mō te kaimahi, kai te mihi, kai te mihi, kai te mihi nunui ki a koutou.

I was acknowledging, firstly, you, Madam Chairperson, as the Chair, and, secondly, my relation Parekura Horomia, as the Minister in the chair, and was acknowledging the work that he has been doing in bringing our people together and supporting them. I particularly wanted to acknowledge the fine work that the workers at Te Puni Kōkiri conduct under the leadership of their chief executive officer, Leith Comer. Māori come from a range of communities that, at times, can be most ungrateful and thankless with regard to the efforts that are made on their behalf—they never seem to be good enough. So, at given points of time in this House, it is very important that we acknowledge the difficulties that a number of people who engage with our communities on our behalf work under. To that extent, I wanted to acknowledge, on behalf of members on this side of the House, the work and commitment of the workers of Te Puni Kōkiri.

I think it is extraordinarily rich that a certain member of the National Party sits on that side of the Chamber. When I open the Dominion Post I read that the leader of that party says that Māori cannot be trusted, yet Georgina te Heuheu has the temerity and the audacity to come into this Parliament and talk on behalf of that party. That is a disgrace. Something will have to happen pretty soon because I tell members that for “Wild Bill”, the dipstick from Dipton, to make that particular comment must have been—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member must refer to other members by their correct names.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I withdraw and apologise.

Rodney Hide: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have dealt with the matter, Mr Hide. The matter has been dealt with.

Rodney Hide: Point of order—

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

Rodney Hide: It is two points of order in a row.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Hide—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Number one: Jill Pettis was calling out right through my point of order. That is out of order and you did not stop her. Number two: I took offence at what the Hon John Tamihere said. You did not allow me the opportunity to give my point of order. You sat me down before I had finished. Secondly, you did not ask him to withdraw and apologise. I thank the Minister for doing that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. I have dealt with—

Rodney Hide: What is the point of making a point of order when you do not listen to it? And do not wave your hand, you queer cow over there.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. The member has dealt with it.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: The real point I wanted to make about—

Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I have just taken offence at the comment that member has made, and I want him to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order.

Jill Pettis: Yes, it was. Did you hear what he said?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry but I did not hear an offensive comment. I tell Mr Hide and members that there will be silence during points of order and when I am ruling on points of order. I will now ask the member whether—I did not hear it—he made an offensive comment to Jill Pettis.

Rodney Hide: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please withdraw and apologise.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I want to put it on the record that when the honourable member from Dipton took part in the Fight for Life promotion last year, he was called—it was on all the posters—“Wild Bill from Dipton”. I am only recording what is publicly and widely acknowledged and known.

The Leader of the Opposition has definitely lost it. He is actually saying to the New Zealand public that if they want to support the National Party, they have to be on an income of $60,000 or above and come from a European community—preferably on the right side of town. National is now doing exactly what Maurice Williamson said—

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is an estimates debate on Vote Māori Affairs, and has nothing to do with members of this Parliament. The member’s comments should be related solely to Vote Māori Affairs.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member is correct. I ask the member to come back to the estimates debate.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: Coming back to the estimates debate, I note that the Māori Television Service has had an extra appropriation of about $7.4 million made to it. I am given to understand, because I have very good contacts in the Māori community, that there are a number of productions in the can. One of them is about the leadership of the Hon Bill English. In that regard, taxpayers’ money will be spent to this extent. What will happen in that particular—

Government Member: It’s a comedy.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: No, it is not a comedy, but it does track the political exploits of this member. To the extent that taxpayers’ money—good money—is being spent on that, I am saying that, in exploring the exploits of this wonderful member, we have to start to understand that what Maurice Williamson is saying quite clearly—and he will be on the box, he will be on Māori television as well—is that the National Party now is focused solely on 20 percent of the vote in this nation. It has nothing to do with community. It has nothing to do with nationhood. [Interruption] Madam Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No. The allocation is 5 minutes only.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: There has been a Speaker’s ruling with regard to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is the member raising a point of order?

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I am raising a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Point of order, John Tamihere.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am seeking a second call, to this extent: I was under the understanding that Speakers’ rulings with regard to our seeking a further call, in terms of 5-minute speaking times, had been waived till the end of this year. That was a decision made by the Committee of the whole House.

Dail Jones: I think that the agreement on the estimates debate is that there are two 10-minute speeches at the beginning, and there are 5-minute speeches afterwards. That ruling was given by the Chairperson at the beginning of this estimates debate. The member’s point of order is specious.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I also remind members that the Minister in the chair can have a second call, but no one else.

ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is a matter of some concern that I wish to raise. There are two parts to it.

I have just come down to the Chamber to do the last hour of duty for the Green MPs, only to discover that of the 36 minutes that we had been allocated for this estimates debate, we have so far received only 22 minutes’ debating time. So we are about to be short-changed by 14 minutes—[Interruption] I fully appreciate that and I was going to come to it. My concern is that there was a Business Committee agreement at the outset of this process, which all parties agreed to. There was a time allocation submitted by David Benson-Pope. We respected that agreement—that we would get 36 minutes in this debate. We allocated our members to speak to the votes they wished to speak to. In three of our cases, members wanted to speak to the votes of Ministers who are lower down in the order—Mr Mark Burton, and Mr Paul Swain twice. I now find that, with this debate due to finish in less than 15 minutes’ time, our last three MPs will not have the opportunity to speak, and I think that is grossly unfair because an agreement was reached, and that agreement will now be broken.

Secondly, there seems to be a perverse incentive in this place that if people behave well, they actually get penalised. I think this is the first point of order that the Greens have raised in this whole 8-hour debate, yet we are the party that, proportionately, will suffer most because of the time running out. I acknowledge that parties like New Zealand First are also missing out—and even Labour is missing out. The reverse seems to be the case if parties perpetually raise points of order; they end up with extra time. One party in this House—ACT—has had 9 minutes more in this debate than was agreed by the Business Committee.

So there are two things that I seek from you. The first is that you take some time to discuss with the Speaker—I do not think it quite warrants our recalling the Speaker at this stage—how the situation was allowed to happen, and to look for a remedy to the situation so that parties actually get their fair time in the estimates debate. For that matter, Ministers need to have a fair chance to talk to the estimates for their votes. One possible solution would be for you to subtract from a party’s time allocation the time it has spent raising points of order during the debate—if the debate has to remain a fixed-time debate. The second thing I ask of you is an immediate remedy, which is that this debate be extended by at least the 9 minutes that one party has received above its allocation, and, preferably, by the amount of time necessary to enable those parties that have not had their full allocation to be able to take up that allocation.

So I seek leave for this debate to be extended to give sufficient time for those parties that have been short-changed, because other parties have taken points of order, to have their fair share. Perhaps I could invite the chief Government whip to advise us of how much time that would involve.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Briefly, I want to say I really sympathise with the member over the issues he has raised. He was not able to be in the Chamber earlier when a good deal of the time was consumed by points of order. It is a matter of deep regret that we did indeed lose so much time. Unfortunately, that was not because of the breaking of a formal agreement of the Business Committee. I think that because tonight we have experienced one party showing total disregard for the goodwill on which relations in this Parliament have to be based, agreements reached in good faith on the part of some are no longer enough, and I think in future we will have to have formal agreements by the Business Committee that are ratified in the House before such debates start. It is a matter of regret that we cannot agree to the leave that the member is seeking. To do so would further reward the bad behaviour that got us to this point, unfortunately, and further delay the business of the House.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ): Madam Chair, first, I understood that when leave is sought there is a requirement for the Chair to put it forthwith, and not entertain further points of order, as you just did. I am also concerned about the bad interpretation that we just heard from Mr Burton. ACT had accepted that there had been a genuine misunderstanding. I had been happy to restrict my speech to 5 minutes, but it was the intemperate and nasty language from the senior Government whip that caused the extra minutes. The Government will have to learn that it cannot be provocative—that if it dishes it out, it will get it back. That is the point. ACT will always retaliate when we get that sort of nonsense from Mr David Benson-Pope. However, it is my earlier point that I want to impress upon you. When leave is sought, I understand it is a requirement of the Chair to put it forthwith.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I will come to that in a minute.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I am rather surprised and, frankly, somewhat disappointed by the statement that Mr Shirley has just made. I think that my conduct in the face of very severe provocation by him earlier in the Committee was entirely moderate and temperate. [Interruption] I provided the Committee with the information that was needed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have warned members once about speaking while points of order are being heard. This is the final warning.

DAVID BENSON-POPE: I take offence at Mr Shirley’s accusation—

Hon Ken Shirley: This isn’t a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have given a warning. It is up to me to rule whether this is a point of order.

DAVID BENSON-POPE: I take offence at the suggestion, which would be refuted by anyone present in the Committee, that my behaviour was intemperate, immoderate, or offensive, if that word was used, as well. I ask Mr Shirley to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, I do not think that is necessary. An informal agreement between the whips was entered into; it was not an agreement of the Business Committee. It is a matter that must be sorted out between the whips. It is not a matter on which I can rule. The debate time is fixed in the Standing Orders. I refer members to page 95 of the Standing Orders. It is not within the Committee’s power to put leave to extend the time of the debate. It is a matter that the House would have to address.

ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I wish to foreshadow that when the House does resume, I will be seeking leave for it to go back into Committee, to extend this debate. [Interruption] I seek your guidance. To enable my request to happen, do I need to recall the Speaker now, or can I make that request when the Speaker returns?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): You can make that request when the Speaker returns. Having just taken advice, I note that we will have completed the estimates and put the vote before progress is reported, so it would have to be done now.

ROD DONALD: Having received your advice, I will ask one further question. What happens to all the votes that we have not taken? Do they all have to be taken within the 8 hours, or is the Government not able to spend those budgets if they do not—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, they will be put as one vote at the end of the 8 hours.

ROD DONALD: In that case, I request that the Speaker be recalled so that I can seek leave for this debate to be extended.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Speaker, members wish to raise the matter that there is insufficient time for this debate. Leave has been sought to extend the time of the debate, and your ruling is sought on that matter.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no difficulty. If anyone wants to seek leave now, he or she can.

ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green): I seek leave for the debate to be extended by the amount of time which parties have not been able to utilise, as per the allocation done by the senior Government whip. In the case of the Green Party, we have been able to use only 22 minutes of the 36 minutes allocated to us. I would like briefly to make the observation that there appears to be a perverse incentive during this debate whereby if one behaves well, one misses out on time, and if one behaves badly, one gets extra time. I think that wider matter needs to be addressed by you in consultation with the Business Committee, but for now I seek leave for extra time to enable us to get our fair share of this debate.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I take the leave, which I will do immediately, I point out that there was no Business Committee agreement on the allocation of time for the estimates debate. Indeed, the allocation of the time for the estimates debate was never discussed at the Business Committee. If the whips work out agreements, it is incumbent on them to settle disputes about them, and not have the time of the House wasted by agreements being litigated on the floor of the House. Both Mr McGee and I were present at the Business Committee. Leave is sought to extend the debate. Is there any objection? There is.

Debate resumed.

In Committee

Vote Māori Affairs (continued)

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): The Māori television vote has increased from $30.59 million in 2002-03 to $37.983 million in 2003-04, which is an increase of $7.392 million. That funding increase was sought for the non-departmental output class “Māori Television Broadcasting”.

The chief executive officer of Te Puni Kōkiri has said that he has confidence in the ability of the Māori Television Service to ascertain its operational requirements. New Zealand First has queried that. We have questioned the estimated number of staff who are to be employed, and have asked for those positions to be identified, along with the skills and qualifications of the applicants, and the interview format that will be used—especially after the debacle over the appointment of Mr Davies.

According to the Māori television bill, the television service is to teach te reo, hopefully, to a standard of fluency, and to provide for the retention of protocol. If this form of learning through this medium is sufficient, New Zealand First will be asking how this learning process will be facilitated. New Zealand First would expect a review to see who has learnt the language fluently, and understands the nuts and bolts of the tikanga. I ask, as I did before, who will be facilitating the learning process of the viewers.

The sum of $37.983 million is a lot to account for. New Zealand First will expect nothing less than positive results in the administration of Māori television. I ask again what the cost to the consumer will be, and whether all Māori will receive this transmission. If the tribunal found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Māori language, this had better happen. The public demands it, because accountability is required by the taxpayer. Te Māngai Pāho has been the laughing stock of the nation. Here we go again. The inadequacies of this organisation have been revealed in the House, along with the questionable reporting system. This has come to a cost of $10.57 million, with additional funds of $250,000 for staff training. This organisation had better get it right, because we are tired, and Māori are tired, of the adverse adjectives that the public freely throw about.

Would not all this money be put to better use in education, employment, housing, and health? Two weeks ago, my colleagues in New Zealand First and I spent a day at the Auckland remand prison and at the Paremoremo maximum security prison. I ask members to guess who the majority of the inmates were. Can we keep Māori out of prisons by giving grants for a skateboard club to redevelop a skateboard bowl, or grants to teach Māori how to break-dance without being injured? This is called capacity building, they say! Is this what we call capacity building? What is the process we are following? Is there any potential for positive development?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The time allocated to the consideration of the estimates referred to in the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill has expired. I am now required to put as one question the remaining votes and provisions of the bill, as per Standing Order 325.

The question was put that Vote ACC, Vote Child, Youth and Family Services, Vote Commerce, Vote Communications, Vote Community and Voluntary Sector, Vote Conservation, Vote Consumer Affairs, Vote Corrections, Vote Courts, Vote Customs, Vote Defence, Vote Defence Force, Vote Emergency Management, Vote Environment, Vote Immigration, Vote Internal Affairs, Vote Lands, Vote Local Government, Vote Māori Affairs, Vote National Archives, Vote National Library, Vote Official Development Assistance, Vote Police, Vote Racing, Vote Senior Citizens, Vote State-Owned Enterprises; Vote Statistics, Vote Tourism, Vote Transport, Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Defence), Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Social Development), Vote Women’s Affairs, Vote Youth Affairs, the preamble, clauses 1 to 13, and schedule 6 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the votes, the preamble, clauses 1 to 13, and schedule 6 be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Labour 52; United Future 8.

Noes 47

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Abstentions 9

Green Party 9.

Votes, preamble, clauses 1 to 13, and schedule 6 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you ruled earlier on the issue of leave to extend the estimates debate I did not hear you give a view on my request that you take some time to look at the whole issue of how the 8-hour estimates debate is allocated. I am not asking you for a decision; I am asking for your formal consideration of the problem that we have just faced.

Mr SPEAKER: The Standing Orders deal with that. There is a Standing Orders Committee. I am perfectly happy to have time set aside at that committee to consider the issue, and I think that is the appropriate place to do it. I invite the member, if he so wishes, to make a short submission to the committee, and I will ensure it is heard.

Bills

State Sector Amendment Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): This is an interesting bill. It is one that has been sitting around for the last 22 months. The last time we debated it was on 11 September 2001. At that time, the Government was rushing the bill through without allowing for submissions. National is very concerned about the consequences of this legislation. We agreed at the first reading that it should go to a select committee. We are concerned about a number of parts, but what we should really be looking at is its effect. The explanatory note states that the Crown is to reorganise Government departments by Order in Council, rather than through Acts of Parliament on each occasion. The Crown is to do away with departments—abolish them, merge them, and amalgamate them—as can be seen in the explanatory note, which gives an explanation of the different changes in names and the amalgamations of the different departments.

It is National’s view that the bill should be called the State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill, because that is what it will do. It will disempower a number of Government departments. Or it could be called the State Sector (Abolition) Amendment Bill. The title should reflect what the bill does; that is what should be in a title. If I buy a book, I want to know what is inside the book. When I look at this bill, I should see that its title is synonymous with what it is all about, and this bill is about reorganising Government departments. That is why we believe that the title should reflect that, and it is why I have suggested that the bill should be called the State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill. That is the name of the brand. The title is a marketing tool, and it is the sort of thing that we believe should be important.

When I see the title “State Sector Amendment Bill”, I wonder what it actually means. Until one looks inside the bill one would not know what it means. In fact, I suggest that Government members have absolutely no idea about what is in the bill. There is no indication in the title whatsoever of what the bill does. It does not set out the sorts of things that I have just mentioned. The bill does state, once one gets into it, that a department can change its name. The title does not reflect that, and in our view it is very important that the title should do that.

In fact, the explanatory note states: “Because machinery of government changes affecting Departments are simply the Crown reorganising the manner in which it conducts its affairs, it is considered appropriate to deal with these matters in this Act and by Orders in Council rather than by the enactment of Acts of Parliament on each occasion.” That is what it states. We see that sort of thing here in this bill, but it is not reflected in the title. Why is the power of the executive not reflected in the title? The point about this is that the executive, by Order in Council, has quite tremendous powers to be able to make changes to the machinery of government, without the scrutiny of Parliament—without the debate that we can have here tonight—and that really should be reflected in the title of this bill. It does not reflect the fact that by means of Orders in Council, chief executive officers can be removed simply by the merging of departments. I would have thought that that was a significant matter.

The bill also politicises the whole process, in our view. It goes through the process and politicises it, by providing that the Government can get rid of somebody just by merging departments. It can merge departments and fire somebody without having to worry about paying redundancy, just through a merger, an abolition, or an amalgamation of particular departments. One would suggest that the title should reflect that. Maybe the bill should be called the “State Sector (Removal of Chief Executive Officers) Amendment Bill”. We find that is what can happen, when we go into the depth of this bill. It could be called the “State Sector (Politicisation of Government Departments) Amendment Bill. That would be a more apt title.

The power of, and the Government’s accountability to, Parliament are lost through this bill, by allowing the executive, through Order in Council, to make these significant changes. Another title that comes to mind would acknowledge that. I suggest the name could be the “State Sector (Takeover) Amendment Bill”. It sounds good, and that title gives the power to the executive.

PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei): My colleague Lindsay Tisch gave us a number of titles that the Minister and this Government could have chosen to put on this bill, in order to better reflect its contents and to better reflect the mischief in the bill that will affect New Zealanders, whether or not they know it.

However, of the smorgasbord of choices that my colleague Lindsay Tisch gave to this Committee, I would like to support—and I certainly stand to support—his first one, the “State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill”. That is what this bill does. It disempowers the State sector and certainly empowers those on the executive in this Government. In fact, it gives the Government so much power, and this Parliament so little power, that that should raise the concern of every member of Parliament.

The aims of this bill are to allow the making of Orders in Council that will amend the first schedule of the State Sector Act, in order to change or amend the names of departments in the schedule. With the passage of this bill, by Order in Council the executive can change the names of departments. But it can also deal with redundancy situations that arise when functions are transferred between Government departments. So one can lay off someone without any accountability. That is why the “State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill” would be a better title for this bill than the present title.

I have a question for Mr Rodney Hide, who should be concerned about this bill. I have a question for ACT members and New Zealand First members about this bill, and I raise this with them. Why is it that this Government decreases the red tape that it has to cut through when it wants to make a change, lay off governmental staff, change the name of Government departments, or do whatever it does best, which is generally to grow the bureaucracy? Why is it that the Government is cutting the red tape for itself, but is always increasing the red tape for everyone else? Why is it that through this bill—and I am calling it the “State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill”—the Government is cutting the red tape that it has to face, yet through every other piece of legislation that it forces through this Parliament it is increasing the red tape and bureaucracy required for businesses just to make their way every day, and increasing the red tape for every citizen in New Zealand? That is why I think the “State Sector (Disempowerment) Amendment Bill” is a better title for this legislation.

I challenge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mark Burton, to tell us why he has hidden from the title any indication that he, as a member of the executive, is now able to deal with redundancy situations within Government departments simply by transferring responsibilities between those very departments. Even by changing the names of departments he can deal with redundancies, whereas other businesses that employ New Zealanders in this country, in going through the same situation—laying off staff, and so forth—will have to jump through a myriad of hoops.

This bill also takes the generic changes and applies them to the merger of the Department of Work and Income and the Department of Social Welfare—to be called the “Massive Ministry of Social Development”. That is what this bill does. If there are any redundancies arising from that, this Minister, through this bill, will not be accountable for that. If people are laid off, he will not be responsible in terms of any legislation that goes through the House. No member of Parliament will have a say on that. We will not be able to scrutinise the situation, at all. Who will decide? It will simply be the Minister and the executive by Order in Council, and I am concerned about that.

Certainly, if this bill is passed, no Government in the future will have to come to the House, as they have normally done, to undergo the scrutiny they have normally had to. Future Governments will be able to do a “Helen Clark.” They will be able to avoid this House completely, and not front up at all. Ministers could go overseas and just have a regulation to merge departments and lay people off, without even fronting up to this House.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I rise just to help the member, and perhaps it will save some time in terms of the issue he has raised if I say the bill does not force employees in any situation to transfer. They have the right to reject any offer of employment, and compulsory transfer is not involved. If the member makes sure he reads Supplementary Order Paper 107, which is on the Table—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but we are talking about the title only.

Hon MARK BURTON: I am addressing the proposed change of title that the member raised and the underlying cause for it, and giving him some reassurance in that regard.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National): This bill is a fairly small piece of legislation that we expressed some concern about when it was introduced well over 2 years ago, and today, for the first time, we are seeing the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper amending it. That changes the whole nature of the title of the bill. We have before us a bill that is 12 pages long, but today a Supplementary Order Paper has been introduced that is 13 pages long. We now have amendments on a Supplementary Order Paper that is of greater size than the bill itself. I suggest that this bill is no longer the State Sector Amendment Bill but the “State Sector (Retrospective) Amendment Bill”.

We will be debating the bill at length as we go through it, because now there are 13 pages of amendments that no one has had the opportunity to make any submissions on. Clearly, the Greens or United Future agree with all the amendments that have been put on the Table and have decided that they are worthy of going into legislation, but not worthy of public comment. State sector employees and the Public Service Association have been unable to comment on these amendments, at all.

I suggest that the name of the bill should be the “State Sector (Retrospective) Amendment Bill”, because as we go into it, we will see that one of the issues on the Supplementary Order Paper—in fact the very first issue we will be dealing with—is that the Department of Work and Income, the Department of Social Welfare, and the Ministry of Social Development will be “deemed to have come into force on 1 October 2001”. That means that the word “retrospective” should certainly be in the title. People picking up this legislation and seeing what we have passed—we will probably get around to that in August 2003—will see that the bill was deemed to have taken effect in 2001. That has got to be one of the worst retrospective pieces of legislation that this Parliament has seen. It is not reflected in the title at all. If the title were left as it is, one would think that Parliament was passing legislation that Mr Mallard introduced several years ago.

The title reflects the hatred the Government had a few years ago towards the then Department of Work and Income and its then chief executive, Christine Rankin. That is why it brought in this bill. It wanted to move Government departments around at whim. It wanted to be unaccountable, so that it could get rid of departments that had strong work ethics and were strong on forcing beneficiaries into the workplace—like Christine Rankin’s department was. But that Minister and the Government did not like that, so it introduced this bill, raced it into a select committee, fired it back out, and then let it sit—not for 1 week, 1 month, or 1 year, but for over 2 years. Finally, the Government woke up, and, with United Future agreement, came to the House with 13 pages of amendments.

Does United Future agree with amendments that are longer than the original bill? Is it happy with them? We do not know that. Has it seen them? They nod. United Future has seen them. Is it happy that the Public Service Association has not been able to comment on them? There is no comment. Is United Future happy that businesses in New Zealand have not been able to comment on the 13 pages of amendments? No, it is not, but I am quite sure that it will vote for the title, without the word “retrospective”. I am quite sure that it will not vote for our amendments, and there is complicity in that.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ): With this bill we see the true colours of this Government, and its attitude to our Parliament, the public service, and to the New Zealand public. It is all wrapped up in this bill called the “State Sector Amendment Bill”. I heard members from the National Party say that the bill should be called the “Let’s Disempower the State Sector Bill”, and we in the ACT party concur with that analysis. The bill could also be called the “Let’s Forget about Parliament Bill”. This bill gives enormous power to the executive, without having to come to Parliament, because the Prime Minister and her Ministers do not like Parliament. They can sit in their offices away from public view and the gaze of the parliamentary process and make radical changes to our civil service without explanation and without justification.

We could call this bill the “Let’s Get Rid of Christine Rankin Bill”. That is what it is about—she was too effective, too good, and too good-looking.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.