Tuesday, 16 December 2003

Tuesday, 16 December 2003

Tuesday, 16 December 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Foreshore and Seabed—Minister's Comments

1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Do the comments made by the Hon Tariana Turia, in relation to management of the coast and sea, that “… there is no way that tangata whenua will ever give up our rights voluntarily, or allow them to be subject to anyone else’s authority. We will never agree that the Crown or anyone else should hold them on our behalf.” represent Government policy; if not, why were such comments made by a Minister of the Crown?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): No, because Government policy has not been finalised.

Dr Don Brash: What is her understanding of the reason that Mrs Turia’s speech was not run past her office, and which of the “multiplicity of meanings” did she take from Mrs Turia’s statement?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The speech was finalised very late. I have not given any particular interpretation to the speech. I thought it left a great deal of room.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What are her thoughts on these comments from her erstwhile Minister: “However, we did not expect that we should have to abandon our tikanga just because they are not familiar to immigrant communities.”; is that a racist statement, or does that have a multiplicity of reasonings and interpretations, too?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can rely on the member to take the worst inference from it. However, the member has advised me that she was referring to those immigrant communities in Island Bay that she referred to earlier in the speech, which were Shetland Islanders, which is part of my heritage, and Italians.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just saw a pig fly past that window.

Mr SPEAKER: A happy Christmas to the member, too.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What opportunities does she see for the management of the coastal area to be exercised by a partnership between hapū with customary rights and elected local government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The concept of partnership and management is not novel. It is provided for already in customary fisheries regulations and in other areas, and I am sure there is scope for some such arrangements.

Hon Peter Dunne: Is it still her position that in resolving this issue and the interests of what she has previously described as the 15 percent, the interests of what she has previously described as the 85 percent cannot be overridden or compromised?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: From the outset I have said that I am looking for people of goodwill from across the communities to work on something that will see all New Zealanders move on together on the issue.

Dr Don Brash: In light of Mrs Turia’s statements, will the Prime Minister explicitly undertake that the Crown in one form or another will hold ownership of the foreshore and seabed on behalf of all New Zealanders; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Over a number of months the Government has set out why it believed that a public domain approach was a more inclusive approach than the Crown approach favoured by New Zealand First, National, and ACT.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister to give us those variations of interpretations that we out there in the community—not being privy to her information, of course—should take from these words from Tariana Turia: “We will never agree that the Crown or anyone else should hold them on our behalf.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No one is proposing that anybody hold anybody else’s customary rights.

Dr Don Brash: Does she have confidence in Mrs Turia as a member of her executive; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is true that on this issue Tariana Turia has told her that she is talking about the foreshore and seabed and its ownership—right or wrong?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: We are talking about the customary rights of Māori. That is what the Government is endeavouring to address in a way that takes the whole country forward together, not divides it up like Opposition parties want.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have asked the Prime Minister to tell the House whether the Minister Tariana Turia was talking about the question of the ownership of the foreshore and seabed—not some vague attack on Opposition members, who are not responsible for that speech. Did Tariana Turia tell the Prime Minister that on this issue she was talking about the foreshore and seabed ownership—Māori ownership at that?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No.

Hon Richard Prebble: Why will the Prime Minister not admit to this House what the whole country knows, that one of her Ministers has given a speech saying, in effect, she does not accept the sovereignty of this Parliament, that she does not accept the laws of this Parliament should apply to all New Zealanders equally? Why will she not accept that and then explain to us why such a Minister is still a Minister?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I will not accept it because I do not believe it to be true.

Dr Don Brash: Noting her press release saying she will be the sole judge of whether Tariana Turia has breached the Cabinet Manual in respect of collective Cabinet responsibility, is it that there are to be two standards of citizenship and two sets of rules depending on whether a Minister is Māori, in the same way that she intends to create two standards of citizenship on the foreshore?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There is one rule, and that is that the Prime Minister makes a judgment. I am very happy to have my record as a party leader running a successful Government compared with theirs any time.

Tertiary Students—Student Support

2. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is the Government assisting tertiary students over the summer period?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Good news! This summer Student Job Search is aiming to place more than 30,000 students in employment. The Government funds Student Job Search operations during the summer; student associations fund it during term time. StudyLink pays Student Job Search $3.4 million a year, including nearly $1 million from Budget 2003, targeted towards skilled job placements and a snap job-matching programme. It is very popular with students.

Moana Mackey: Does the Government also provide direct assistance to students?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Even more good news! Yes, a range of support is available from StudyLink. For example, if the cost of buying work clothes cannot be met, StudyLink can help with a work-study grant. The unemployment benefit student hardship is a weekly payment to help meet living costs while students look for full-time work. Usually students will help to qualify for a student allowance during term time to get the support. We have done all these things with the support of students. That is why they support them.

Sue Bradford: In the light of the current Budget surplus, when will the Minister restore entitlement to an emergency unemployment benefit to all genuinely unemployed students in summer—a move that he supported back in the 1990s?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Apart from the 30,000 students that Student Job Search has been funded to place this year, I should note that last year, during the summer period, over 20,000 students received help through what is known as the unemployment benefit student hardship, which is the emergency unemployment benefit, in practice. Those students will access it again this year if they need it.

Bernie Ogilvy: Does the Minister intend to clear up the anomalies of testing of parental income for student allowances of those under the age of 25, and testing the personal income of those under 25 on any other benefit, including the unemployment benefit student hardship; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member will be aware that we have just finished a consultation exercise with students and others around the country on student support matters, and I hope to make some announcements around those issues next year.

Immigration—Public Health

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: Is she confident that immigrants granted permanent residency in this country will not be a future burden on our health system; if so, why?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): No, no more than I can guarantee that any person born in New Zealand will not be a future burden on the health system.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister read a letter by Dr Andrew Montgomery in the New Zealand Herald of 13 December in which he states: “Immigration Service medicals have long been regarded as a complete joke by doctors … I came to the conclusion years ago that we either have the healthiest bunch of migrants on the planet or many are lying. There is no requirement to check for hepatitis viruses or HIV, nor is there any requirement to look for surrogate indicators such as liver function tests—all basic stuff.”; does she not think she has a responsibility to the New Zealand taxpayer to ensure that we do not import such people with such conditions into our country?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No, I have not seen that letter. Some of the information he has referred to is incorrect, besides which, the policy he has referred to is the one that was in place when the member was the Deputy Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a fact that the Government has constantly changed its immigration policy. It cannot be the same policy that was in place when we were in Government—and we did not have a hopeless Minister of Immigration.

Mr SPEAKER: That was not a point of order.

Dianne Yates: What has the Minister done to review all aspects of immigration health-screening and related policies?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The Immigration Service has undertaken a comprehensive review of immigration health and disability screening policy. Final decisions are due to be taken very soon and announcements will be made after that. One of the reasons that this review has taken so long, and why we are still applying the policy we inherited, is that such a comprehensive review has not been undertaken before. I note that Tuariki John Delamere, in an article in the Otago Daily Times, stated: “Not once during the two years that I sat in the New Zealand First caucus, and not once during the two years we sat in the Cabinet together,—”

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

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: “—do I recall Winston Peters ever raising immigration as an issue of concern.”

Mr SPEAKER: When I call a point of order, the member sits down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I intend to table that article in order to put the truth of the matter to the House. However, nothing in that article relates to the medical condition of immigrants. That is why it is wide of the question I originally asked her. It is the usual diversion—which she has a penchant for doing.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think it is fair to try to liken New Zealand – born citizens of this country and their medical conditions to those whom she, as the Minister of Immigration, imports; will she refer herself to Dr Andrew Montgomery’s words when he states: “Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to intervene and reject the applications of at least 8 percent of migrants who will, based on the known epidemiology of those viruses in Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia, certainly be carriers of hepatitis B or HIV.”, and when will she be responsible, as the Minister, in terms of who she brings into this country?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: That member is well aware that I have a table of statistics that show that HIV infection from Africa was at its highest rate in 1998, and he knows perfectly well that that occurred while he was the Deputy Prime Minister. I have the statistics here and I am happy to table them in the House. But I think that member needs to be aware that there is a range of conditions that can end up in serious problems for the health system—for example, some people who drink end up with cirrhosis of the liver, and some people who smoke end up with emphysema.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought that the last part of the Minister’s comments was not in the best interests—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s OK.

Mr SPEAKER: The member might think it is OK, but I am the Speaker, not him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s coming next?

Mr SPEAKER: I will decide that, not him. I would like the Minister to withdraw the last two sentences of her answer.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I withdraw.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In respect of health checks for people coming to this country, does the Minister pay any regard to those who are taking Valium because they cannot handle stress, and go nuts frequently when they have positions of responsibility—yes or no?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I know perfectly well what that member is trying to refer to, but I think that the important thing he needs to remember is that that there are rules that existed when he was the Deputy Prime Minister, and he did nothing about them. This Government is about to make substantial changes to health and disability screening policy, and, just as with all the other changes we have made to immigration policy, there will be a reduced cost to New Zealand’s health system as a result.

Border Security Bill—Counter-Terrorism Bill

4. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Customs: Does he stand by his comment of 2 July 2003 that “the [Border Security] bill will sit alongside the Counter-Terrorism Bill in strengthening the legislation protecting New Zealanders and New Zealand’s interests” and the reported statement that the Border Security Bill would enhance New Zealand’s overall security for the benefit of everyone; if so, why?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs): Yes, because it is true.

Gordon Copeland: Is the Minister therefore prepared to acknowledge again in the House today that the fundamental principle behind the Border Security Bill is one of national security; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER: The bill covers four aspects: travel security, supply-chain security, and law enforcement and immigration matters. Three of those are direct costs to the State and will be met by the State.

Tim Barnett: Are there provisions in the Border Security Bill that will be of direct commercial benefit to New Zealand’s exporters?

Hon RICK BARKER: Yes, there are. The bill contains provisions for the introduction of a completely new supply-chain security regime that will ensure the quick passage of our exports across international borders—thus avoiding delays, extra handling, and extra storage costs—which will be of direct benefit to exporters.

Shane Ardern: In the light of that answer, if the Minister thinks he is so right, why was he not upfront with this charge from the start, instead of waiting until the bill had gone through the select committee process and submissions had been heard; or did he think that it would go through and nobody would notice it?

Hon RICK BARKER: I intended it to go through with everybody noticing it. The matter has been referred to all exporters. Exporters and others interested are invited to make their submissions to the select committee. After the submissions have been heard, the select committee will report. It is a very open process.

Gordon Copeland: Why does the Government—unlike the United States Government, which on 10 December released a further $179 million, following earlier grants of $245 million, in federal funds for port security grants—refuse to fund the implementation of the much-required port security measures here, and instead plans to levy the cost on to exporters?

Hon RICK BARKER: That matter is before the select committee for consideration. The Government has put its view out, the select committee is hearing submissions from exporters on it, and I will wait for the select committee’s report.

Gordon Copeland: Whilst acknowledging the need to react to the US container security initiative, does the Minister concede that an underlying rationale behind the proposed port security measures, as outlined in the Border Security Bill, is the protection of New Zealanders against terrorists using the supply chain to import terrorism into our country; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER: I do not entirely accept that tenet. Yes, there is an element of that in order to protect New Zealand, and the New Zealand taxpayers will pick up the cost of it. There is an element that is of direct benefit to others, and they should accept that cost, as well.

Gordon Copeland: I seek leave to table a document from the Department of Homeland Security in the USA that announces a further $179 million in grants to secure America’s ports.

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

Te Arawa Lakes Settlement—Development Rights

5. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Why did the Crown’s Te Arawa lakes settlement offer include the provision that individuals and businesses that wish to build new structures on the lake bed will need to ask the permission of Te Arawa after settlement, and is it envisaged that individuals and businesses will need to pay a fee to Te Arawa in order to receive permission to build new structures?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): The reason the Crown and Te Arawa agreed to this settlement offer was that we believe in settling historical grievances with fairness and finality. On the second question of whether Te Arawa will charge fees to build new structures that are attached to the lake beds, that would be a matter of negotiation between the parties involved.

Dr Don Brash: Is it now the case that the Government’s general policy on seabed and foreshore includes provisions like those in the Te Arawa proposal, requiring consultation with iwi prior to any development or enterprise being established, presumably in return for a fee; if not, can the Minister explain the reasons for any differences?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The proposals relating to foreshore and seabed will be announced tomorrow. In terms of the Te Arawa settlement, the difference is that it is a settlement of a historical grievance, whereas the foreshore and seabed issue relates to common law customary rights recognition.

Mita Ririnui: What do the provisions of the Te Arawa settlement say about existing structures and public access?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Owners of existing structures such as jetties, boatsheds, and permanent moorings in or anchored on the lake beds will have the same rights and obligations with regard to those structures as they have now. In relation to public access, the public will enjoy the same rights of access as they have done in the past.

Metiria Turei: Will the Government use the process in the Te Arawa lakes settlement for the foreshore and seabed issue, given its potential as a model of coexistence between Māori developmental rights, the continued exercise of kaitiakitanga, secure, non-saleable title, and guaranteed public access?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Although the origin of the Te Arawa settlement, as I said, was based in a grievance—breach of the treaty—and foreshore and seabed comes from common law customary rights, it is true to say that this Government’s general approach to all grievances of this sort and all issues of this nature is a win-win situation to accommodate the interests of all.

Hon Ken Shirley: Why does the Minister say the reason for this is that it is a historical grievance, when in 1922 a full and final settlement was negotiated and legislated for, with an annual payment made for the last 80 years; why now is the Government revisiting this issue at variance to its foreshore and seabed policy of public domain?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The 1922 agreement was not a treaty settlement over the lakes; nor was that agreement confined to the lakes itself. It was an out-of-court agreement concerning ownership litigation and other unresolved grievances. So I think it is a misrepresentation to say that in fact it was a full and final settlement for a treaty breach, whereas that is what is being conducted here. The member might find it interesting to read the history of it. It is quite interesting.

Dr Don Brash: Why is the Government trying to draw a distinction between treaty claims, such as those involving lakes, and common law cases, from which the foreshore and seabed issues arose?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Because there is a legal difference.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister tell this House and the country what the difference is for Māori between a lake bed and a foreshore or seabed that adjoins the land on the coast of this country; what is this great difference about which she speaks?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The Crown has been involved on these issues, not with Māori generally but with iwi, hapū, and whānau, and whether it be a treaty settlement or what is the nature of the common law customary rights depends upon whom one is talking to, not upon having some generalised global term.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to consider how that could possibly be an answer or a reply to Mr Winston Peters’ question, which was: what is the difference? We had a nice dissertation about whānau, iwi, and hapū, but not once did I hear an explanation of the difference. The Minister sneered at the question before explaining that there was a difference, and now she cannot explain what it was.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I thought the Minister did address that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked Margaret Wilson what this difference was that she had referred to in a prior question, but in particular I asked what the difference was for Māori, whether they be Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Porou, or Te Arawa. When it comes to these sorts of resources, what is the difference that she perceives is being addressed here? She should answer that question because it goes to the nub of the difference between the Te Arawa settlement and the settlement that she plans, surely, to announce tomorrow.

Mr SPEAKER: Having heard the member, I invite the Minister to comment.

Hon MARGARET WILSON: It is not for me to talk on behalf of Te Arawa or any other iwi, hapū, or whānau that is involved with the Crown. The point I was trying to make is that one cannot make those generalised statements. That is the basis upon which the Crown deals with Māori, in the context of whom they represent.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not agree more with the Minister in her answer, except that she is not being asked to speak for Māori—she is being asked to speak for the Crown. Now can we have an answer on behalf of the Crown?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think the Minister did address the question specifically in her second answer.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have raised two points of order on this question. You relented and said that the Minister had not pointed out the difference. She then stood up, gave a babble of words, and still did not identify the difference when you asked her to. It seems to me that if we raise a point of order that you accept, the Minister answering the question is honour-bound and obligated to address what the difference is. Or are we to conclude that, in fact, there is no difference, or, if there is, that this Minister is unable to give it—and you, Mr Speaker, having seen that she is unable to give it, are happy to go along with that, notwithstanding your instructions.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The Minister was asked what, from the perspective of Māori, is the difference. She replied that she does not speak on behalf of Māori on this matter. She has no ministerial responsibility to do so.

Mr SPEAKER: The fact that members are not satisfied with a Minister’s answer is not a point of order. Ministers choose to address questions in their own way.

Health Services—Capital Development

6. DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements have been made regarding capital development in the health sector?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Yesterday we announced, as promised, redevelopment funding of nearly $35 million for Wairarapa and Dunstan hospitals. This honours a promise and a commitment made by this very good Labour-Progressive Government.

David Parker: Has Dunstan Hospital received the funding requested; if so, what services will be provided?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, the redevelopment will mean new hospital wings for inpatient, outpatient, and community services. This will secure a quality future for a hospital greatly in need of investment. The hospital will be rebuilt by the Otago District Health Board and will work closely with the local community. I thank the member for his hard work. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I want members, particularly those on the front bench, to address interjections other than in the second person.

Dr Lynda Scott: Why has it taken 4 years, leading to the threatened resignation of the whole Dunstan Hospital board, before the Minister came to the decision to fund the hospital rebuild; and, if the local member did such a splendid job, why did the Minister indicate that she had had no contact with him when she was asked for details of all correspondence, diarised meetings—formal and informal—on the issue of Dunstan Hospital?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Because unlike the National Party, we talk to each other. Labour members do not have to write a letter to get through a Minister’s door. That member was—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A certain amount of interjection is reasonable but that was overdoing it.

Hon ANNETTE KING: One does not have to write a letter to get through the door of a Minister’s office in this Government. It may have happened before, but not in this Government. I tell members that that member was nothing but a pest. He was in and out of my office advocating for Dunstan Hospital for over a year. In conclusion, to the first part of the member’s question, this hospital asked for funding in 1998 and was turned down by a National Government.

Georgina Beyer: What factors were taken into consideration in allocating this funding, and can the Minister comment on whether, as far as Wairarapa is concerned, this is an improvement from previous years under a National-led Government?

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

Hon ANNETTE KING: This Government takes advice from the National Capital Committee to ensure it does not make the same mistakes that were made in the past when ad hoc decisions were made, and business cases were never properly worked out, leaving the people of the districts with a legacy to try to pay for them. In the case of the Wairarapa, constituents can look forward to a very good new hospital with 37 integrated beds for medical and surgical patients, a new obstetrics and neonatal service, and a new 6-bed integrated intensive care and coronary-care unit, etc. Wairarapa hospital was under threat of closure under the Nats; now the people have a hospital for the future.

Georgina Beyer: Will this package provide certainty for health service delivery in the Wairarapa in the future?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Absolutely. Let me remind this House that in the 1990s that hospital was under threat of closure. There is no way this Government would bulldoze down a $27 million facility, even if the Opposition might.

Dr Lynda Scott: I seek leave to table a letter to Katherine Rich from the Minister detailing any diarised meetings, formal or informal conversations, since January 2002.

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

Hon ANNETTE KING: I seek leave to table the fact that the member Katherine Rich never made any representations at all.

Mr SPEAKER: It is rather unusual to ask to table nothing. I don’t really see—

Katherine Rich: Absolutely right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a list of the hospitals that Helen Clark closed when she was Minister of Health—all 29 of them.

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

Foreshore and Seabed—Mana Whenua Title

7. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Will the Government’s proposals to address the foreshore and seabed issue include any provision for Māori to establish a mana whenua title; if so, what will be the scope of such a title?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): The Government’s proposals will be released tomorrow, and the member will just have to wait until then to hear the details.

Gerry Brownlee: Noting that last week in the House the Prime Minister said that yes, there would be mana whenua title issued, and that there are now some 8,700 kilometres of New Zealand’s coastline subject to seabed and foreshore claims currently before the Māori Land Court, how long will it take to investigate who holds mana whenua over these areas, and who will decide?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think the member is noting things that I do not recall saying at all, but he will have to wait until tomorrow to hear the details.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek two things. Firstly, I seek leave to table the Hansard reports of last week in which the Prime Minister did indeed answer as I have suggested; and, secondly, to re-ask the question, since her memory will then be refreshed.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the documents and to re-ask the question. Is there any objection? There is.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is an extremely important issue that will exercise the minds of New Zealanders over the coming months. In the House last week Dr Cullen, answering for the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Answering what?

Gerry Brownlee: With all due respect, I say to the Prime Minister that we went through this exercise with the Speaker. I specifically asked him—and it is in the record—whether we were talking to Dr Cullen or the Prime Minister, and he said we were talking to the Prime Minister, so we take his word. He is a very honourable man. The answer was “Yes”. Therefore, if the answer is “Yes”, why can we not have an answer to who will decide who gets these titles, and how it will be decided that they have mana whenua over those areas?

Mr SPEAKER: We took leave of the House as to whether the question would be re-asked, and objection was taken. If the member wants to ask another supplementary question, he can do so.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are now in a real difficulty with regard to Ministers, or the Prime Minister in this case, answering questions that have been put quite legitimately by the deputy leader of the National Party. If a reference was made last week, as it was, to a particular matter that has been raised in the question and the Minister cannot remember, that is not the questioner’s fault; it is a matter for the Prime Minister to be aware of and to answer. Otherwise we will have a situation where the Opposition will want to put questions down and the Minister merely stands up and says: “I can’t remember”, and that is the answer. That is just not good enough.

Mr SPEAKER: That is an interesting point of order, and I respect him for raising it. I thought the Prime Minister said that she did not recall making remarks. That is not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is it that she is prepared to treat this House and the public with so much contempt, and that their democratic institution is not to be told what the Government’s policy is, until it is told in such circumstances where she cannot be questioned, which belies the statement that she is a person who front-foots issues?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The whole subject has been extensively debated in this House, and I am sure it will be again next year.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Will the Prime Minister rule out allowing Māori to fish, camp, or squat in areas where or when all other New Zealanders cannot; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the member checked the law covering customary fishing regulations he would find there are already rights conceded under them that are not available to other New Zealanders, and that long predates this Government.

Gerry Brownlee: Given that some 8,700 kilometres of New Zealand’s coastline is now subject to a seabed and foreshore claim currently before the Māori Land Court, how long will it take to investigate who holds mana whenua, and who will decide?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is trying to anticipate what may or may not be in a proposal tomorrow. As I have told him, it will be released tomorrow, and he can examine it at length.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting the Prime Minister’s comment that this subject has been widely debated in the House, and recalling that in her absence there was no debate on the issue, I now seek leave for there to be a debate on this particular issue immediately upon conclusion of question time today.

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

Food Standards—Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council Meeting

8. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for Food Safety: Can she confirm that all agendas, papers, discussions and minutes from the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council meeting last Friday are confidential; if so, when, if ever, will these documents be made public?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety): Papers from the ministerial council are not released in either country. This has been the case since the council was established in 1996, a position that the Ombudsman has upheld. However, all food standards and policy directions agreed to are subject to public consultation process in both countries.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister explain why a representative of Australian local government can attend the secret ministerial council meeting, whereas New Zealand members of Parliament, and even those with a vital interest in food issues, are unable to attend, or even obtain a copy of the agenda or minutes of these meetings?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Because this is the longstanding tradition that was established when the council was established.

Steve Chadwick: Has the Minister seen any reports concerning public awareness that a meeting of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council Ministers was taking place in Auckland last Friday?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I have seen a press release from Sue Kedgley, dated last Thursday, in which she said the meeting was about to occur in total publicity blackout. The council meeting was actually included in the ministerial media diary a week before taking place. A number of media attended the media conference at the end of it, and a media communiqué was issued. The only person who seems to be suffering from blackout is Sue Kedgley.

Sue Kedgley: Given the vital interest in food issues amongst New Zealanders, why does her Government continue to support keeping all policy papers, agendas, and meetings of the ministerial council secret and beyond the reach of the Official Information Act?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Because all food standards that are agreed to, and policy directions, are subject to public consultation before the Ministers make the decision. They are out there in the public, if the member cares to read them.

Sue Kedgley: Did the secret ministerial council meeting discuss the secret results—

Government Members: Ha, ha!

Mr SPEAKER: Every member in this House is entitled to ask questions, with silence from other members. I ask Ms Kedgley to start again.

Sue Kedgley: Did the ministerial council meeting, which was held in secret, discuss the secret results of the testing of GE food that was carried out earlier this year, and did the Minister explain to the meeting why she refuses to release these test results and is currently struggling to suppress them, against my request to release them under the Official Information Act?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No. First of all, the meeting was not a secret meeting. It was well advertised before the meeting was held.

Rod Donald: What about GE testing?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, we did not discuss GE testing, because that was discussed at the previous meeting, before the report was released. The report was then released.

Question No. 7 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I seek leave to table a copy of the minutes of a meeting on 4 December 2003 between Government Ministers and Te Ope Mana a Tai, in which the Government’s position is clearly stated with regard to the seabed and foreshore issue.

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

Kiwi—Conservation

9. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Conservation: What steps are being taken to promote kiwi conservation?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): Many steps. Kiwis are actively protected in several key areas, while, at the same time, enhanced methods of controlling stoats are being developed. Better control of alien predators is the key to the long-term protection of vulnerable native birds.

Georgina Beyer: Are any new kiwi populations being established?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Yes, last week I joined the Rangitāne iwi, the National Wildlife Centre Trust, and others, in the release of brown kiwi in the Wairarapa’s Mount Bruce forest. Kiwi became extinct there over 100 years ago. They can now be safely returned, thanks to intensive pest-control.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister agree that intrinsic to the success of the kiwi recovery programme at Lake Waikaremoana is the good working relationship between the local hapū Ngāti Ruapani and the Department of Conservation—a relationship developed through responsive discussion over a considerable period of time—and what lessons does he think this might have for other areas of Government policy?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: In the massive task we face of preserving our native species, it is very important that all groups—iwi, recreationists, the general public, the Department of Conservation, and others—work together to preserve these critical and unique species for all New Zealanders.

Families Commission—Appointments

10. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: In regard to the Families Commission, when does he expect the appointments to be in place and will the United Future party have any powers of veto?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Families Commission will commence operations on 1 July 2004. Appointments will be made in May 2004. An independent panel will conduct the interviews. Appointment recommendations will be reviewed by Labour, Progressive, and United Future representatives. No member of that group will have power to veto. Cabinet will make the final appointment decisions, as it does on all similar appointments.

Peter Brown: Will the Families Commission be able to address the problems of older families and their concerns over finance, health, and end-of-life concerns such as was espoused in my Death with Dignity Bill; will the commission be able to concern itself with those issues for those folk; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, it will.

Moana Mackey: How many formal expressions of interest have been received for Families Commission appointments?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: One-hundred-and-eighty-six formal expressions of interest were received and a number of other informal inquiries were made, reflecting the fact that many New Zealanders see the Families Commission as an excellent opportunity to promote and strengthen families as a core institution in our society.

Judith Collins: Will appointees to the Families Commission be required to read the recent Swedish study of almost 1 million children published in the highly regarded medical journal, The Lancet, which showed that children with a single parent are twice as likely to develop a psychiatric illness such as severe depression or schizophrenia, to kill themselves, or to develop an alcohol-related disease?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I doubt whether appointees will be required to read anything, but I hope they read widely and I hope they understand the notion of scientific causality.

Hon Peter Dunne: Is there a ministerial advisory committee on the establishment of the Families Commission, on which United Future is represented, that is presently looking at the types of briefings incoming commissioners will require as part of their induction process, and will the matters that have been raised already in question time be matters it could well consider?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There is such a panel, and United Future representatives are making an outstanding contribution. Part of that contribution is to look at the wide range of issues that incoming members will undoubtedly canvass?

Dr Muriel Newman: Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that every member of the Families Commission will be strongly supportive of the type of pro-family values that not only would be recognised by churches throughout the country but, as stated on 11 June 2002 by Peter Dunne, the United Future party would be standing up fearlessly for?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can give a guarantee that members of the Families Commission will endorse, support, and strengthen families in all of their diversity.

Peter Brown: Noting that answer in particular, will the Families Commission be able to concern itself with homosexual families, such as two men living together in a homosexual relationship with a desire to adopt children?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If that is what the member wants, I am sure that it will take it up.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take it from that answer that the Minister will consult New Zealand First on what we want. That was a flippant answer to a genuine question that concerns a number of people. If you are going to let the Minister get away with that you might as well let him get away with anything.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought the reply was a little flippant. I would like the Minister to give a slightly different answer.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, as we have said consistently all the way through the debate, the Families Commission will be able to look at families in their full diversity in New Zealand.

Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Minister confirm that groups like Plunket, parents centres, and various other agencies that work with families have, since the passage of the legislation last week, made a huge number of public comments supporting this as a positive and worthwhile initiative that is long overdue?

Mr SPEAKER: This is the last day of questions for this year, and I am just that tiny wee bit more reasonable than on other days. However, there were too many interjections during the asking of that question, and the members—I think, very senior members—know it.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I happen to have a couple of quotes here from organisations. The Plunket Society said that the Families Commission was one of the greatest gifts New Zealand families have received in a long time. Parents CentresNZ said the Families Commission was a step in the right direction for parents.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister give the House the assurance that if the Families Commission involves itself in controversial issues such as I have endeavoured to outline, United Future will have no power to undermine the commission or veto any of its recommendations?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The commission is established under its own legislation, so people will not have the ability to veto its investigation of such things as gay families—as the member might seek to do.

Violent Offenders—Christmas Parole

11. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) to the Minister of Corrections: How many of the 242 prisoners released early for Christmas were serving sentences for violent offences, and how many had already served a previous custodial sentence?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections): I am advised that the information could not be obtained within the time available. However, the number of inmates released this Christmas is fewer than in 1995 when 292 inmates were released, or in 1997 when 315 inmates were released, under a previous National Government.

Stephen Franks: Why has the Minister not made sure he could answer such a simple question when I asked his predecessor a similar question at this time last year; and how does he know whether this Christmas bonus for crime will protect the community when he does not even know what offences inmates have been locked up for?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: It is not a Christmas bonus for crime. The reality is that getting the information in the way the member is seeking is difficult because of manual requirements on computers, etc. As a result, I have not been able to get the information in the time available.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are facing an interesting situation. It is, possibly, the last day for questions, and we have a Minister who just gets up and says that he has not had the time or the inclination to get the answer. Normally, when Ministers are in that situation, they say they will get the information for the member and deposit it in the Parliamentary Library. The member has not made that commitment, which seems to indicate that he is defying the House and does not want to give the information because, if he did deposit it, it would turn out to be very embarrassing.

Mr SPEAKER: No, if that last comment were true the Minister would be committing a very serious breach, as the member knows. The Minister gave the answer that he had not had the time to get the information. I have to accept that as an answer.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise that you cannot direct answers—and you have just told us in the House that you would like them to be different—but it would be nice for you to point out to the Minister that the normal practice in this House is that, when a Minister cannot provide the information in time, he then gives a commitment that he will and that he will make it available to all MPs.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that that is a fair point.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, I am happy to give the member that commitment.

Martin Gallagher: What is the policy on Christmas release; and what changes, if any, have been made to that recently?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Inmates can be released only if their release date falls between 15 December and 5 January. The Department of Corrections has recently reviewed the Christmas release policy to ensure that offenders serving less than 6 months will not now be released early unless there are extenuating circumstances. That is a change from the policy in place under the previous Government, whereby there was no restriction in terms of short-term sentences.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why has the Government made that change in policy when this time last year the Government was defending the fact that an Invercargill man sentenced to 1 month’s imprisonment was in prison for less than 90 minutes before he was released?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Firstly, it was the policy of the previous National Government. But having said that, secondly, I say that the policy was not right and needed to be changed.

Keith Locke: Will the Minister be recommending the release before Christmas of the jailed elected MP, Ahmed Zaoui, particularly as the Refugee Status Appeals Authority has determined that, unlike some of the people referred to by Mr Franks in his original question, Mr Zaoui has not committed any violent offences and that the authority recommends he be allowed to live in our community as a refugee?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No.

Stephen Franks: How many of those released in the Christmas bonus last year have shown their gratitude by committing more crimes this year; if the Minister does not know, will he undertake to find out and let us know, given that that is surely the right measure of the success of his Christmas programme?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I do not have that information, but I am happy to make it available.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance and assistance, and an assurance from the Minister that my concerns and fears are not valid. In his question Mr Franks wanted to know the number of inmates serving sentences for violent offences who had been released. We know that has been a very controversial issue over the past year, and one the Minister has had some difficulty dealing with publicly. Then the Minister went on to say he could not answer that because the information was not available to him. We have all sat in select committees and heard how wonderful the integrated offender management system is. We all know that the Minister has email and fax available. There are only 242 prisoners involved. In the space of 4 hours the Minister would have been able to have all those emails through to him and been able to report to the House—unless, of course, he is deliberately seeking to avoid answering the question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I ruled that comment out before. The member has not raised a valid point of order. In fact, the Minister, in response to a supplementary question from Mr Franks, said that he would supply the information when he received it.

Health, Associate Minister—Te Ngāwari Hauora

12. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Associate Minister of Health: Did she provide the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister’s office with a copy of her speech to Te Ngāwari Hauora yesterday, and what response or reaction has she received from the Prime Minister since the delivery of the speech?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health): My office provided the Prime Minister with a copy of my speech at the time of delivery. The Prime Minister has stated publicly that she thought my speech could be read to have a multiplicity of meanings.

Dr Wayne Mapp: In this multiplicity of meanings, which groups of immigrant communities did the Minister refer to in her speech—or are not all New Zealanders immigrants, whether they came yesterday or 1,000 years ago?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: That is probably correct. In the speech I gave yesterday I stated that we welcomed the contribution that all diverse cultures and communities bring to our nation, and I specifically referred to the Italian and Shetland Island communities of Island Bay.

Mark Peck: What was the reason for her visit to Te Ngāwari Hauora yesterday?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I was presenting to Te Ngāwari Hauora its certificate of accreditation from Quality Health New Zealand. Te Ngāwari Hauora is a community organisation providing a range of quality health services, and I congratulated the trust on its tremendous achievement.

Heather Roy: Why does the Minister not believe that the same laws should apply to all New Zealanders?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: As the Associate Minister of Health I do not have any responsibility to answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister could perhaps be a little fuller in her comment on that particular question.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I understand that the questions I am being asked are in my capacity as an Associate Minister of Health. I am happy to answer questions relevant to that, but not questions outside that. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: She is being questioned as Associate Minister of Health. As such, she gave the answer she gave, and that was her answer.

Hon Richard Prebble: Unless you are ruling that the Associate Minister of Health has no obligation for her administration to follow the law—which may be the case—of course she has an obligation to answer. The question she was asked—it must apply in health, as well as anywhere else—was whether or not the law of New Zealand applies to all New Zealanders. Maybe in health it does not; maybe there is a different law for different New Zealanders there. But if that is her policy, surely we are entitled to know it.

Mr SPEAKER: I say again the advice I received was that the member was replying as Associate Minister of Health. She gave an answer, and that was her answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No matter what position she may hold, while she holds some sort of warrant from the Queen she is bound to give an answer as to the views that she may hold on the question of the laws of the country and whether, as the question asked, they apply equally to everyone. The Minister can, by her Associate Minister status, avoid answering that, yet a full Minister cannot. I do not see the distinction. The fact is that she holds a warrant from Her Majesty the Queen. She therefore has an obligation to answer the question, which is a pretty simple one. Why is she having difficulty in answering it?

Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that I have in front of me the delegated responsibilities of the Hon Tariana Turia, which are all policy matters relating to Māori health policy implementation, Māori health service development, the national radiation service, and the New Zealand Blood Service. She can only be asked questions in her own right relating to matters delegated to her.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that mean an Associate Minister who goes out and makes a speech from which a “multiplicity of meanings” can be taken cannot be questioned by the House as to exactly what was meant in that speech, when it was delivered by that person as a Minister?

Mr SPEAKER: No, but any member is quite entitled to ask the Prime Minister about that, and I think that was done. As far as the Minister is concerned, members are entitled to ask about matters that are specifically delegated to her.

Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague Heather Roy’s question was not restricted in any way. It asked about the justification for discriminating under the law between different groups of New Zealanders. That form of discrimination exists in the health sector. There is no reason why the Minister should not make a comment about the justification—if there is one—for that, given that she has made a speech in which she said that one group of New Zealanders does not accept the sovereignty of the Crown in respect of the seabed and foreshore.

Mr SPEAKER: As long as the question is confined to her delegation—and I assume that it now is—I ask whether the Minister would care to comment on those matters, specifically referring to those she has delegated responsibility for. Perhaps Heather Roy could restate the question.

Heather Roy: Why does the Minister not believe that the same laws should apply to all New Zealanders?

Mr SPEAKER: This is in relation to the Minister’s particular area.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I do not recall saying, so that that member can make an inference, that I do not believe in one law for all New Zealanders.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Why did the Minister, in a speech to Te Ngāwari Hauora, a health organisation, say: “... there is no way that tangata whenua will ever give up our rights voluntarily, or allow them to be subject to anyone else's authority. We will never agree that the Crown or anyone else should hold them on our behalf.”?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: That was a clear view that was expressed by tangata whenua at the 11 consultative hui held to discuss the Government’s earlier proposals.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Given that she spoke to a health organisation about all those 11 hui, does she then, as stated in her speech, believe that management rights convey to tangata whenua some form of control over the beaches and the foreshore, and what would that mean for all other New Zealanders?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Mr Speaker, I need your guidance on this. Am I answering this in relation to the speech I made, or as the Associate Minister of Health?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has been asked the question as Associate Minister of Health. She can be asked the question in relation to the delegation that she has.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Could the member repeat the question?

Dr Wayne Mapp: Given that the Minister’s prior answer specifically referred to the 11 hui, does she believe that the exercise of management rights referred to in the speech provides some form of control over the beaches and the foreshore, and what does that mean for the rights of all other New Zealanders?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: That particular comment was related to the beliefs and practices of my constituency. I was merely telling the people at the hui of that situation.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Will the Minister, who holds a Crown warrant, be voting for the Government proposals, which will inevitably limit in some way tangata whenua rights—which have, after all, often been claimed to include Māori ownership of the seabed and foreshore?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister does not have any responsibility for that particular area within her delegated responsibility.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. She must have responsibility over how she votes.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has responsibility only over the matters that are delegated and listed to her, and I have read those out.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I will rephrase the question, then. How will ownership of the seabed and foreshore as claimed by Māori—which is extensive—be affected by the Government proposal, which will inevitably limit it? [Interruption]

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What does that have to do with it?

Mr SPEAKER: That is absolutely right.

Gerry Brownlee: It is somewhat of a new ruling to us today that Associate Ministers can answer only questions confined to their delegations, even though they are out in public making various speeches.

Mr SPEAKER: That ruling has been there for about 100 years.

Gerry Brownlee: We learn something every day. Once again, this is an issue that is of considerable public import. We have been allowed to ask a supplementary question, and I would appreciate the opportunity to re-ask the question of the Hon Tariana Turia.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member has already had a go.

Gerry Brownlee: He was interrupted during that process by all sorts of catcalls from the Government side of the House. I do not think he was given a fair go. He was put on the spot fairly quickly. It is only reasonable that, on the last day of the year and in the case of the last supplementary question of the year, we get to ask the question.

Mr SPEAKER: In the spirit of that, I will allow the member to ask it.

Dr Wayne Mapp: In exercising her delegated responsibilities for health, given that the Government proposals will inevitably limit, in some way, tangata whenua rights, how will the Minister be voting on those issues?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The member will have to wait until March to find out.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will note that the speech Tariana Turia made the other day was entitled “Sharing and Partnership: the Value of Māori Custom”. I recall very well her “holocaust” speech, about which her questioning in Parliament did not meet any such limitation at that time. Now, in December 2003, we find that all of a sudden the Minister has been cocooned by a new ruling: she can say any old thing in the country as a Minister, yet not be questioned on it. I do not believe that in any other Western Parliament—certainly not in that of the UK or Australia—such a ruling would be given in order to give a Minister that sort of protection. Otherwise, she could literally say any old thing at any old time, at enormous embarrassment to the administration—and to Lianne Dalziel as well, but she is not dealing with that right now, is she; that is a bigger problem, really—either domestically or internationally, and get away with it. It cannot be that she can go out and make a speech like that one, and not be subject to parliamentary questions on it.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is not answerable for her speech in question time, unless it relates to her delegated responsibilities. That is no new rule; it has been established over all the time I have been in Parliament.

Business of the House

Business of the House

DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First): I seek leave that the proceedings of the House be suspended before item No. 5 on today’s Order Paper—should that item on the Order Paper be reached tonight—and that the House be resumed at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, when it may debate the Government’s announcement tomorrow on the foreshore and seabed issue. In effect, that would be a 2-hour timed debate, as required.

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

Urgent Debates Declined

Government Transport Package

Mr SPEAKER: I have received letters from the Hon Richard Prebble and the Leader of the Opposition, seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the Government’s announcement of a transport package. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However, although the announcement is a significant one, I note that an important part of the package is conditional on an agreement being reached with Auckland authorities, the resolution of outstanding funding, governance and regulatory issues, and the passing of legislation to give effect to governance changes. The legislation is planned for April next year. In those circumstances, I do not consider that the announcement requires the immediate attention of the House today.

Foreshore and Seabed

Mr SPEAKER: I have also received a letter from Mr Prebble seeking to debate the Government’s policy on the foreshore and seabed. At this point there is no particular case of recent occurrence on which a debate can be granted. The letter asserts that the media has reported that a policy went to Cabinet on Monday and to the Government caucus this morning. Whether or not that is correct, an urgent debate cannot be granted on the basis of newspaper speculation. An event occurs at the time it is announced; I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 25/2 (Supplement). That application is also declined.

Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision

Mr SPEAKER: I have also received a letter from the Hon Murray McCully seeking to debate a decision of the High Court relating to proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal. This is a particular case, but there is no administrative or ministerial responsibility for a court decision. I invite members to look at Speaker’s ruling 133/1. The application is declined.

Points of Order

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of your ruling on Mr Prebble’s second request for an urgent debate and in view of comments you made earlier today in question time, could I ask why you have intimated that this is the last sitting day of the House? In looking at the Order Paper, I can see no reason why, if fair debate happens on all these issues, we would be through these debates by 10 p.m. tonight. That being the case, I ask who has given it to be known that this is the last sitting day, and does that mean that we will have proper debate—fully argued in this House—proscribed because of a desire on the part of someone to go home to mum?

Mr SPEAKER: For a start, I say that I have not made that comment myself from the Chair, at all—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You did.

Mr SPEAKER:—when I was giving that ruling. Secondly, as far as I am concerned, I say that I was at the Business Committee last Tuesday, and all parties were represented when that point was made by the Leader of the House, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. Whether that is the case will depend on how we proceed today, but there is no certainty about anything.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to reconsider the situation, and your ruling on my letter. You, as Speaker, have sworn to uphold free speech in this House. The effect of your ruling is that we cannot have a debate about something you say is media speculation. I suggest that you, yourself, have ruled on many occasions that you will not allow an urgent debate unless we attach media speculation to show that a matter has happened. How else are we supposed to authenticate something? The whole House and country know that the Government will make an announcement on the foreshore tomorrow. But it will not make that decision tomorrow. You, having been a Minister, know, and we know, that those decisions have already been made and been to the Government caucus. In fact, certain select people in the country have been briefed about them. The only people who have not been briefed are members of Parliament, and I say that for you to decide that the Government can prevent scrutiny by this House simply by keeping the matter secret actually allows parliamentary debate and democracy to be denigrated. The correct course for you, as Speaker, is to acknowledge that the reality does exist and is a major issue. We are reading in the newspapers about the possibility of our beaches being occupied, and if we are not prepared to debate the matter in this House we are saying to the country that the issue is one for confrontation on the beach, rather than for debate in Parliament. I ask you to reconsider your decision and allow this debate, even if that is inconvenient for Government members.

Mr SPEAKER: In respect of Mr Prebble’s letter, I say that no event has occurred.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: How do you know?

Mr SPEAKER: No event has occurred. There is no particular case. Speculation is not a case.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a relitigation of the matter? I want to know whether this is a new point of order.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: If this is relitigating, I want to know. It had better be a new point of order.

STEPHEN FRANKS: It is a new point of order. When you advised of your decision, I believe you may have considered it before the House met today. You referred to there being only media speculation. In fact, there were, from the Prime Minister, two references to the proposed announcement tomorrow, a reference to it from the Hon Tariana Turia, and a reference to the fact that there would not be any opportunity to pursue her on it until March next year. In other words, I ask you to consider whether the assumption that you made about this being mere speculation is tenable in the face of the Prime Minister’s references to the package before us today.

Mr SPEAKER: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 134/5, which goes back to 1988 and also to 1999: “A particular case … must have arisen before the House meets to qualify for a debate.”

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make sure that you are prepared to give the House an assurance that you know that the Cabinet has not made a decision about this. This is something that strikes me as being an extraordinary assertion for you to make.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): If the member had listened to the Prime Minister’s answers earlier, he would have gathered that decisions have not yet been made. It is the intention to take those tomorrow. We shall see how that goes.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to that, the Attorney-General, in her answers today, also said that there would be an announcement tomorrow. I accept that that may give weight to Speaker’s ruling 134/5, but that ruling states: “A case … must have arisen before the House meets to qualify for a debate.” This issue has most certainly arisen. The Government has told the House today and on many other occasions that it has conducted 11 hui around the country to discuss exactly this issue. Today there has been the prevention of the tabling of minutes, with a group of Māori members particularly set up for this purpose. I think it is a hard call in the circumstances to say, on what may be the most important constitutional issue for decades, that this House cannot express a view prior to the Government making an announcement.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not know how the Government can hold a debate on a particular case when there is no case and no policy has been announced. It is a question of when an announcement is made. I refer the member to the Supplement to Speakers’ Rulings 25/2: “An urgent debate cannot be granted on the basis of newspaper speculation. An event occurs at the point in time when a decision is publicly announced.”

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are being asked to grant an urgent debate on the nature of the issue on which a decision has been made. The Prime Minister confirmed that in her answer today—carelessly so. So did the Attorney-General, and so did Tariana Turia. It defies credulity to think that we can sit here, knowing this Government’s track record on spin and preparation and on getting all its ducks in order in terms of public relations, and for them to say that it has not made a decision. Yet, somehow—magically—in the next few hours it will make one, not consult the full Cabinet, and go public on it. That is balderdash, and the Prime Minister knows it.

Mr SPEAKER: I heard the Minister say quite clearly that decisions had not yet been made. I presume there must be another meeting of Cabinet before decisions are made. I heard that statement made very, very specifically by the Prime Minister.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that is the case, then the Prime Minister might like to explain why a media advisory has gone out in the last few minutes indicating that there will be an announcement tomorrow at 2 p.m. from the Beehive theatrette, that it will be attended by senior Ministers, that senior press gallery people will be invited to that theatrette, that the documents will be available to them 1 hour earlier, and that all those documents are embargoed until 3 p.m. tomorrow. If there is no decision, how on earth do those documents get to the printers? Why is this House is being treated with utter contempt by the Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): There will certainly be an announcement if decisions are taken. No decisions have been taken. The Cabinet business committee has power to act tomorrow. Therefore, if members were to have an urgent debate every time the Government indicates an announcement of policy may be made, then members would be here every day having urgent debates about things where they do not know what to talk about. It may suit members opposite to have a debate about this issue and not know what it is they are debating, but it would not suit the Government. Those members will have an opportunity this evening in the adjournment debate to debate this matter if they want to.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: People are relitigating my decision. I have not heard a new point of order in the last 10 minutes. If this is a point of order, it had better be a new one.

GERRY BROWNLEE: It is new material—quite new material. I ask Dr Cullen whether he is telling the House that although, quite clearly, documents have gone to the printers, in readiness for the announcement at 2 p.m. tomorrow, those documents may be pulled or shredded and the press advisory that has gone out may be rescinded.

Mr SPEAKER: That is getting into question time. That is not my ruling.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Even if this particular decision is not changed at present, I would ask you to review the application of the ruling you have just cited, because, in effect, by saying that an event does not occur until an announcement is made, particularly in the circumstances where the House is about to rise for 2 months, it encourages the Government to avoid allowing this Chamber to function as it should. I would ask you to consider, as Parliament’s man—not as a Government member—to consider a clarification of that ruling so that it does not encourage a Government to do what this Government is doing at present.

Mr SPEAKER: This is an argument that can be made by anybody in this House if they wish to do so, and I am sure they will. But it is not my position as Speaker to enter into this area.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I am just about at the point where we have to finish this and I want to proceed.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me just ask you this—and it may relate to the previous debate, or otherwise. If you look at Government notice of motion No. 1 on the Order Paper, you will see that there are to be 10-minute speeches. That is an open debate—unlimited. If you look further you will see that after that is the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, with twelve 10-minute speeches, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), with twelve 10-minute speeches, and the Government Notice of Motion No 2, with 10-minute speeches—unlimited. Why do we have both yourself, at question time, and now the Deputy Prime Minister saying that members can have this debate tonight? By my reading of this, any fair treatment on this matter today in respect of those five matters on the Order Paper that members are about to deal with will not see them finished by 10 o’clock. I want an assurance that members’ rights will not be proscribed in the interests of some party wishing to duck its responsibility, not face the public, and cover itself up in a circumstance of announcing policy without any parliamentary scrutiny or debate whatsoever. That means I want to know that members will get a fair go, and I want to know whether, if these debates, as they sequentially happen, are carried out, members will still be here tomorrow at 2 p.m.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I have already indicated to a number of members of the House that the Government’s intention is to reach order of the day No. 5. If need be, we will not proceed to completion of previous orders of the day. It is not a question of members’ rights being proscribed. The Government will take its chances on business; if we cannot complete it, then that business will be held over until early next year.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How could Dr Cullen make that statement again, as he did just before, in a category of which he has some understanding, without knowing at all what will happen in respect of these debates? He can shake his head, but if we get to Government Notice of Motion No. 2, item No. 5, and it is an open debate, then how could he possibly know that matters will be suspended at 10 o’clock, in the middle of that debate? If they cannot get it done by 10 o’clock, then we are back here tomorrow.

Mr SPEAKER: Exactly.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Right then. That is what I am arguing, and all I want to know is that we are—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: We know that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is not what the Minister hoped for.

Mr SPEAKER: Carry on please.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am trying to.

Mr SPEAKER: I know, and members should not be interjecting.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: All I am asking is that we on this side of the House will not have our fair rights of debate proscribed by some desire of this Government not to face scrutiny tomorrow—after it has made the announcement.

Mr SPEAKER: As Speaker, I can assure members that I will make sure that members’ rights are upheld.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek further clarification from you. The press advisory notice in front of us is headed: “Foreshore and Seabed Announcement. The Government will deliver a detailed policy statement on the foreshore and seabed tomorrow at 2 p.m. at the Beehive Theatrette.”

Hon Ken Shirley: Not may; will.

GERRY BROWNLEE: That is exactly my point—the notice does not say “may”, it says “will”. Quite clearly the detailed work behind this is done. The detail of the announcement is understood and agreed to by all members of the Government and its supporters, and this is entitled “an announcement”. Surely the Government is announcing that it is about to indicate what the detail of its policy is. Why can this sort of action take place in face of the House being told that there is no opportunity to debate the matter?

Mr SPEAKER: I wish the member would consult the Standing Orders closely. A decision tomorrow cannot give grounds for a debate today.

Standing Orders

Standing Orders

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix A of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders be adopted and come into force on 10 February 2004. That last date indicates the intended date of resumption after the adjournment. I will speak very briefly, because these are probably the most limited changes to the Standing Orders we have seen for quite a long period of time, and are certainly more limited than the last three or four rounds of changes to the Standing Orders.

Firstly, the fact that there are very limited changes points to the fact that there is relatively little need to change the Standing Orders. The changes are relatively minor ones, often re-ordering or technical changes, in order to line things up with either current practice or interpretation of the Standing Orders—for example, in terms of the putting of amendments in Committee, the rights of the mover, and the default mechanism. That restores previous practice after it was found that that practice was actually in conflict with the existing Standing Order.

Secondly, the Standing Orders Committee is an unusual committee in that it operates according to a high level of consensus. There is a clear understanding on the Standing Orders Committee that if there is significant objection to any proposed changes, then those changes are not proceeded with in the agreed changes that come forward from the select committee. One does not have simple majority voting on the Standing Orders Committee, despite the fact that on some occasions there was clear support for certain changes. Those changes were not carried through, because there was some objection. I indicated very strongly to the select committee that as long as I am in charge as Leader of the House, that will be the view of the Government members on the committee, so that we do not simply ram through changes by simple majority in the House—even when that majority exists.

The major issues I want to dwell on very briefly are, firstly, the indication by the committee of the degree to which there should be dedicated television coverage of the proceedings within the Chamber, and that that coverage is then made available to all the news media. No doubt the Minister of Finance—that is, myself—will be looking very carefully at the financial implications of that particular proposal, but I can indicate that I have some degree of sympathy with it, but not, obviously, to the exclusion of other important matters such as hip-replacement operations, the needs of young children in schools, the needs of the elderly, and so on and so forth.

Secondly, there is a minor change in relation to proxy votes that assists all parties, but which is also a clear recognition of the difficulties for very small parties of keeping somebody in the House at all times able to cast their votes. I thank the members of the committee for the rationality and good sense that prevailed on that particular occasion.

Thirdly, there is a change in relation to urgency on a Thursday, whereby if notice is given at the Business Committee of the intention to take urgency on Thursday, the House can now sit from 7.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Thursday evening—as opposed to simply lifting at 6 o’clock and not resuming until 9 o’clock the next morning. I think that is sensible. It is a constraint upon the Government to give early notice, and my own preference, as members know, is to wait until we have enough of a build-up of business to be done to take a Tuesday through to Friday urgency sitting, in any case.

Finally, there is a small but important change to omnibus bills. It means that it is now clear that an omnibus bill that deals with one issue, even though the principal Acts it amends do not deal with a single issue—and very few Acts do deal with a single issue—is still a legitimate omnibus bill, to be moved without any special provision. We still retain the other very strict requirement around omnibus bills, and we will see how those new procedures work in the meantime.

I will close with those few brief comments. I think it was an excellent select committee and one that has produced some very useful changes that will smooth the processes of the House while retaining the rights of all parties represented within it.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National): As this is very likely to be my last opportunity this year to make a contribution to the House, I want, before I move on to the debate on the Standing Orders, to take this opportunity of wishing you, my colleagues on both sides of the House, and all of those who work with us and have to put up with us a very merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. I thank them all very much, and I hope they have a safe and pleasant holiday.

I want to comment on three interesting areas that were debated, or will need to be debated, given the events of recent times. The first matter I bring to the attention of the House is that of proxies. We have a system of proxies that we debated at the Standing Orders Committee, whereby at the moment each party is limited to 25 percent of its membership. It is my view that we need to expand that to 100 percent proxies. I know that a number of the whips around here agree with me, but unfortunately some of the caucuses, including mine, do not. All the whips in this House are honourable members, and when they vote, they do so knowing in their own minds that the records they are giving and the votes they are casting are absolutely correct. But I doubt whether there are any whips—with the exception maybe of the whips from one or two of the minor parties—who could stand here and swear 100 percent that every time they have voted the numbers they have, they knew personally that every member who was meant to be here was actually here. I doubt very much that the whips from the caucuses with bigger numbers could say they that knew absolutely that somebody was not down the street having a haircut, his or her teeth cleaned, or doing something else—even though some of us might not need to have haircuts.

I have spoken in the House on this issue before, and I say again that it worries me that there might be times when, inadvertently, the whips breach the Standing Orders because somebody has ducked out, thinking that there will not be a vote, and then there is one. The whips might vote without knowing that a member is absent, because leave has not been given. We tried to address the matter this time, and I think it is one that we will have to come back to and address.

I want to raise two other issues that are relevant to today’s debate. Indeed, they are as a consequence of one or two issues that have been raised just recently—that is, the issues around the snap debate procedure. I think it is Standing Order 376 that allows for an application for an urgent debate. I think that is something that perhaps the next Standing Orders Committee might well be advised to look at, given the circumstances that are arising. I give notice to the House, and to the Clerk particularly, that I intend to put that up for our next Standing Orders debate, which, of course, will now be during the next term. I presume I will be here, but if I am not, somebody else will put it up on my behalf. I do think it is important that we look at the rules around the issue of which snap debates can be allowed, because as it stands at the moment, those rules are quite restrictive. I suspect that they may have well been formed in days gone by, whereas things are changing and the Standing Orders should be reviewed.

The other matter I want to raise is in reference to Speaker’s ruling 5/33, which was made by Mr Kidd in 1998. That ruling links up with Standing Order 117. It relates to a speech that was made by the Hon Tariana Turia—as recently as yesterday, I think—in respect of which we might have to look at the Standing Orders in the context of the questioning. For instance, the questions that were put down today were quite correctly ruled outside the scope of her designation as a Minister. I think we need to look at that. If speeches made by Ministers, or indeed members, bring imputations against members in the House—even though they are not made in the House—there may be reason for us to look at the Standing Orders that allow us from time to time to debate those matters.

This place is a fascinating place—there are always new things coming up, and every time anyone thinks that he or she has seen it all, they never have. I am certainly one of those. Like the Deputy Prime Minister, I felt that the Standing Orders Committee went very well—chaired by yourself, Mr Speaker. I thought it was a good, constructive committee, and I too join with the Deputy Prime Minister to recommend that we accept the recommendations in the report.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): In looking at the review of the Standing Orders and the report of the Standing Orders Committee for December 2003, I want to go through a few points in a chronological order. I want to express one or two concerns about the way in which this report has been drafted—and perhaps causes confusion—and make about nine or 10 points on it, if I have sufficient time.

The first page of the review states: “We recommend that the House adopt the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix A, with effect from 10 February 2004.” There are, in fact, two Appendix A’s. There is an Appendix A on page 83, and within Appendix A there is another Appendix A. From a drafting point of view that should have been either Appendix AA, or Appendix 1, and the terms “AA”, “BB”, and “CC” and the figures “1”, “2”, or “3” should have been used. As it stands it creates confusion. I accidentally turned to page 127 and could not understand why those were the only amendments. I started again at the beginning and discovered that, in fact, the true Appendix A started at page 83, and the other Appendix A was a reference to something that is already in the Standing Orders. That is one point. The other little point—and I know the speed with which the Clerk’s Office had to prepare this document—is that an index would also have been helpful.

These reviews are not just for the benefit of members of Parliament. Some members may know more about the Standing Orders than others, and there are members who know more about the Standing Orders than I do. But it is usual these days to turn to an index to try to help one through. There is no index in this document, which is unfortunate, and something that might be considered—

Mr SPEAKER: Could the member tell us where the two Appendix A’s are?

DAIL JONES: They are on page 83 and page 127. I hope this is not coming off my time.

Mr SPEAKER: No.

DAIL JONES: On page 127 there is an Appendix A, and on page 83 there is the actual Appendix A. It is referred to twice. I just make the point that if the document had been drafted better, it would not have been done in that fashion. There is a heading Appendix A at the top left-hand side of page 83 of my copy—

Darren Hughes: That is not the report.

DAIL JONES: I know what is intended—and there is a heading Appendix A at the top of page 127. It is quite simple. So I just draw that to the attention of members. It will cause confusion to lay members if Appendix A is inserted twice, and one should not have that. I know what is intended, but this report is not written just for the benefit of a few members of Parliament, it is written for the benefit of the public, and there is clearly an ambiguity. There should also be an index. If Mr Speaker is paying attention, I am pleased that I have drawn this to his notice.

In so far as the other aspects of the Review of Standing Orders is concerned, I think that from the point of view of members of the public who are interested in constitutional matters there is a question of the way in which privilege is to be regarded. It may be easy enough for the Leader of the House to skip over some of these matters, but I think the way in which the Standing Orders Committee looked at privilege requires attention. Chapter 8, “Parliamentary Privilege”, refers to Standing Order 397, “Examples of contempts”. I am sure that most members of Parliament have never read this Standing Order and would not know quite what was meant by the new change, “parliamentary precincts”, and certainly the new amendment (ea).

New paragraph (ea) of Standing Order 397 states: … “the House may treat as a contempt any of the following—(ea) as a member, failing to declare, before participating in the consideration of any item of business, any pecuniary interest that the member has in that business:”, not to mention all the 10 or 15 or so requirements of examples of contempt. In fact, there are more than that. There is a requirement about failing to produce papers. New paragraph (pa) states: “failing to obey an order of the House or a summons issued by order of the House or by the Speaker:” I suggest paragraph (pa) is too harsh. It could be enforced very strictly, because if one fails to obey an order of the House, or a summons issued by order of the House or by the Speaker—it may be issued quite lightly in some cases—then before one knows it he or she is in a parliamentary privilege situation.

I turn to private bills, local bills, and local legislation bills and tell members that a considerable redraft has been done in Appendix B. I wonder what negotiations or discussions have taken place with local government, local authorities, and those law firms that have an interest in matters such as private bills, local bills, and local legislation bills. If any of them are interested in this matter I suggest that they get a copy of the report on the Review of Standing Orders very quickly because this area has been totally rewritten. All members of the House know that from time to time they introduce local bills, and they may have private bills from time to time, and the procedures, as I say, have been rewritten. It is important for the public to know that this is the case, so that they can take some action on it. One area that has been skipped over too lightly by the House is Standing Order 398, “Member absent without leave”, which states: “A member absent from the House on more than seven consecutive sitting days without obtaining leave of absence commits a contempt of the House.” That Standing Order has been deleted. This means that in future the Alamein Kopu’s of this world—

Rod Donald: There is a replacement noted here.

DAIL JONES: I take the member’s point, and appreciate it. Whereas in other parts of this report the replacement amendment has been shown, this particular provision does not show the replacement. I appreciate Rod Donald’s comment that there is a replacement. The report states in another part that a Standing Order has been “shifted to SO 397(ea)”, but there is no such reference to the replacement in the case of the deletion of Standing Order 398. I am very pleased that Mr Donald has raised that point. Maybe someone will tell us what Standing Order 398 has been replaced with. Because, in the first instance, a member of the public who is reading Standing Order 398 would get the clear impression that the Alamein Kopu situation is being supported by this House when, in fact, Mr Donald quite properly tells me that that is not the case. I look forward to hearing from him on that particular issue.

I move to Standing Order 145(3). This is the Progressive Coalition amendment. I believe that opposition was expressed by New Zealand First to this Standing Order in the Business Committee but, of course, if there is a very big group in favour and only one group opposing, that is regarded as being enough to put the amendment through. I appreciate how the Business Committee works, but it is clear that this provision in Standing Order 145(3) is a Progressive Coalition amendment, enabling its members to be able to vote on a proxy, presumably by the Government whip, so that Mr Anderton and Mr Robson can be elsewhere without actually having to be in the House to vote, although I believe they must be in the precincts of the building. That matter could perhaps be confirmed—that is, that they are not outside the precincts of the building when that is done.

I look again at broadcasting, on page 12 of the report. The question of television coverage will have to be looked at very carefully. Whilst it may be appropriate to use excerpts from what is happening in the House, I suggest that those excerpts should be used only in relation to the debate or discussion involved at the time and should not be used on totally unrelated issues because, as I know personally, one can perhaps be enjoying some humour in the House on a particular issue, and then before one knows it that particular point is used in connection with something totally irrelevant, which may give the wrong impression. I will leave it at that particular point. I think members know what I mean. There needs to be some control on how that excerpt can be used.

One issue that concerns me is in relation to a quorum in select committees. As I read the amendment that is being put through, a quorum is half the select committee, or the higher number, so that if, as with the Justice and Electoral Committee, we have 11 members, the quorum would be six. The Government is struggling these days. It has five members on that select committee. Technically, it could have no quorum at all if other members do not cooperate. Whilst New Zealand First generally will cooperate, when we have been forced into a select committee when the House is sitting, that cooperation is not forthcoming.

I have barely begun my speech, but I have obviously run out of time. I appreciate being able to make this speech, and I am sure other members of New Zealand First will want to continue this interrupted contribution from me.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): I am pleased that the review of the Standing Orders has finally come to fruition, having started over 3 years ago, before the last election. I would like to join with other members in thanking my colleagues for their contribution and for the way that we were able to work together. It is unfortunate that we were an all-male committee. Hopefully, the next Standing Orders Committee will have a better gender balance. I would like to thank David McGee in particular for his comprehensive submission to the committee, and also David Bagnall for the sterling work he has done in trying to pull together the diverse range of views of the members of the committee, and also the comprehensive submissions from members of the public and political parties.

However, I have to say that the Green Party is disappointed with the outcome of the review. While there are a number of positive changes in the document that we are debating, many necessary reforms proposed by the Green Party, and others, have failed to win backing from all the parties. I guess this is inevitable, given the committee’s decision-making process that Dr Cullen outlined. The approach essentially is that we do not divide on Standing Orders’ matters. This does not mean that all of us support every measure, but, on the other hand, a number of significant proposals that might have attained majority support have not been adopted. As a result, rituals that became redundant last century are still retained, despite the best efforts of this party’s representative in particular.

I would like to highlight a few key areas where I believe the committee has failed to do its job. The first of those areas is New Zealand’s treaty ratification process. That is where we reserve our strongest criticism. New Zealand continues to be locked in an era where kings and queens controlled foreign policy. We believe it is simply not acceptable for minority Governments to retain the Crown prerogative, and with it the power to bind future Governments to international treaty commitments.

All treaties should receive approval by Parliament before New Zealand becomes a party to them. In that regard I would like to acknowledge the comprehensive submission from Professor Jane Kelsey to the Standing Orders Committee. She outlined very cogently all the arguments in favour of changing the treaty-making process. In particular, she said: “A range of multilateral regional and bilateral economic agreements now constrain the domestic regulatory policy and legislative options of domestic Governments in unprecedented ways. Unlike many other international treaties, these are enforceable through the imposition of retaliatory economic sanctions. The behind-the-border effect is to circumscribe a nation’s economic and political sovereignty and the powers of its domestic Parliament, courts, and the executive. These agreements often have an effect equivalent to entrenched legislation, yet they can be signed and ratified by the executive in power at a particular time and are not subject to the constitutional requirements that apply even to an ordinary statute.” That is why Keith Locke introduced his International Treaties Bill to Parliament, and why the Green Party made strong submissions on the Standing Orders that relate to international treaties.

We regret that the committee has not implemented the two unanimous specific recommendations of last Parliament’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to change the Standing Orders, which were made when it considered Keith Locke’s bill. The first was to widen the scope of treaties to capture any bilateral treaty. The final decision on whether such a treaty should be considered by Parliament is to be made by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and not the Government as is currently the case. The second was that the interim report of that committee suggested the national interest analysis on international treaties be expanded to include Waitangi obligations, human rights, local government, and existing international obligations. We are very disappointed that this recommendation, made over 2 years ago, has still been left with the ministry. It is time for Parliament to take charge of its own destiny in this regard. While we are pleased that there is now a 6-monthly list of treaties that is circulated to the committee, we need to go much, much further than that when it comes to the treaty-making process.

We also believe that this Parliament needs to go much, much further with the position of the Leader of the Opposition. This position is an historical anachronism that has no place in an MMP Parliament. National does not even represent a majority of the Opposition members in this House. We have a situation where the official leader of the Opposition does not command the support of a majority of the parties that that person is supposed to represent. Further, under current rules it is entirely possible for the so-called Leader of the Opposition to have a confidence and supply agreement with the very Government that it is meant to oppose, which is why we recommended an amendment to the Standing Orders to add the words: “or with a formal confidence and supply agreement with a Government party”, so that any party in that position would not be eligible to provide the Leader of the Opposition. While expressing no ill will towards Don Brash, it is patently ridiculous that he should represent the Green Party in Parliament, at public functions, and on bodies such as the Intelligence and Security Committee. I suggest that United, ACT, and New Zealand First may share our concerns about that particular matter.

However, we are pleased that the review looks beyond the demise of the draconian Electoral Integrity Act, to define how members are represented if they cease to be a member of the party for which they were originally elected. Party recognition will now include members who stood for a component party of an umbrella party that they leave after the election. That is a step forward that United Future might find useful at some future point.

A number of other positive suggestions have been adopted, particularly from the Green Party. The bells now ring when the House rises, and not until it rises. That was one of our early suggestions and it has been in practice for some time. The Thursday urgency is another one of our suggestions. We are pleased to see that apply. The change to proxy voting is something that we were pleased to have contributed to. I think that is a step in the right direction. However, I am disappointed that the committee declined to adopt several other Green Party initiatives, including an investiture vote, Parliament sitting in alphabetical order until the Speaker is elected, constructive votes of confidence, and the proportional distribution of select committee chairs and deputy chairs. I am particularly disappointed that the Clerk’s proposal for select committee orders was not adopted. I encourage members to read page 11 of the Standing Orders Committee report. It states: “The Clerk submitted that a genuine prospect that inquiry reports will be debated in the House and the establishment of a transparent mechanism for this to occur would enhance the scrutiny offered by committees.” It is a shame that we have not gone there.

I am also disappointed that Matt Robson’s attempt to modernise the prayer has been rejected. It was time we did that. It should be reviewed, especially in the light of the growing diversity of society and Parliament over the last 40 years. I am equally disappointed that the committee refused to modernise the dress code. Members’ standard of dress should be at their own discretion, subject, of course, to the Speaker’s responsibility to maintain order and decorum. Insisting that male members wear ties and jackets does not ensure order and decorum—in fact, quite the opposite. Some of the most vile, insulting, and unparliamentary statements that I have heard in this House have emanated from members known for their high standard of dress. I am sick of trying to explain to schoolchildren, as I did in Blackball yesterday, that the behaviour of some MPs is unbecoming and that those members are disrespectful to their colleagues and to the Speaker. I urged those children not to follow our poor example in the way they treat each other and their teachers. The onus is on the Standing Orders Committee to take seriously the submission from Wellington High School, set out on page 23 of report, to improve our behaviour in this Parliament and to return to the question of a code of conduct, which was proposed by Ross Robertson.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): For me as a first-term member of this House it has been a unique and rewarding experience to be so closely involved in this major review of the Standing Orders—the first of its kind in more than 4 years. I would also like to pass on my compliments both to yourself, as the chair, and also to David McGee, as adviser to the committee, for the excellent way that you took us through a maze of, at times, very complex matters.

I want, today, to speak briefly about a matter that the committee has decided, with my full support, to continue with—that is, the parliamentary prayer. The first question I would like to ask is whether we should open Parliament each day with prayer. The decision to do that was taken by the New Zealand House of Representatives on 26 May 1854, and, accordingly, our daily prayer continues a tradition that has now lasted for almost 150 years. I believe we should continue that tradition.

It never seems to occur to people who, with the zeal of a rebellious teenager, want to “throw off tradition”, that a practice becomes a tradition because it has survived the test of time. Therefore, when we are looking to change tradition, our initial approach should be one of great caution, since tradition links us back to something that our culture has valued through many successive generations. Prayer, in my view, is important because it is a specific recognition of the transcendent dimension of life. When each of us—from the Prime Minister to back-benchers—takes a moment to bring the transcendent to mind, we not only demonstrate our essential equality of dignity as fellow New Zealanders—something that is a strong part of our egalitarian ethos—but also we deny ultimate authority over our nation to merely human opinion. When we deny the transcendent we have moved from secular without a capital “s” to secular with a capital “s”. We then immediately place ourselves among those States that are closed to the transcendent—we become a closed State. We saw examples of that in the 20th century in fascism and communism. I do not think any of us want to go down that road.

The next question is what form should the prayer take. I suggest we should continue with a Christian prayer. I say that, based on my examination of the 2001 census figures, and the breakdown of religious affiliation. I find from those figures that 55.7 percent of New Zealanders identify themselves as Christians. The next-largest religious grouping in New Zealand is Buddhists, who make up 1.08 percent of the New Zealand population, followed closely by Hindus on 1.04 percent. No other single religious group is more than 1 percent.

New Zealand, in terms of its religious affiliation, is overwhelmingly a Christian nation today, as it has been continuously since the prayer was first introduced almost 150 years ago—in 1854. Accordingly, in my view, there is no clear case to be made for a change, and those who propose a change fail to recognise that a minority of the population would then be imposing its view on the majority. Are we to settle for the tyranny of the minority? I think not.

The answer to this little dilemma, I think, can easily be found and explained through the virtue of tolerance. If I, as a Christian, were living in a Muslim country, such as Indonesia or Turkey, or a Hindu country, such as India, I would certainly expect, and also respect, the opening of their Parliament with a Muslim or a Hindu prayer. Likewise, to be consistent with my logic, if another religious group—be it Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever—were to become the majority in New Zealand, then tolerance would oblige me, at that point in time, to support a change. With those few remarks, I commend the revised Standing Orders and the committee’s recommendation to this House.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise for the ACT party to commend this review to the House. The report properly reflects a precedent that could well be followed by other committees. A number of matters were exhaustively investigated, certainly with enough detail for a sense of what might be, and opportunities there might be to further improve the Standing Orders. They have been recorded in this committee report, notwithstanding the eventual decision not to recommend them. The committee operates by consensus, or by a form of majority, that recognises the undesirability, as the Hon Dr Michael Cullen said, of a Government using its majority to force through changes to the Standing Orders. I therefore was pleased, as a relatively new member, to see that the discussion foreshadows changes that might well come when the mood of caucuses might have changed.

I look, for example, at the areas of functions of select committees, the recognition of the position of smaller parties in allowing for non-voting members on a more routine basis—I am sorry, that is actually a recommendation, which I welcome for ACT. Mr Rod Donald spoke on the provisions for treaty review and treaty examination. The ACT party endorses the position that the Green Party took on that matter. We believe that the view that anything that looks like a treaty is a matter for Crown prerogative is a dated view. That position has been taken on domestic treaties—that is, settlements of treaty grievances. It draws on the precedent of a Crown prerogative to enter into foreign treaties. For Parliament to simply approve, or not approve, is inappropriate. I hope that, the next time the Standing Orders are substantively reviewed, this is addressed by this House in a way that properly reflects that Parliament should be sovereign. The effect of international treaties these days on domestic law is very much greater than when the convention was laid down. it was a matter of executive prerogative.

We have, I understand, more than 200 treaties that are now directly incorporated. The courts are seeking to interpret law, including statute law, in accordance with international treaties, even where that is a strained interpretation. Parliament should not allow the examination of treaties to be as confined as it has been in the past.

It would be presumptuous for me to comment too exhaustively on other aspects of the committee’s work. It was obvious on the couple of occasions when I was pleased to be able to sit on the committee, as a substitute, that the experience that was being brought to play on the Standing Orders was very necessary, and considerably more than the experience I had, and I too wish to add the appreciation of the role played by Mr McGee as a very experienced Clerk, in guiding MPs away from temporary enthusiasms and rushes of blood to the head. He made sure it looked at some of the things that, from his perspective as a manager of business and a manager of committees, should be looked at, even though members were not necessarily particularly interested in them. I commend his role in that committee.

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

Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There may be some misunderstanding about the Business Committee agreement on this matter. I consulted with my colleague Dail Jones and he has made it very clear to me that there was never any agreement on the part of New Zealand First to prescribe for this debate. In the nature of things, we have considerable time left for this debate to continue. I would like to know why we are being confined to one speech per party.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for the point of order, but that is exactly as it has been for every report of a similar nature we have had before this Parliament in previous years. I have made my decision, and that is it.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I will not have any argument on this. I have made my ruling.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you telling me that in previous years, on the question of a debate on the report of the Standing Orders Committee, there has been only one speaker from any other party?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not. I am saying that there has been a maximum of two speakers from the major parties, and one speaker from each of the minor parties. There has not been a change to that in recent times. The question is—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. I will not have any further comment about my ruling on acceptance of a closure motion.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated.

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

Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber if he raises a point of order that disputes my ruling.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Let me make it very clear to you, Mr Speaker, that a fundamental right of members of Parliament in our type of democracy is the right to raise a point of order, without being coerced out of it by threats of what might happen should a point of order be raised.

Mr SPEAKER: Once.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Now, you know full well that it is within your powers—and not outside the Standing Orders, or any other precedent that I am aware of, because I have been here a long time. I have heard lengthy debates on the Standing Orders, and what they mean, when there were just three parties in this House This is an open debate, and it is within your power to allow a proper discussion of the report of the Standing Orders Committee, which we are considering. To confine a party to one 10-minute speech, when other parties have not taken their time, in an open debate, unlimited, is by its very context, wrong. If it is unlimited, surely that suggests that there was meant to be more than one speech from any one given party in this House, otherwise it would be limited. But it is not.

Mr SPEAKER: I have made my ruling. The question is that the question be now put.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I will not have any further discussion on my ruling that I accept the closure motion. That is the end of the matter. The debate is not unlimited. There is no unlimited debate in this Parliament. This debate is limited by the closure motion. I outlined that to the Business Committee. There was no opposition to that from a member of that member’s party.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You can’t say that. I did not agree to that.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not say that the member agreed to that, at all. I said that at the Business Committee, where the member’s party was represented, I said what the tariff was and there was no comment on that.

Dail Jones: Silence is not consent. I did not agree to it.

Mr SPEAKER: That may well be the case, but I have accepted the closure motion. The question is that the question be now put.

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

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix A of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders be adopted and come into force on 10 February 2004.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Noes 13

New Zealand First 13.

Motion agreed to.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you this for my education. Firstly, during the process we have just gone through, I point out that I sought a call in that debate on two occasions. Various points of order were taken explaining why we were progressing further. In one of your explanations you said that it was given that the two bigger parties would have two speaking slots in this debate, and the other minor parties would have one slot. I would like to know why I was not given an opportunity to have my point of order heard. Given that there were 20 spare minutes, and neither the National Party nor the Labour Party sought to use the time allocated to them, had I been given the courtesy or the privilege of a point of order, I would have sought the leave of the House to use at least 10 of those surplus 20 minutes to make a presentation on behalf of New Zealand First under which I would have covered seven different points. Mr Speaker, for my own education, I would really like to know why you did not give me the courtesy of having that point of order so that I could have at least sought the attention and consideration of the House to use some of that time.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The decision of the Chair is not to be entered into when the Chair accepts a closure motion.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was seeking your advice and assistance as to why you had not taken my point of order. You would not know what my point of order would have been until I had opened my mouth. Indeed, you are only now aware of what it is I would have said to you, but you did not even give me the opportunity to have my point of order heard, and I would like to know why.

Mr SPEAKER: If that was the case, I apologise to the member. I made a mistake.

Bills

Holidays Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 11 December.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): As previously stated in the first reading, second reading, Committee stage, and now the third reading of this bill, National is opposed to the bill. We will be voting against it at the conclusion of this debate, as we have throughout the course of this bill’s passage. Members on this side of the House found it interesting that in November 2003 the law firm Simpson Grierson produced an employment law summary of the Holidays Bill. Not only is the content of that document interesting but it has a subtitle “The Devil is in the Detail”.

That is, I guess, a fair summary of some of the major problems that lie within the Holidays Bill.

Members of the Government would say that people who oppose this bill oppose the rights of workers, particularly the rights of workers to enjoy 4 weeks’ annual leave. That is simply not correct. What we were able to find during the course of this debate progressing, was that the Official Information Act was able to produce documents from Treasury and the Department of Labour that made some startling revelations about the impact of this bill, not only on business but, more spectacularly, on workers themselves.

It is worth looking at some of the quotes from those documents. I will take the House through them, as I have a bit of time on my hands. This is an interesting one: “While the initial cost of the extra week of leave falls on employers, over a period of a few years we expect that employers will offset these costs by passing them on to employees through lower wage increases.” That has to be the thing that the Government worries most about, actually, and it is something that we on this side of the House do worry about.

The cost of 4 weeks’ annual leave will, in the end, fall on the workers. There is nothing more certain than that. It has been estimated that the total cost of this package to New Zealand employers and workers will be about $700 million per year. Interestingly, it has been estimated that $350 million of that cost—half the cost—will be borne by workers in the form of lower wage increases. The Government deliberately avoided advice on that issue. Treasury was asked, we are told, to provide advice only on the Friday before Cabinet met to decide on the issue of 4 weeks’ annual leave. In other words, it was not until the eleventh hour that Treasury was asked to produce for the Government a series of costings.

We know that this is not a policy that the Government has its heart in, and there are two reasons for that. The first is this: Steve Maharey told a Business New Zealand pre-election conference that Labour would not introduce 4 weeks’ leave. He was backed by Michael Cullen, who confirmed that 4 weeks’ leave would not be part of Labour’s policy. Mr Maharey then stated, later in the year when Matt Robson’s bill was introduced, that: “It’s because we don’t think employers at this time are in a position to take on 4 weeks’ leave in addition to other changes in their environment.” Now we find that the Government is happy and principled in its decision to introduce this legislation.

As I said prior to the interruption of this debate on Thursday evening, if the Government’s intentions were pure, if they were directed towards workers in a pure sense, why wait until 2007? If this is such a part of Labour’s impressive worker-friendly agenda, why are we waiting until 2007? More to the point, if it is so good for business, if workplaces are going to become so much more productive because workers will be well rested and putting their proverbial backs into the job, if the measure is so good, why are we waiting until 2007? What is so magical about—

Hon Matt Robson: That’s a good question.

SIMON POWER: Matt Robson says that that is a good question—I thank him for that. The question is this: if members opposite are genuine about it, if members opposite do not think it will affect business, then why do they not put it in place now? That is the challenge the National Party puts to the Government. The Government should have the courage of its convictions, then at least we would respect the fact that the Government is standing by a principle.

But in this case, of course, we have seen that not only will the costs be borne half by workers, and not only will $700 million be pulled out of the economy—which will affect, in the end, workers’ wages more than business itself—but that this Government does not have the guts to stand up and put this policy into place immediately. That says more about the Government’s motivation and its politics than it does about its principles.

I have to say that it appears that the Official Information Act request from Treasury and the Department of Labour said that the immediate cost of labour will increase by 2 percent as soon as this bill is brought in, and that there will be distributional impacts through salary responses—and that is Treasury talk for “You won’t get paid as much in the long term.”

Hon Brian Donnelly: Those on 4 weeks will want to go to 5.

SIMON POWER: Well, that is just an inevitable roll-out, and that is where most of the cost will come from, actually. So I say that Government members should have the courage of their convictions. Members opposite need to accept the fact that this bill will hurt not only business but—more important from the perspective of those members opposite—workers. Businesses will be unable to keep pace with increased labour costs, and I have made it clear from the start of this speech that National will stand on principle on this bill. We will not support a bill that is harmful to both employers, and people struggling out there to make a dollar in business, and we will not support a bill that, in the long run, will be bad for workers. National will be voting against this bill.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): First of all, I congratulate Margaret Wilson on steering through an important bill that covers so many aspects of holidays for employees and employers in this country. On the question of the 4 weeks’ leave, I am very pleased that four parties in Parliament are supporting 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave as a recognition of the productivity and the contribution of so many low-paid workers in New Zealand, including many in this building who service and work for us as members of Parliament.

Mr Simon Power for the National Party has made a plea for the case for bringing that measure in earlier. I would have liked to see him convince his colleagues to vote for the amendment that would change the date to 2005. That support was not forthcoming. Therefore, we should put aside the earnestness of what he is saying. He has also spoken of the fact that Mr Steve Maharey and other Cabinet Ministers were, perhaps, a little slow to the reform in the form it is in now. But Steve Maharey is a fast learner, which is why he, and not Mr Simon Power, is the Minister of higher education.

I also want to say that this debate is a chance to pay tribute to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and particularly engineers, printing, and manufacturing unions who led this campaign on behalf of their members—and I was pleased to work with them—and for getting out this postcard. There are a number left. I will sign them for members as a historic memento of the campaign to bring in 4 weeks’ leave. As well as that, there are a limited number of posters here: “4 weeks’ leave”—

Simon Power: Who paid for that?

Hon MATT ROBSON: —which will be available, too, for members, and they were paid for by the trade unions and by party funds that the Progressives put in, as well.

This is a reform that is well overdue. It brings us into line with our competitors, particularly Australia, and it is a recognition of the productivity of so many New Zealanders.

Lastly, I will say that in preparing for this debate I realised the importance of the work-life balance. I had a prize giving to attend for my younger son. It was important to me, and I was able to take half an hour to go to that, and delay coming to Wellington. It made me realise how many parents who want to attend those functions have to take time out of their precious annual holidays if they do not have flexitime to make it up, as we members of Parliament do.

Lastly, in preparation for this, I took out one of the press statements that was put out on this matter. On 7 November 2002 I said this: “Parliament will soon vote on whether every worker should have at least 4 weeks’ holiday a year. I am confident that Parliament will recognise the overwhelming support from working people and vote for the first reading. My bill will then go to a select committee for public submissions.” One year on, I am pleased to say that we are now having the third reading and are about to pass this historic step. It is tribute to the four parties in this Parliament who have put themselves behind the ordinary working people of New Zealand who make such a contribution to our nations.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): One would think, by listening to the last two contributions, that this bill was only about 4 weeks’ holiday. It is, of course, about a good deal more than that.

Let me commence by talking about New Zealand First’s concerns about 4 weeks’ holiday. Basically, the current situation is that only low-paid people, young people, or people casually employed get less than 4 weeks’ holiday now. They are confined to 3 weeks’ leave. We do not believe that the country would really be in dire straits if we extended leave provisions to casual workers, the low-paid, or young people. We believe there is a fair case for increasing their annual holiday entitlement to 4 weeks. Most people who are in a position of responsibility get 5 or 6 weeks. Some have the add-on provision that their leave is 1 or 2 weeks above the standard but, in general terms, they negotiate their own holidays to whatever level at which the market can meet the demand. Largely, those people who are on 3 weeks’ holiday now have little or no industrial clout. Their unions are non-existent in many cases, or pretty weak, and nobody will listen to them. It is a competitive environment, and if they do not like their leave entitlements they are told to “take it or leave it”.

Another point is that this 4th week will be phased in by the year 2007.

Simon Power: Phased in? It’s postponed.

PETER BROWN: Phased in or postponed—whatever words the member wants. It will not come into being until the year 2007, which gives the businesses of this country quite a lead-in time to get used to what is coming.

New Zealand First would have supported Matt Robson’s bringing in the 4-week provision in 2005 if there had been some financial compensation—for want of a better term—for employers and businesses in this country. If we could have given 4 weeks’ leave to low-paid, young, or casual working people within a couple of years, we would have welcomed that, but we recognised that there should have been some financial compensation for business—small business, in particular—by way of tax relief. We would have supported that, but it was an unbalanced approach. Matt Robson wanted to bring in 4 weeks’ leave without any consideration of business concerns, so with some reluctance we could not support him.

The main part of this bill revolves around other factors: for example, it clarifies holiday entitlements. Most people in this House must welcome that. Certainly, employers must welcome some clarification of holiday entitlements—when there is a holiday, when there is not, etc. It does provide for some employees to be paid at the rate of time and a half for working on a public holiday. That will not be the end of the world for New Zealand. [Interruption] It will present some difficulties for some employers; that is true, but it will not be the end of the world.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Working on a Sunday will.

PETER BROWN: My colleague thinks that working on a Sunday will be.

This bill segregates sick leave and bereavement leave, and that caused us some concern. There is a degree of “open chequebook-ness” about the bereavement leave provision in particular. We believe that in the fullness of time those measures will have to be rethought and re-looked at.

We respect business people in this country. We know that some of them will have a tough time. We know that some businesses will find this legislation hard and tough, and will, of necessity, have to restrict their activities. Others will restrict the number of people they employ and the duties they assign to them. We know all that. Further still, there will be employers who will operate as normal but be compelled to pass on the costs by way of increased prices—perhaps on a public holiday in terms of a restaurant, or whenever and however. We know that that will be difficult and will lead to increased costs and prices in a range of activities. We know that other employers will reasonably easily be able to absorb the extra costs of this bill, but, because of the competitive environment they are in, will have to look twice and modify their approach.

The most worrying concern about this legislation is the fact that it will give an incentive for some employers to employ people casually, when otherwise they might have employed them permanently. That is a concern for New Zealand First. Some employers will ask themselves why they want the trouble—and go to all the bother, red tape, and associated rigmarole—that goes with employing somebody permanently, when they can get the same person with the same skill on a casual contract, with little or no commitment from the employer for long-term employment. That is a worry to New Zealand First, and it is only right that working people should be aware of those adverse effects.

We have another major concern about the public sector—the public sector that will supply social services, for want of a better term, to disadvantaged New Zealanders. I am talking about areas like the health system. Will the Government compensate employers in the health system for extra leave costs? I have not heard that so far, but the Government should do so. It should be listening to the concerns of the health people and be compensating them for extra holiday costs. I ask about rest homes. Will the Government compensate rest homes for the additional costs of employing people on a public holiday when they are entitled to time and a half? I have not heard it thus far, but I hope that the Government has been listening, will do the decent thing, and respond accordingly. [Interruption] I do not mind my members along here laughing and joking at Christmas time, but I wish they would dull it down a little bit.

IHC New Zealand does a tremendous job in this country. This bill will cost them millions. Is the Government going to compensate IHC New Zealand for working 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, doing the marvellous things it does? I hope so; it certainly should do so. I hope the Government has been listening.

There are other areas I am sure the Government must be taking into account where costs need to be passed on. I am talking of particular areas of social concern. I hope the Government has been listening. Nevertheless, having said all that, I say we believe that the time has come for this sort of legislation. It is time we had clear, well-defined, holidays legislation so people know their rights and their entitlements. It is time the low paid had 4 weeks’ holiday a year so that people get a fair go. That is an issue we should be addressing as a Parliament—not, in my view, withholding reasonable conditions from low-paid people—so that the country can go on in whatever way it goes on. Low-paid and casual working people are entitled to a fair go.

Much has been made of the effect this legislation will have on economic well-being, and we have been compared with Australia. From my research, I find that the average income for weekly earnings in Australia is 7.5 percent higher than that of New Zealand—or close to that. The tax take the average person pays is nearly 17 percent more—more income, more tax. The estimated average net wage in Australia is about 3 percent more. We can compete with Australia without prejudicing the entitlements of low-paid or average-income New Zealanders.

We believe this bill will need to be tidied up in the not too distant future, but we support it and wish everybody well.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party welcomes the passing of the Holidays Bill into law a week before Christmas 2003. Although we are disappointed that 4 weeks’ leave for all workers will not actually happen until April 2007, we know that at least it will happen—finally bringing New Zealand into line with the modern world, and in particular with our closest neighbour, Australia.

Four weeks’ holiday a year is a base minimum to ensure that workers have time with their families, and time to rest and recuperate from the world of work. Many workers these days work more than 40 hours per week. Many work 6 or 7-day weeks, and shift work is common. Those patterns of work inevitably entail a heavy impact on the health and well-being of staff, and give less time to spend with friends and family. In addition, an extra week’s leave per year will not only benefit employees but also employers, who will profit from improved job performance, greater productivity, higher job satisfaction, and better levels of physical and mental health among their staff.

The eventual introduction of 4 weeks’ holiday for all will also bring to an end the ridiculous situation whereby those at the lower end of the labour market are less likely to be entitled to any more than the statutory minimum in the way of leave. There is a strange notion abroad that if a person is in a highly paid professional job, that person is subject to far more stress and deserves far more leave than someone who might be doing something like cleaning, packing, retailing, or driving for a living. In fact, people who carry out the less well-paid but just as vital tasks needed by our society and economy, deserve and need just as much leave as anyone else—if not more—given the stress they face in working for much lower pay and often in doing a job that does not provide the kind of personal satisfaction expected as of right in the higher echelons of the labour market.

As I have pointed out elsewhere on numerous occasions, the Green Party shares with Matt Robson, and with workers and unions, a substantial measure of regret that 4 weeks’ leave for all is not being established for the next year or the year after. However, we congratulate the Government on at least being willing to compromise by legislating for 4 weeks’ leave in the next term of Parliament. I doubt that National, ACT, or United Future will be willing to go into the next election campaign promising voters they will repeal the 4 weeks’ leave provisions in this bill. If they do, let it be on their own heads—much as I dislike the way in which this element of the legislation can be taken, purely and simply, as an election promise.

Moving on to the rest of the bill, I say that on the whole the Green Party has been, and remains, right behind this bid to clarify and strengthen the laws relating to leave and holiday eligibility. We support the provision of a guaranteed 11 public holidays per year, the clear separation and establishment of minimum bereavement and sick leave entitlements, and the provision of guidelines for calculating payments for all types of leave.

Our major disappointment with the bill—apart from the unnecessary delay in the implementation of 4 weeks’ leave for all—was the Government’s decision during the consideration stages to lower the period, from five successive calendar days to three, after which an employer can require proof of sickness or injury. This was a retrograde step, especially given the cost of going to a doctor these days. I believe employers can and should manage problems around people taking sick leave without good reason, through means other than the blunt instrument of a medical certificate—which can cost up to $50 a pop even if a person does not require any actual treatment.

Also in relation to sick leave, the Green Party would eventually like to see a separate and distinct provision for domestic leave, so that workers who need to take time off to care for sick or injured dependents can do so without cutting into their own sick leave entitlements. With a vast number of parents of both genders now in the workforce, and with a culture that says even solo parents should go out to work as soon as they possibly can, we need as a society to reassess how we treat workers who also have a primary obligation to look after young children, and the sick or frail elderly, who may be in their care. I hope that the next Holidays Act conceived by the New Zealand Parliament will be one that truly recognises the dual role that many workers play as both parent and employee, and that will extend leave provisions so that domestic leave becomes separate from sick leave and carries with it an entitlement in its own right.

Meanwhile, at least we have taken several big steps forward with the bill we are passing today. I acknowledge and thank everyone who has played a part in the process of bringing our holiday law into the 21st century. This bill is a Christmas present for New Zealand workers, even if the full benefit of the gift is subject to a rather lengthy lay-by arrangement.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of United Future, which will not be supporting this bill—much as we would like to. As we have said throughout our speeches on this bill, there are many aspects of it that are good and that we like, but we made the proviso at the beginning that we would not support it if it sneaked in things like time and a half and an extra week’s leave—not that we object to 4 weeks’ leave, but we believe there should be other provisions and other things to go with it.

Let me pick up on a point that Peter Brown made. He said that New Zealand First is supporting this bill, but that its members recognise that some things will have to come back to Parliament to be dealt with. I ask Peter Brown how good that party expects legislation to be. Is 80 percent OK? Is 85 percent? Is 90 percent? Or should it be 99.9 percent correct? If this legislation was—[Interruption] I am not controlling the sound of the microphone. They can turn it down. I say to Harry: Do not worry, it will be OK.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member made two faux pas. One is that he asked a direct question of Mr Peter Brown. Under Speaker’s ruling 39/6 he cannot do that. It leads to disorder. The other one was that under Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement) a member cannot refer to a member by his or her first name.

PAUL ADAMS: I apologise. I was addressing a comment made by Mr Peter Brown, in which he pointed out that the legislation was not quite correct and would have to come back to be modified. Let us say that the legislation is 99.9 percent correct: would that be good enough? If we accept that 99.9 percent is good enough, then members should consider this, which I found in my cereal packet—it always pays to read one’s cereal packet when having breakfast, because one may learn something. In the United States alone, 22,000 cheques per hour would be deducted from the wrong bank account, 12 babies per day would be given to the wrong parents, 286,500 defective tires would be sold in 1 year, and 20,000 incorrect drug prescriptions would be given in 1 year. Let us not even think about aeroplane flights! So I do not believe that close enough is good enough.

The law is supposed to be fair. I like the phrase in clause 66, “Employer and employee obligations under Act”, that states: “When dealing with each other …”. United Future is a centrist party. We believe in taking a central position. We believe that we can talk to both sides—to the left and to the right. We are supportive of that. The clause states: “When dealing with each other under this Act, an employer and employee must deal with each other in good faith.” That is great, I agree with that, but we should look at the reality of the situation. Sue Bradford said this bill is a great Christmas present for the New Zealand worker. It may well be so, but I have been taught that one does unto others as if one were the other. Let us think about that. If this legislation were fair, it would be fair to both sides. What concerns me greatly about this legislation is that it will be good for employers, but only for those outfits that I call parasites on the business community. They will take up an issue of an employee and will say to the employer: “ We will deal with it, we will take it through the courts, we will help you, and there will be no charge to you. We will just take a percentage when we get your payout.” Well, the poor employer will have to pay all the way, to fight, to have what this legislation states—good-faith bargaining. In reality, I do not believe that that happens.

Peter Brown asked whether it is fair that, just because someone goes out to a restaurant on a Sunday, that person should have to pay more for a steak. The answer to the question is that that person is not paying more for the steak; he or she is paying more for the cost of the labour to produce the steak. If members look at both side of the equation, they should ask themselves whether it is fair that a person who chooses to open extra hours does not receive his or her normal entitlement to profit for his or her work for the day. There are only two choices: one can either pass on the extra cost of the wages through the charge for the steak, or take less profit. We oppose this bill because of the considerable cost that the new entitlements will impose on employers.

During the Committee stage, I mentioned that the Government was comfortable basking in the glory of The Lord of the Rings films, but that it was not prepared to listen to the five companies involved in the films, all of which have said that the bill will make it harder to make movies in New Zealand. I touched on Federated Farmers’ warning about increases in cost. I touched on the Hospitality Association’s calculation that the bill will add $63 million to the operating costs within its industry. Does this Government care about the work-life balance of wage-workers only, and not bosses?

How many here stand up for what I believe is one of the most neglected sectors in our nation—small-business owners, the small-business men who work long and hard and have families to support? I often used to say to people whom I was negotiating with that I had four hungry kids at home, and I tell members that many small-business owners have kids and work long and hard. This legislation is not a good Christmas present for those small employers. Of the 1,600 surveyed in that Restaurant Association survey, 40 percent said they would be likely to close on public holidays, because it would not be profitable to open. The alternative is that the extra costs are passed on to consumers in a public holiday surcharge.

About 27,000 workers who might otherwise have been prepared to work will miss out. Mr Robson claimed that the tourism and hospitality industries will be well served because people will have had all that time off, but he did not acknowledge the fact that they would have had nowhere to eat out.

I also believe that this legislation in no way deals with the work-life balance. In cases of workers who are young, who are trying to do the best for their families, and who are trying to get in as many dollars as they can while they have the energy and time to work, there is absolutely nothing in this legislation that commands them to take a holiday. There is nothing in this legislation for the poor employers who have paid them, worked them, then sent them out for 3 to 4 weeks’ rest, only to have them come back worn out and frazzled because they have chosen to work somewhere else. Under other legislation, if those workers suffer stress or strain the employers will be embattled in that area, as well.

United Future is a centrist party that believes that legislation must be fair. We believe that legislation must be balanced, and we do not see in this legislation the fairness or the balance that we would like. Part of us would have loved to be able to support this legislation, because many parts of it are right and correct. But, unfortunately and overwhelmingly, we feel that the balance has gone out of it, and therefore we must oppose it. Bosses and workers have already been moving towards alternative arrangements, such as flexitime, and payment on the basis of productivity rather than a punch-clock, without having a bill like this. We do not believe that we can legislate for people’s lifestyles; we believe that there must be a working relationship. As much as United Future would have liked to support aspects of this bill, we must oppose it on its third reading.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): Following that contribution, I seek leave for an extension of time for Mr Adams to complete a speech that was obviously cut short.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member cannot do that. It is against Speakers’ rulings.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): The ACT party is continuing to vote against this bill. We did support the objective of revising the Holidays Act, as the labour market has changed significantly since 1981 when the Act came into effect. The intention of revising this legislation was to clarify and simplify employees’ holiday entitlements, and for that reason its revision was long overdue. I think a survey was done of complaints about employment law, and the Holidays Act ranked among the highest of the complaints. But the Holidays Bill, as now amended and going through the House, certainly does not clarify the situation. In fact, this legislation raises the uncertainty stakes for employers, and raises the risks for employers. No, it is not the end of the world. It will not bring down the economy as we know it in New Zealand, but it will be another one of the number that adds to the death by a thousand cuts.

Nowhere will this legislation impact more than on small businesses in New Zealand. Something like 80 percent of New Zealand businesses are classified as small to medium-size—businesses that employ fewer than 15 people. Many of those businesses would like to employ more people, but it is just getting too hard. They can afford to employ more people. It is not the fact that they do not have the profits. It is the fact that every piece of legislation that we pass—I have been here for only just on 18 months and we have passed several—makes it much harder. The Holidays Bill will actually lock people out of work. It is not about helping people into work, it is about protecting those people in work—especially those who belong to a union.

We particularly object to the undemocratic way this bill has been used as a stalking horse for the 4-weeks’ mandatory annual leave. The Prime Minister gave a promise to a Business New Zealand conference that a provision for a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave would not be passed by Parliament. But then Matt Robson’s bill was introduced, and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions came calling and put the hard word on. In the meantime, many businesses—many of which made submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—ignored the 4-weeks’ annual leave bill or did not treat it in a serious way, because they believed the Prime Minister when she said that it was not on the agenda and would have no chance of being passed by Parliament.

But, as I said, the unions put on the pressure, and at the Labour Party conference not long ago the Prime Minister found a way to try to keep the promise to business and to try to placate the unions. I believe that it is constitutionally unsound that we are now in the situation whereby a 4 weeks’ minimum leave provision has been hastily incorporated at the last minute into this bill—which we will pass today, right on Christmas—that will not come into effect until 2007, which will bind a future Parliament. As I say, it is constitutionally very shonky and very dodgy.

It is also a very good lolly, if one likes, for the Government to campaign on at the next election and say: “Vote for us and we will give you 4 weeks’ holiday”. The Prime Minister, when she made the announcement that those 4 weeks would be brought into this bill, made the justification that the economy would be improved and that the bill would not harm the economy, because giving workers 4 weeks’ minimum leave would increase productivity. There is absolutely no evidence for that, at all. In fact, if that were the case, why should we stop at 4 weeks? Why not make it 6 weeks’ minimum leave? If productivity is to go up by having a rise from 3 to 4 weeks, then surely it would double if we went to 8 weeks. So that is an absolute non sequitur.

The ACT party feels very strongly about this whole bill. In the way it has been progressed, the 4 weeks’ minimum leave provision makes a mockery of the democratic process and, especially, of the select committee process. The cost to the country, in terms of financial cost, will be massive. It will not be a cost just to the private sector. There will be a huge cost to the public sector in those areas where there is not already 4 weeks’ minimum leave, as well. The Auckland District Health Board has signalled that it spends nearly $2 million per year on wages. Where will the money to pay the increased costs come from? Will there be increased taxation, or will there be reduced services?

We have heard from submitters who talked about the cost of giving time and a half for those who work on public holidays. Already their workers, in effect, get double time for work on a public holiday, because they get a day off in lieu. This bill, when it goes through, will raise the cost to employers to three times the normal hourly rate. There are also the increased costs, which are put in the “hard basket”, of finding people to work on those days.

In effect, we will see more stress. This bill will bring in more stress, because all those small-business people—many of whom are women running their own businesses and employing three, four, or five people in cafes and those sorts of places—will not be able to afford to employ more or different people to work on those statutory holidays. They will be working those holidays themselves. They will not be able to increase their time with their families, or be able to balance their life and work, as this bill pretends to provide for people to do. They will be under increased stress. If this Government were serious about reducing stress, why does it not extend that regard to employers? Why is it only employees who are purportedly affected by stress in the workplace?

Another area that we argued against in the select committee was the issue of “pay as you go” holiday pay. We had a small victory in that casual workers, if it is agreed between them and their employer, can choose “pay as you go”. After 2007 that amount will be 8 percent added to their weekly wage packets, and until then it will be 6 percent. As long as they know what is being done, that is fine and fair enough. But why not extend that choice to all workers and employees? Why are they not capable of making that choice as well? Permanent part-timers, in particular, might have several jobs. They do not want to go around trying to get their holiday pay from this employer and that employer at the end of every financial year. They might like to get that holiday pay in their packets at the end of the week.

That is an example of how this legislation is patronising. It treats employees like children who cannot make up their minds, and employers like adolescents—naughty adolescents, at that—who want to rip off workers wherever they see the chance. It increases the them-and-us attitude.

The last thing I would like to address is bereavement leave. We argued in the select committee about whether any employer these days would deny a worker time off for the death of a close family relative. The Labour members on the select committee insisted that it still goes on, but when challenged to name one employer that would deny leave, they could not name one. Last week, the OECD report on New Zealand’s financial performance especially singled out the 4 weeks’ minimum leave as a backward step that would take New Zealand back, in terms of prosperity. That is not just some abstract, academic rambling from Paris. It means that every worker in New Zealand will have less in his or her pay packet, because it will cost the country and it is taking us backwards.

MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill): Sometimes, one listens to the most amazing things in this House. I find it absolutely galling that that member—who is probably the only member of Parliament in the Chamber who still has not paid her grievance settlement to the worker whom she ripped off, and who has never had less than 4 weeks’ leave in her life and takes holidays when she feels like it—stands up and says it is patronising for workers to get 4 weeks’ leave. There is a word for that. We cannot use that particular word in the House, but I say to that member that she should pay her bills and treat her staff with some decency. Then there would not be a need for Parliament to pass legislation like this. I tell members that if it were not for the fact that there have been Labour Governments over the years, workers would still be on 2 weeks’ holiday. That is what that member would deem to be about right.

I have been going around and talking to the workers in my electorate. When I talk to them about some of the Opposition’s arguments, they say: “Let them work 49 weeks a year and have 3 weeks’ leave. Let them do that, and then let them come and talk to us about how patronising it is for us to get 4 weeks’ annual leave.” I have negotiated wages and conditions in a former life, and I know the workers never got a jot more than what they were entitled to under the legislation. Employers are not quite as benevolent as some would make out. Sure, they value service and time—I will give Mr Adams that particular point—but members must not think for a moment that employers are benevolent to the point of giving people all the time off that they require. We should be clear on one thing: leave is essential to the good mental health of workers in performing their work.

I make one final point in conclusion. If all those alleged fears about this legislation driving the economy down are true, why is it that, at this particular point in our history, when we have gone through a point of considerable reform in the labour market, we have the lowest unemployment rates that we have had for 15 years? I say to those members opposite that they will live to regret the speeches they have made in this particular debate. They have been totally irresponsible in the way they have promoted this legislation. It is a good bill, workers will welcome it, and if those members want to oppose it at the next election, be it on their heads.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville): It is always an advantage being able to rise after a speech delivered by Mark Peck, and that speech made about as much sense as does his member’s bill, the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill. We will have some time to debate that in the new year.

It is rather apt to say that we are having the third reading on the Holidays Bill on the last day of Parliament in the 2003 parliamentary term. It is interesting that this is an area that does interest all New Zealanders, unlike some of the legislation that goes through this House. I will not have an opportunity to be in the adjournment debate tonight, so may I take this opportunity to wish a very healthy, happy, and joyous holiday to those people who work around Parliament and serve the parliamentarians so well, and we look forward to seeing them all relaxed after the 2003 holiday break.

I want to turn to the Holidays Bill and expose it for what it really is—a shameful election bribe from a Government that would not know how to run an economy to save itself. This is a Government that has had some very, very lucky conditions fall in its lap, and all of a sudden thinks it is the new George Soros of the Southern Hemisphere—someone who would know how to run an economy. Well, this is another retrograde step for all New Zealanders, and living proof of it will be when 4 weeks’ holiday is introduced—if this Government is given the opportunity to do that, and I very much doubt it will be.

This bill was brought about because the industry asked for it to occur. The industry asked for the very complex area of holidays to be simplified and made a little more user-friendly. I want to quote from Simpson Grierson, that fine and reputable law firm, whose employment legislation department summarised the new bill simply as this: “Not only has the bill missed the opportunity to simplify this complex area of law, but there are a number of new concepts they have introduced with little or no public debate.” What is the firm talking about? The bill that was presented to the select committee did not talk about 4 weeks’ holiday; that measure was in a member’s bill—a bill members on this side of the House did not expect to see the light of day. We did not expect it to see the light of day because on the campaign trail, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, told employers up and down the country that she would not support 4 weeks’ holiday. Her commitment to the country was that the Labour Government would not support 4 weeks’ holiday. That is what the Rt Hon Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, promised business groups as she tried to get re-elected. She promised she would not sell out and introduce 4 weeks’ holiday. Well, the Government has found a very cute solution to that. What could that be? It is that it has decided to introduce its wonderful idea not in 2004, not in 2005, not in 2006, but in 2007—.

Hon Maurice Williamson: The year before an election.

JOHN KEY: —in the year that it can hold it up as an election bribe. If it were such a magnificent idea, I would have thought the Government would be rushing to bring it in today. If it will not have an impact on productivity for New Zealand companies, then why does the Government not give everybody 5 weeks’ holiday, or 6 weeks’ holiday? Why does it not take any of those measures? The reason is that the Government knows this bill comes with a huge price tag—a price tag that it first tried to dress up as $350 million. That was the spin that came out of the Labour Government. That was the theoretical cost—$350 million. But, lo and behold, when we in the National Party did a bit of research under the Official Information Act we discovered an internal memo within the Department of Labour that showed the real cost would be a minimum of $800 million—not $350 million but $850 million. Who would be paying for that? In fact, half of it would be paid for by the employees themselves. The very people who should be enjoying higher living standards and higher wage rates will be paying for their own election bribe.

This is a Government that wants to write cheques that the poorer paid employees of New Zealand cannot afford to cash. If work-life balance is the huge issue that Mr Peck and this hapless Labour Government want us to believe it is, then why, as the Employers and Manufacturers Association quite correctly pointed out to the select committee, is there $100 million of unpaid holiday entitlements not taken?

Simon Power: And that’s just in the police.

JOHN KEY: I think it is even broader than the police. If it is such a huge issue, why are people not taking their current holiday entitlements? It is not the issue that people argue. What young and lower-paid New Zealanders really want are opportunities to earn more money.

Simon Power: To pay off their mortgages.

JOHN KEY: And their student loans. They want a chance to get a job and make their way in the world. The vast majority of New Zealanders do not believe that life revolves around redistribution and Government handouts. The vast majority of New Zealanders, unlike Mr Peck, are prepared to go out there and back themselves to deliver a bigger and brighter future for themselves.

This bill is a retrograde step. It is another sign of the nanny State in command and control, and in which Helen Clark and the Labour Government know how many holidays are best. We on this side of the House say that that is not acceptable; it is not the right solution—and we are not alone. One of the first things highlighted in the OECD report was the strength of New Zealand. One of the reasons the gains over the last 10 years have been so great is that New Zealand has enjoyed labour market flexibility, yet the OECD flagged the fact that that flexibility is being eroded every day this Government is in office. Mr Robson, the main advocate of this bill, said to a number of people on the select committee, and has said publicly—and I am sure he will say it in this House when he gets his opportunity—that this is a good thing because it matches many countries in the world that he would hold up as being advocates for this kind of policy.

A country he does not hold up is the United States of America, which has 2 weeks’ holiday—

Hon Matt Robson: For a very good reason.

JOHN KEY: He says there is good reason, but let us look at it this way: the United States of America is a country with 240 million – odd residents who enjoy a living standard almost double that in New Zealand, with the average take-home pay in America being 180 percent higher for every man, woman, and child. The kinds of policies that that member is advocating are constricted mainly to the European Union where the standard of living has been on a rapid and continuous decline ever since it had those sorts of socialist policies. It took me to point out to Mr Robson that even the French unions have started lobbying their Government to reverse some of the very strict 35-hour week and extended holiday provisions. Even the French unions have taken that opportunity. If it is good enough for the French, then Mr Robson is a step behind the pack and he should take the opportunity over his holiday to review this. He should personally come to Parliament in 2004 and beg for forgiveness. We will have plenty of time, because the Government will not introduce this magnificent measure until 2007. So it will never be too late for the Government to say, like the 18 tax rises, that this one has just been too much. It will not take too long.

I will touch on one last point in my third reading address: the issue of average rate. One of the very serious issues that many employers told us about is that they have negotiated a standard average pay day with their employees on the basis of good faith, understanding that it would take into account all holidays, all highs and lows, the average extra time worked, and all that sort of stuff. As a result of this legislation, the average rate will be applied to all statutory holidays and all sick leave. It will also be applied in respect of time and a half on statutory holidays, which we find rather offensive. Mr Speaker, I wish you a very happy holiday, a merry Christmas, and a happy New Year.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South): I am delighted to rise briefly in support of this legislation. What began as a rather mean-spirited contribution from the member who spoke before me warmed with the spirit of the season. I would encourage him to apply the same human concern and friendliness to the members of the workforce of this country.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I will start my debate by wishing everybody a merry Christmas, because what I am going to say, in terms of what will happen in the real world, in the business community, is far from encouraging. This bill is one that, at the end of the day, degrades employers and employees and increases the compliance costs of doing business. But that is understandable with this Government because it is anti-business, anti-growth, and anti anything to do with growth. Yet an economy that requires 4 percent growth to maintain and achieve the expectations of New Zealanders in health care, in education, and in everything else is simply not there.

We are a nation of small businesses. The number of small businesses has been mentioned in previous debates—267,000 small businesses employ fewer than 10 people. Over 90 percent of businesses are small businesses. A damning report has been published by the Ministry of Economic Development. The ministry has special responsibility for businesses in the small and medium sector, and that information is of major concern to operators. It states that the profit income for small to medium enterprises—those that employ from one to five employees—is alarming in terms of the amount of money they are making. This is a report from the Government’s own ministry. It states that the average income in the sector is $31,000, or, looked at in another way, less than the average wage. These are small businesses that will now have to meet the extra compliance costs as a result of the Holidays Bill, along with the other 17-odd tax increases in the last couple of years.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It’s 18.

LINDSAY TISCH: This will be 18, and it will be the one that will blow the Government out. The report states that to earn the average income of $31,000, an owner-occupier will be fully employed in his or her business, and, if that person works 37½ hours per week, with the average amount of time off for holidays, statutory holidays, or whatever, his or her actual average earnings per hour will be $17.22. If we take into account all the non-productive time that businesses have to comply with—the paperwork that goes with being in business—then the rate per hour is $15.37, which is not an attractive proposition. What we are seeing with this bill is an expectation that employees will have 4 weeks’ annual leave and, on top of that, they will have the 11 statutory holidays they currently have, that they will be entitled to a provision of 5 days’ sick leave, which can be accumulated over a number of years, and a new provision of 3 days’ bereavement leave for a close relative, which I will speak about later on, as well as another day for a close associate. If we multiply those hours out, they come to 320 hours of non-productive time. That is 320 hours taken off the 2,080 hours that I would have to pay my employee—52 weeks a year times 40 hours a week is 2,080 hours, less 320 hours, leaves me with 1,760 hours of productive time that can be put into my business. That equates to 44 weeks in the year. If we take that away from the 52 weeks that have to be paid for, under this bill employees will get the equivalent of 8 weeks’ leave. As John Key mentioned, in European countries where productivity is so low because there are extensive holidays—Austria has the most generous scheme; France has a 35-hour week and 5 weeks’ annual leave, which is very good for employees—the productivity rate is such that those countries are having to reassess exactly how they will operate in the future.

Business is very fractious at the moment, and this Government has done absolutely nothing to improve its lot. If we look at the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision, we see that the massive cost that will be incurred on employers and on workers was underestimated at the initial introduction. In fact, we were told that the cost would be only about $350 million. If we look at the real cost, we see it is up to $800 million. An interesting statement that was put out was that the Department of Labour and Treasury figures, issued when the extra week’s leave was announced, estimated that the law change would cost employers $350 million. Cabinet papers released under the Official Information Act show that this measure will also hit employees in the pocket by another $350 million in lost wages, conditions, and trade-offs. That is $700 million. If we add the inflationary costs on to that, we see that the figure that was mentioned earlier in the debate, $800 million, is unrealistic.

A spokesman for the Minister of Labour, Margaret Wilson, defended the announcement and said that it had always been made clear that there would be unspecified flow-on costs. That is what was said. She said: “You don’t get something for nothing.” Well, fancy that! We have always said that there is likely to be give and take when it comes to wage negotiations. The bottom line is that the monetary costs are very small compared to the total wage bill. The total costs that business will have to carry on this measure are far from small. The information I have supplied to members this evening shows that small businesses are struggling to make ends meet at the moment on an average income of only $31,000 of take-home pay for the owner-operator. This extra compliance cost will be another nail in the coffin for them.

If we look at the total scene—at what this actually means—we can see that it is a draconian piece of legislation. The provision that I want to draw the House’s attention to, and which I spoke about at some length during the Committee stage debate, is the unspecified bereavement leave provision—the 3 days of bereavement leave for a close relative, and on top of that the 1 day for a close association. In talking about sickies, and that will be the proverbial that will happen now, sick leave and bereavement leave provisions will be unlimited. When one is running a business, it will be very, very difficult to be able to sustain a workforce and have that productivity and provide those employees with the best conditions. We do not begrudge anybody having extra leave, but it is about choice. National’s position is very clear. A lot of people get 4 weeks’ annual leave now; that is fine. But why do we not say that it is about choice? If someone does not want the 4 weeks but would rather have the extra pay, should that not be an option? In Auckland, where the cost of living is so high, people I have been talking to are saying that they would rather have the option to be able to decide whether they take the 4 weeks’ holiday or whether they have the extra pay that goes with it. When one has cost of living increases—and the cost of living is far greater in Auckland than what it would be in, say, a rural area—then that is one of the options that should be provided.

At the end of the day this bill will be paid for by employees. There will be a wage cap. Someone has to pay, and it is the employers who will have to pay for this, not the Government. The Government is very generous in providing these sorts of conditions, but at the end of the day it will be the employers who pay and the flow-on effect of that will be wage caps for employees. We will not see those wages and conditions that one would expect in the longer term carried through. The total cost of this legislation is unwarranted. It is National’s view that this bill is unnecessary and draconian, and National members, as we have done throughout the debates, are voting against it.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State): We have heard some interesting commentary on this bill. I stand to support the bill today, and I point out to our friends on the other side of the House that if France’s productivity is such a terrible problem, etc., why is it that a French truck maker took over the biggest, strongest American truck maker a few years ago? These are the sorts of things that are always debatable. I strongly support this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Holidays Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Bill read a third time.

Standing Orders—Sessional

Standing Orders—Sessional

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs), on behalf of the Leader of the House: I propose to seek leave for a number of transitional matters relating to the adoption of the new Standing Orders.

I seek leave for the following sessional orders to be revoked, with effect on 10 February 2004:

Party votes (29 August 2002);

Misuse of Drugs Orders (5 September 2002);

Bill of Rights reports (5 September 2002);

Copies of bills (17 December 2002);

Questions for written answer (17 December 2002);

Notice Paper (17 December 2002).

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

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs), on behalf of the Leader of the House: I seek leave for the subject areas of the Government Administration Committee, the Justice and Electoral Committee, and the Law and Order Committee, and the terms of reference of the Officers of Parliament Committee and the Regulations Review Committee, to be amended to reflect the Standing Orders as amended, with effect on 10 February 2004.

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

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs), on behalf of the Leader of the House: I seek leave for the Standing Orders Committee to be re-established with the terms of reference set out in the Standing Orders as amended, with effect on 10 February 2004, and for the committee to continue in existence for the duration of the Parliament unless the House provides otherwise.

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

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs), on behalf of the Leader of the House: I seek leave for any preliminary procedure in respect of a local bill or a private bill carried out in accordance with Appendices B and C of the Standing Orders before 10 February 2004 to be deemed to comply with the Standing Orders despite any inconsistency with the provisions of Appendix B of the Standing Orders as they apply from that date.

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

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs), on behalf of the Leader of the House: I seek leave for the requirement that the Local Government and Environment Committee report on compliance with the Standing Orders in respect of local bills to continue to apply to any local bill before a select committee on 10 February 2004.

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

Bills

Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill

First Reading

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General), on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill be now read a first time. I intend that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration. I am pleased to move the first reading of this bill because it is the most significant reform of State sector financial management for over a decade. It helps set out the new benchmark for public sector management in New Zealand and internationally.

This bill contains eight parts and covers three important areas of change: first, the changes to the Public Finance Act, including integration of the Fiscal Responsibility Act; second, amendments to the State Sector Act; and, third, the creation of a new Crown Entities Act. All of these amendments will work together to provide greater transparency and accountability in the use of public finances, improve flexibility for departments and ministers, reduce fragmentation, effect positive cultural change in the State sector, and provide a consistent governance and accountability framework for Crown entities.

In 2001 the Government commissioned a ministerial advisory group to review and report on practices and performance issues in the State sector. This report, now known as the Review of the Centre, aimed to find ways to maintain and strengthen the public sector and the wider State sector. The review found that although the foundations of public management systems were sound, there were some changes that could be implemented to make them respond better to the needs of the future. The legislative backing required for some of these changes is contained in this bill.

The major focus of the bill is that it improves transparency and accountability around the management of public finances and in the governance structures for Crown entities. The Crown entities spend half of the State sector budget, outside benefit payments and debt servicing, and they employ over two-thirds of all State sector staff. As such, it is very important that they operate in a transparent and accountable manner. The changes contained in this bill aim to set out consistent and cohesive governance and accountability requirements.

The bill builds on the basis for strategic engagement between Ministers and Crown entity boards to establish performance expectations and reporting of performance. It tailors the governance and accountability framework to capture major differences between Crown entities, while still reflecting their different relationships with the Crown. It also clarifies the relationship between Ministers and individual Crown entities. In addition, the changes set out rules on significant matters, such as the appointment and dismissal of board members, board duties, conflicts of interest, and financial powers. Existing legislation relating to particular Crown entities will be amended by this bill to bring it into line with this framework.

The bill also amends the Public Finance Act, and integrates into the Public Finance Act the provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. I need to emphasise that these changes are solely to provide enhancements of these already fundamentally sound pieces of legislation. The Public Finance Act amendments confirm the model of public sector financial management whereby agencies provide services that contribute to the results or outcomes sought by the Government, while maintaining the capability to continue to deliver. The amendments also affirm the primacy of outcomes in the context of managing outcomes. The Fiscal Responsibility Act is being integrated because it contains key provisions for reporting on how the Government manages its finances, and it makes sense for it to be in the same stable as other provisions relating to the Government’s financial management.

There will be changes to the focus of the Budget Policy Statement and the Fiscal Strategy Report. The Budget Policy Statement will now focus on the upcoming Budget strategy. The Fiscal Strategy Report, tabled with the Budget, will focus on the short-term and long-term fiscal strategy. To further extend the benchmark for fiscal transparency, Treasury will be required to carry out a review of the long-term fiscal issues every 4 years that looks at risks over a 40-year horizon.

The bill will improve transparency and accountability by strengthening the reporting to Parliament by departments, Offices of Parliament, and Crown entities on their intended and actual performance, particularly in the area of non-financial information. For example, departments will be required to provide information on Budget day on their future operating intentions for the next 3 financial years.

The second main thing that this bill does is to provide an opportunity for Ministers and departments to manage public finances more flexibly and in a way that reduces fragmentation. Increased flexibility will allow departments to have a greater focus on achieving results, and to find synergies across various votes and departments. For example, the changes will allow more than one Minister to be responsible for different appropriations within a vote. Changes also allow for more than one output class to be covered by a single appropriation. In allowing increased flexibility I have also been clear that accountability must be retained, so although we have increased flexibility by allowing Ministers to authorise fiscally neutral adjustments between outputs within the same appropriation without further reference to Parliament, accountability is retained because reporting is still at the individual output class level. This will allow departments and Ministers to focus their energies on delivering improved outcomes in New Zealand.

Reducing fragmentation is a particular focus for the Crown entity changes, which, in addition to improving accountability and transparency, will also strengthen the whole-of-Government approach that this Government is committed to promoting within the State sector. I think the House will be interested to note that this bill will introduce a framework for board fees that both requires disclosure of fees paid and precludes compensation for loss of office.

The third main thing this bill does is to introduce changes designed to strengthen the State sector through amendments to the State Sector Act. The two main aspects of the State sector changes are extending the State Services Commissioner’s mandate for the sector, and encouraging senior leadership and management development. The commissioner’s mandate will be extended to ensure that people working in Government organisations are clear that they are required to adhere to high ethical standards. The commissioner’s mandate will also be extended to provide leadership to the State sector on other matters—for example, advice on management systems structures and organisations in the Crown entity sector. This bill aims to facilitate building a group of talented senior managers to meet the future needs of the public service.

Finally, the Government has taken steps to consult with other parties represented in the House during the development of this bill. The pre-introduction parliamentary briefing released in August provides an overview of the bill and its main points. I am pleased that all but one party took the opportunity to engage in this consultation. We seek to build broad support for this bill due to the fundamental and enduring nature of the legislation. I believe that this bill will serve the future of public sector management in New Zealand well, and set a new benchmark internationally. It is therefore with much pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): The Hon Margaret Wilson, who has just resumed her seat, claimed that this legislation is important to the Government, yet a few minutes ago there seemed to be no Government Minister who was much interested in reading this bill for the first time in this Parliament. No one stood to take the call, and, quite clearly, the Minister herself did not know a lot about it. She just read someone else’s speech.

National will support this bill to the select committee, but I must make it clear that we do so with some serious reservations. This bill will see the repeal of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which is icon legislation in this country. The Fiscal Responsibility Act is pivotal to maintaining investor confidence in New Zealand. It was that legislation that gave confidence to financial markets in this country. It was that legislation that prevented Ministers of Finance from priming the pump in election years, and from concealing the true facts of the state of our accounts—as Labour did when it went out of office in 1990 claiming this country had a $89 million surplus when in reality it had a multibillion-dollar deficit, all of it hidden from the public. The Fiscal Responsibility Act stopped that ever happening again. It is pivotal to maintaining investor confidence in New Zealand.

Although I accept that many of the provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act are incorporated into this bill, the very fact that the old Act is being repealed means that we must be vigilant to make sure that none of the vitally important elements of that Act are lost in the transition to this bill. The last thing we want for New Zealand is investors—especially off-shore investors—to be given the impression that the Parliament of New Zealand has repealed that critically important legislation, the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

I have to confess that in my time in this place—since 1994—Dr Cullen has never been a great enthusiast for some parts of the Fiscal Responsibility Act. I suspect he has always felt it has constrained him a bit, because even though he is running what appear to be huge surpluses at the moment, he has been a very enthusiastic spender. If we look at the increases in Government spending over the years that Michael Cullen has been Treasurer, we will see that they have grown exponentially. His quite significant surpluses have resulted from his very effectiveness in increasing taxes.

He claimed that he would only put the top tax rate up from 33c to 39c, to affect 5 percent of our workforce. Counting the latest export levy, there have been 18 new taxes and levies, but, worst of all, Dr Cullen and this Labour-led Government have not altered at all the thresholds for income tax. That means that New Zealand has seen massive bracket creep, or fiscal drag—whatever one likes to call it—and since Dr Cullen has been Treasurer, the average worker in New Zealand has suffered the second highest increase in income tax in the OECD. That is why Dr Cullen has such big fiscal surpluses—18 new increases in taxes and levies, plus the greatest increase in personal income tax on average workers in New Zealand compared with the rest of the OECD. So Dr Cullen has actually been quite a big spender, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act has always been a bit of an irritant for him.

I want to come back to the details of that Act in a moment, because as the select committee explores this bill, two other issues need examination. The first is new clause 26B, which provides for appropriations to cover more than one class of output. I can understand why the Government is seeking to do that. I think its argument would be that it should give Ministers more flexibility to spend the appropriations of Parliament more effectively. But the desire of Ministers to have more influence over how they spend this Parliament’s appropriations has to be balanced against accountability back to Parliament. With this change, the select committee must examine whether Parliament will be able to identify—the way it is identified in supplementary estimates at the moment—where Ministers have changed spending and deviated from the appropriations of Parliament.

There is nothing wrong with Ministers having to change certain amounts of spending. I was a Minister for 9 years and accept that there is nothing wrong with that, but the disciplines of the current legislation require those Ministers to come back to Parliament so that it can rubber-stamp anything beyond a certain percentage. It means that changes in spending are at least drawn to the attention of this Parliament. I want the select committee to make sure that if this bill is to provide for greater flexibility so that the appropriations can cover more than one class of output, then there must be a mechanism for drawing Parliament’s attention to instances where expenditures differ significantly from what it was told was the intention of the Government in the first place.

That is the first issue that National wants to make sure the select committee scrutinises closely. The second is that the State Services Commission, as we heard the Minister say, has been given an extended mandate to provide leadership on ethics, values, and standards. I guess that sounds all fine in theory, but listen to this: the amendments to the State Sector Act also provide for the Prime Minister to direct the commissioner. I want to make sure that the select committee explores that provision very closely, because we know all about our current Prime Minister’s ethics and standards. She is prepared to forge her signature on paintings. If she is now able to direct the State Services Commissioner under these amendments to the State Sector Act, we want to make sure that there is a fair bit of constraint on how she can direct the commissioner. I highlight those issues as additional ones that we want to make sure the select committee examines.

Let me come back to the Fiscal Responsibility Act, because one of the major issues is the changes that this legislation makes in respect of the Budget Policy Statement. That statement is hugely important for New Zealand. At present, it is where the Government lays out the long-term objectives for fiscal policy, and how the Government’s current or shorter-term strategy for the Budget fits into that longer-term fiscal framework. What this legislation changes is that that long-term fiscal view will come out of the Budget Policy Statement, because it seems that Dr Cullen is arguing that there is duplication between that long-term fiscal view in the Budget Policy Statement and the Fiscal Strategy Report that is tabled at the same time as the Budget.

The issue is that the Budget Policy Statement comes out before the Budget, and for maximum value to be obtained from the Budget Policy Statement we must see how it fits into the Government’s longer-term fiscal objectives. But we will not know that, because the Fiscal Strategy Report does not come out until the Budget itself. There are issues of timing around that that I hope the select committee will examine in some detail, because we must not undermine the value of the Budget Policy Statement.

The various reports required by the Fiscal Responsibility Act are hugely important, and in repealing that icon legislation and incorporating it into this legislation, we must make sure that the powerful accountability mechanisms of the Act leading from the executive back to this Parliament are not weakened in any way. If they are, investment in the New Zealand economy in the future will suffer, and ultimately New Zealanders will be the worse off for that.

I repeat—we will support this legislation to the select committee, but there are a number of issues that require greater examination by the committee, and our final position will depend, of course, on that analysis.

MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill): Unfortunately, we always hear stories from the Opposition about how this country’s economic credibility will be damaged by one or other of the measures the Government has pursued in the last 4 years. Of course, that has not been the case, but the member does raise a number of important issues, and they are issues that the select committee will need to deal with. One in particular is about the flexibility that Ministers will have under this new regime.

Can I remind the House, too, that this is the first significant change in 10 years to the way the State sector operates. Indeed, it has come about from a thorough review of the way the State sector has worked, and a need to unleash the talents not only of Ministers but also of senior managers within the State sector, so that they can get on and do the job. It is a bit silly for Ministers to have to be constrained in what they can do on occasions, when there is work that obviously needs to be done as a result of the way things are changing along the way. They should be able to do it.

Within the bill—and this is specifically addressing Dr Lockwood Smith’s point about accountability functions—there is a responsibility on Ministers to report serious breaches to Parliament. That provides Parliament with the level of certainty and accountability around the use of the flexibility provisions to be built in that will see the Government and State sector management being able to get on with the job of delivering social services in a much more modern way in New Zealand.

I am sure the select committee will deal with a number of the other issues that have been raised in the debate. I think it is a good bill, and I hope the House will very quickly pass it through its stages.

CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First): The Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill is a very thick bill—though not, I might add, as thick as the income tax legislation, which is, I think, the biggest bill ever brought into this House. But this bill is about 350 pages long, so it is still a very big bill. Therefore a lot of hours will, I am sure, be spent on looking at the bill and understanding it fully, as the Finance and Expenditure Committee examines it and listens to submissions, and as we examine it to make sure it fulfils the purposes and aims that the Government wants from it.

I note that the Government claims that the bill covers the main Acts that govern public finance and the management of the State sector. I also note that this bill is the culmination of a review of public sector management—the Review of the Centre. The Review of the Centre suggested initiatives to support better integration, great flexibility, and an increased focus on results, without losing the system’s current strengths of transparency, accountability, and financial management. The finance Minister, Michael Cullen, has said that the bill is designed to strengthen the public service. He said it will make the public service more transparent and flexible, will allow a more integrated response to complex social problems involving a number of State agencies, and will invigorate the culture of the State sector.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill being referred through to the select committee. That is all we can say at this point. As this bill goes through the select committee process and as we hear submissions, New Zealand First members will be looking to see whether the bill does just what Michael Cullen says that it will do. We also want to hear the submissions on the bill before judging whether it will achieve its goals, in more ways than one.

The bill stems from the 2001 Review of the Centre, and represents the first major change to State sector governance in a decade. It integrates the Fiscal Responsibility Act into the Public Finance Act, as mentioned by the speaker a couple of speeches before me. It amends the Public Finance Act and the State Sector Act, and when enacted will create a new Crown Entities Act. It is said that the bill will improve transparency and accountability. I do believe that the bill requires Treasury to report every 4 years on the fiscal outlook and risks over the next 40 years, with specific reference to the implications of an ageing population. I believe that New Zealand First has played a key role in this House in the last 10 years—since it was formed—in looking out for the elderly, and also in facing up to the implications of an ageing population and what we should do about that with regard to superannuation, for example. Superannuation is a big issue with regard to that part of the bill, the implications of an ageing population, and so on. In 1997 New Zealand First put up a referendum proposal that superannuation be allocated into individual accounts. The funding of superannuation is a problem that will not go away, and it is something that the New Zealand First Party has always advocated that we must face as a country. The current Superannuation Fund is one step in the right direction, but we have a long, long way to go. We have to improve the bill and we also have to improve other measures in order to make sure that, as a country, we can face those hard decisions.

I also note that the bill proposes the Budget will include a statement on the impact on revenue flows of recent Government taxation decisions. I believe that that will be very telling. Another issue I would like to raise is why we do not have a similar statement with regard to social spending, as well—on what is necessary, and what is not. I believe that this Government spends far too much money on the wrong things, and that its priorities are in the wrong place. My party agrees with me that this Government spends millions of dollars on the arts, for example, when we feel that that money could be put into other places—

David Benson-Pope: What?

CRAIG McNAIR: I raised the question a minute ago of superannuation, and that would be a great start, I tell Mr Benson-Pope. We have to face those things.

In getting back to the serious issue of this bill, I also note that it will require departments, Officers of Parliament, and Crown entities to report to Parliament annually, not just on their finances but also on their intended and actual performances. We are always interested in legislation that promotes performance in Government departments and requires Government departments to give taxpayers the best value for their money. One of the reasons we are supporting the referral of this bill to the select committee is that it has some positive aspects, and we want to see whether we can work on the bill and improve it, to make sure that it is beneficial for the New Zealand taxpayer in that way. I note that Crown entities encompass a huge number and diverse range of organisations, from schools—it is a pity that some of them have been shut down—and hospitals to Radio New Zealand, and other organisations and departments. They account for almost half the State sector administrative budget, and employ two-thirds of the State workforce.

In closing, it is interesting to note that the bill allows more than one Minister to be responsible for a vote, while also making it clear—or the Government says the bill makes it clear—which Minister is answerable to Parliament for each appropriation. Also, the bill enables Ministers to make fiscally neutral adjustments between departmental output classes covered by the same appropriation, without further reference to Parliament. The question is whether the bill will maintain accountability by requiring performance reporting on the individual output classes, and that is something we will have to examine in the select committee. Once again, New Zealand First supports the referral of this bill to the select committee and looks forward to hearing submissions on it.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): Overall, the Green Party welcomes the introduction of this legislation, which is the culmination of the years of hard work that have gone into the Review of the Centre. After Labour’s drastic, and often destructive, reforms of the State sector in the 1980s, and National’s continued, and sometimes damaging, restructuring in the 1990s, the Review of the Centre has been a very necessary exercise to begin to clean up the mess. Both the Labour and National policies divided and split parts of the Government into ever-burgeoning silos, introduced competition, and made costs and counting things a priority over quality, ethics, and outcomes. It is good that this Labour Government is taking some responsibility for cleaning up the mess it helped to create, at a time when the chickens are still coming home to roost—as seen, for example, in the results of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services baseline review and in cases of major corruption in various departments, when such things were unheard of in years gone by.

This Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill marks the necessary next stage in the Review of Centre process. It amends the Public Finance Act, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and the State Sector Act, and creates a new Crown Entities Act. The Green Party is pleased to see that the bill moves to reduce the fragmentation that exists between different parts of the sector, aims to reintegrate high ethical standards and values into the public service, and clarifies the roles, governance, and accountability requirements of Crown entities. We are also pleased that there will be an increased flow of information available to Parliament itself from the Officers of Parliament, the Reserve Bank, and from other agencies outside the core public service. The new legislation will allow more than one Minister to have responsibilities within a vote. That is particularly important now that we have an MMP Parliament where Ministers from more than one party may be sharing responsibilities across interconnected areas.

I also welcome the way that the bill finally provides, or attempts to provide, clear definitions of outcomes, outputs, and output expenses. It seems as though each year departments change the way that output classes are defined and the extent to which outcomes or outputs are prioritised—much to the bafflement of select committee members, much less of anybody else. I hope that once this bill has gone through its own rigorous select committee process the result will be increased transparency, in terms of MPs’ and the public’s understanding of what is going on. We also welcome the greater significance given to outcomes rather than to outputs, and the fact that “outcome”, as defined in the bill, dares to mention the state or condition of the environment, as well as that of society and of the economy. The bill does begin to lay a framework for improved accountability that goes beyond mere financial reporting for the State sector, with more detailed requirements than ever existed in the past as to how departments are to report on their future operating intentions.

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

SUE BRADFORD: However, it is disappointing that in its reporting clauses the bill refrains from being more specific and requiring social and environmental, as well as financial, reporting. That is one issue the Green Party will seek to pursue during the select committee’s consideration of the bill. This Government talks a lot about working towards triple bottom line reporting, and aspects of that are starting to appear in some legislation and in the practice of some particular departments. This bill presents a golden opportunity to go a step further towards a much more cohesive and committed approach to triple, or even quadruple, bottom line reporting right across the State sector.

This bill also provides new arrangements for developing senior leadership and management capability in the public service, sets up a new leadership development centre, and ensures that responsibility for the development of potential leaders is taken by both the State Services Commissioner and chief executives. I commend the Government for the moves it is making in that area, but I note that it will take a lot more than legislation to nurture and develop a new generation of leaders with the capacity to rebuild a really strong public service across the board. At least the framework to allow that to happen is established here.

However, I do have one concern, which is that secondments for people on the executive leadership programme are only from within and between agencies in the public sector. I think it is equally important in this day and age that people have an opportunity to experience a decent chunk of working life in the community sector as well, especially as many departments are now engaged closely with the third sector, without necessarily having a really good understanding of what managing and governing non-governmental organisations are really about. It seems to be accepted throughout the public service that a background in the private sector is a jolly useful thing—and so it can be, at times—but I would argue that experiencing a decent slice of life at the tough front end of a community-based organisation is just as valid and useful an experience for a public sector leader to have had as time spent in the very different culture of the commercial world.

There are many more aspects to this bill that I would like to talk about tonight, but time is short. Overall, I would just like to reiterate that the Green Party supports this first significant reform of New Zealand State sector legislation in a decade, and to commend the bill to the House.

RODNEY HIDE (ACT): The ACT party supports this bill going to the select committee, but has some serious concerns. I will highlight those as best I can as we go through.

The first concern ACT has is that this bill’s purpose is stated as being to enhance responsible fiscal management. The experience the population at large has had of the Labour-Green-United Future Government is that what it actually does is the opposite of what it says. So we have a Families Commission that is anti-family, and now we have a public finance bill promoting responsible fiscal management, which suggests to me that when we look into the detail it will be the opposite.

The other thing I notice about this bill is that, according to the explanatory note, it is intended to “extend the State Services Commissioner’s mandate to provide leadership and guidance to the wider State sector, especially on ethics, values, and standards:”. That is from a Government that has overseen some of the most appalling behaviour in the public service of New Zealand in our lifetimes. [Interruption] Michael Cullen is agreeing with that, and the idea that the State Services Commissioner, who has overseen that behaviour and excused it, should be in charge of ethics, values, and standards, is truly a shock.

When I read a bit further into the bill, I see that this legislation will enable the Prime Minister—currently Helen Clark—to direct the commissioner to carry out functions and powers in respect of other parts of the State services. So the Prime Minister is going to provide a lead on ethics, values, and standards for the public sector—that from a Prime Minister who got caught forging a painting. There is no other word for it. That is from a Prime Minister who had her electorate agent destroy the evidence. That is from a Prime Minister who essentially directed the police to charge Shane Ardern—and the charge got thrown out of court. So driving a little “Fergie” up Parliament steps is somehow something that should occupy the courts, but forging a painting is OK

Let me go back to the claim of this Government that it wants ethics, values, and standards. It is quite common for MPs to get up in this House and make charges of corruption. Then we have an inquiry and we find out that it was not that bad—that the MP was exaggerating. Well, I do not exaggerate; I ask questions in this House. We now have the report—the Doug White report on the Civil Aviation Authority—and we find there that the Civil Aviation Authority, from the top, is corrupt. That is what we find in that report.

Then there is the idea that the State Services Commissioner will oversee ethics, values, and standards. If that is the case, how is it that the Director of Civil Aviation, John Jones, still has a job? That is a question for this Government. We read the report and see that it is clear what happened. A leading flight inspector of the Civil Aviation Authority was paid by the taxpayer to inspect an airline. He recommended that it be grounded. He then went and got paid by that airline, on the side. How bad is that? On the one hand, he was being paid by the taxpayer to ensure safety—and therefore he held the airline operator on the ground—and, on the other hand, he was being paid on the side to help the operator get into the air. [Interruption] I say to David Benson-Pope that that, not surprisingly, is called extortion. I hope voters remember that that member tries to interject and somehow to protect it.

There was extortion going on and—do members know something?—I do not blame that inspector, Richard Cox. I do not blame him, because the airline operator rang the Director of Civil Aviation, John Jones, and said: “Hang on, this is a bit rough. The guy who has just put our airline on the ground is now turning up seeking private work.” Do members know what the Director of Civil Aviation said? He said: “That’s OK. I know all about it.” So they had no option then—and Government members have gone quiet now—but to pay the money, which was essentially a bribe being extorted out of them, because what does one do when one’s business is put on the ground and the Civil Aviation Authority turns up and says: “We can help you but you have to pay us.”? One says: “This isn’t right.”, and rings the Civil Aviation Authority boss—and he says he knows all about it.

What do we find in this report? We find what I could have told this House months ago—that John Jones, in a letter to the company, fully authorised it. He had no problem that his leading flight inspector, charged with the safety of the airline industry in New Zealand, went to the airline company and said the company was not safe to fly. In fact, John Jones recommended that the flight inspector went to work for the company—that is what he recommended; it is in the report—and that he was paid. How can we blame that flight inspector when the boss told him to do it? That is what happened here—he was directed by the boss, so that is what he did. He went along and said: “I have to help you. Here’s what you pay.” They put a contract in place and thousands of dollars had to be paid by that airline operator. And what was happening? Richard Cox was then charged by the director, John Jones, to audit the company to see whether it was up to scratch—on the very work he was doing for it. And this is a Government that will come to this House and say it is about promoting ethics, values, and standards. How can that be?

How can we have a Civil Aviation Authority that has the power to put an airline operator on the ground, then turns up the next day and says: “What about a bit of money on the side?”—and, as it does that, it is under the instructions of the Director of Civil Aviation, John Jones. What happened? This Government said that it was OK. How was that so? It used a classic Labour Government trick: it fired Richard Cox halfway through the investigation. He was summarily dismissed for doing what he was told to do by the director. Why did the Government do that? It knew it had to do that because it needed a scapegoat. The Government took one man who was doing his job, fired him, blamed him, and said that the Civil Aviation Authority was all right.

Silly old Harry Duynhoven, who plays around in a helicopter being paid for by the industry, which is the mate of the Civil Aviation Authority, jumped out of a plane—

Gerry Brownlee: What?

RODNEY HIDE: —jumped out of a plane with a parachute attached, which opened and carried him safely to earth—and said that everything was OK. Trevor Mallard said that everything was OK. What did the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, Rodger Fisher, say? He said: “Oh! We have a report from the State Services Commissioner saying that the director, John Jones, authorised what in everyday language is extortion.” He authorised what in everyday language was corruption. He authorised it, and said he would give a warning in writing. That is what he did. I say that if this Government were serious about achieving ethics, values, and standards—and, dare I say it, airline safety and some respect for the Civil Aviation Authority—John Jones would be gone, Rodger Fisher would be gone, and we would be looking a bit more seriously at how it was that Richard Cox was fired before the report was finished.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Stephen Franks would be gone.

RODNEY HIDE: I say to Dr Cullen that that is why we will be taking some great care with this bill.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): This will be my final contribution to the deliberations of this House for 2003. I am sure that some will say: “Thank God for that!” I take the opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, all the very best for Christmas and for 2004, and also to wish that for my fellow MPs.

United Future supports the introduction of this bill, its first reading, and its referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think that the updating through this bill of what are already world-class accounting systems is good. We can make some incremental improvements, and I strongly endorse the commitment in the bill—which Rodney Hide devoted his speech to—to the improvement of ethics, transparency, and other anti-corruption measures, because we must certainly safeguard those values that are so important to our economy and our society.

I want to make just one observation about the bill. One night on television, during the debate on the foreshore and seabed, I heard the Prime Minister tell Paul Holmes that one of the reasons why the Government has gone for the term “public domain” instead of “Crown” in relation to those areas is that it would be inflammatory, as far as Māori are concerned, to hold them in the title of the Crown.

It therefore made me wonder why we have adopted the practice in New Zealand of calling our accounts the “Crown accounts”. We call other things “Crown entities”. We have a whole array of different things that are now referred to by the term “Crown”, and we have other terms like “sovereign debt”, and so on. Back in an earlier time that I am old enough to remember, the accounts were simply referred to as the “public accounts”. Debt was just called “Government debt” or “Government bonds”.

So I wonder whether it is useful in today’s society in New Zealand to refer to all of those entities using the term “Crown”, because the impression probably given of that term from a Māori point of view—as they regard the Crown as the other party to the Treaty of Waitangi—is that somehow or other it refers to the reigning monarch. We all know, of course, that those accounts do not account for the activities of the reigning monarch. They are in fact the accounts of the activities of New Zealanders themselves, carried out through the agency of the duly-elected Government. In a very real sense, therefore, they are the accounts of the people, and for the people, of New Zealand.

I will not say much more, except that I intend to take the unusual course of making a submission to the select committee on this matter, in order to ask whether the term “Crown” is the right one for us in going forward, and in considering where we are going as a nation. Is the term helpful, is it confusing, or is it ambiguous? I will ask those questions so we might give some time to a reconsideration of that aspect. With those few words, I take pleasure in signalling United Future’s support for the bill.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this debate be now adjourned.

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)

Procedure

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the order of the day for the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be postponed.

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

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

Adjournment

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 February 2004 and that the sitting days in 2004 be as follows:

February 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, and 26;

March 2, 3, 4, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 30, and 31;

April 1, 6, 7, and 8;

May 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, Monday 24 May 2-5 p.m. for 150th anniversary of Parliament sitting, 25, 26, and 27;

June 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 29, and 30;

July 1, 27, 28, and 29;

August 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 24, 25, 26, and 31;

September 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 16;

October 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21;

November 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18;

and that the House do, at its rising on Thursday, 18 November 2004, adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 November 2004.

The purport of this motion is to adjourn the House until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 February and to set the sitting days for next year.

Dail Jones: What a bunch of pikers!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: “What a bunch of pikers!” the member says. Goodness me! One of the things I look forward to tonight is the ritual whereby the Opposition will move an amendment to bring the House back on something like Tuesday, 27 January. Those are still pretty much gentlemen’s hours, from their perspective, because Cabinet will have started on 20 January. Opposition members will sit there hoping like hell that the Government votes against it, and that they do not have to come back earlier. Their theme song this year has definitely been: “I really want to get out of this place if it is the last thing I ever do.” They are The Animals over there, singing that old song.

This is an Opposition that has shown no appetite for Parliament for months and months, and no appetite even for politics. This has been a disastrous year for them. Before I get on to that a little bit further, let me do the honours, as is appropriate for me as Leader of the House. I begin by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for your enormous goodwill, humour, and tolerance—particularly of the Opposition—during this year. You have had to put up with some pretty extraordinary attacks from people like Mr McCully, who is an expert in the ethics of parliamentary politics, as we all know, and a man who keeps a solid supply of daggers in the cupboard, ready to stick into the back of any National Party leader who shows any sign of hesitating along the way.

To the Clerk of the House and his staff; to the select committee staff; to the messengers, none of whom have been shot so far this year; to the security officers; to the telephone operators; to the Bellamy’s staff; to the secretaries; to the ministerial staff, including the one in my office who released the notice of the meeting tomorrow at 2 o’clock; to the researchers; to the Fletcher Construction staff; to the Travel Office and staff, who have been kept particularly busy all year by a number of members opposite who have been travelling the country to no purpose at all; to the VIP Office and staff, who kept Ministers moving to a great deal of purpose; to the Bills Office staff, who kept the bills going this year; to the Cabinet Office and staff; to the Hansard staff; to the minutes staff; to the police at the gate, who have had to deal with rather stupid tractor drivers; to the whips offices, including the musterer’s office amongst the Greens—I am not quite sure what they have in favour of sheep, which are an important species; that has never been quite clear to me in that respect, but never mind—to all those people, I give my heartfelt thanks if they have made this place work during the year.

We passed during this year the second largest number of bills passed under an MMP Parliament—some 127, I think it is. Indeed, I think what has happened this year is that we are spending less time debating things on which we actually agree and more time debating things on which we do not agree, which is a sensible allocation of parliamentary time, and probably necessary under MMP. I do not know what this year will have been for the National Party in terms of the Chinese calendar—probably the year of the rat or something like that.

Hon Member: Going to the dogs!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes—the year of going to the dogs. [Interruption] The year of the what? I defer to Pansy Wong.

Pansy Wong: The goat.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, it has been, has it not? It has been the year of the goat. I thank Pansy Wong for that very helpful comment, because this is the year in which the National Party made a generational change—upwards. For the first time in our history its members decided to bypass the generation in its 40s and go to those in their 60s. No wonder Dr Brash holds as his primary policy that the age for New Zealand superannuation should be raised. He wants no suggestion that he should be retiring from this place; instead, he wants to carry on as leader despite his advancing years. That is an Opposition that has sat there glumly day by day. That is a Leader of the Opposition who cannot look the Prime Minister in the eyes when he asks a question; a deputy leader of the National Party whose only contribution now is to raise points of order that are nearly always declined; and a front bench that is there largely either because its members voted for the coup or because they are seen as young and, hopefully, will emerge as future leaders some time in the next decade or two.

That is a National Party that has not come up with a single policy statement during the entire year. [Interruption] The member came out with a sort of exhausted movement towards a policy statement at one point, but apart from that, there has not been a single policy statement. What is the National Party policy on the beaches—the foreshore and seabed? It does not have a clue. Tomorrow, if we agree, of course, we are releasing screeds of it—so fast, indeed, that Gerry Brownlee will need a speed reader to finish it by midnight tomorrow night—in terms of policy. What was the National Party’s response to today’s transport package? Mr what’s-his-name Ryall, known as “Mrs Mac” on this side of the House, said he was against it, and Mr Williamson, who is still in the phase of naive honesty—from having been on the outer for a period—said he was for it. There we have the National Party policy for today on that. Tomorrow, on the foreshore and seabed issue, we will have Georgina te Heuheu saying that the Government is taking rights away from Māori, and we will have Dr Brash saying that the Government is giving far too much to Māori and that they should not be getting anything, at all.

All National Party members have been able to do all year is make a lot of noise, which is why Gerry Brownlee is No. 2 in the National Party. He can make more noise with less content than any other member of the House, except, maybe, Rodney Hide on a very, very bad day. I am told that Bill English is studying closely the life of John Howard. Bill English has discovered that John Howard was the leader of the Liberal Party in Australia in his 40s, and he got shoved aside and replaced by a show pony - type in Andrew Peacock, who was thought to appeal to the business community rather better than John Howard did. Then Andrew Peacock got shoved aside by someone else called John Hewson. Then, funnily enough, after about 10 years, John Howard, in his 50s, came back to be leader of the Liberal Party. Bill English is sitting there saying: “This time I will bide my time. This time I won’t go when Tony Ryall tells me it’s the time to move. This time I’m going to wait until it’s appropriate.” Meanwhile, Lockwood Smith—[Interruption] The gallery? They are all out getting tanked in the marquee, as most members opposite were until a few minutes ago. That is where they were.

We know that Dr Brash is a leader of the National Party whose term in office will be somewhere between 0-2 years. He is aiming for that—0-2—again in his life. He may stagger through to the election. If he does, the National Party will get done like a bunch of turkeys in the next election. If he does not, somebody else will take over in the meantime. The National Party will look for somebody very young, like Simon Power, or even Katherine Rich, who forgot to ask about Dunstan Hospital before it got its grant. Then, having done that, it will move back to Bill English, who will take over again as leader at some point in the future. That party opposite is in terminal decline. Meanwhile, the ACT party is working out who will be next to get into legal trouble. Donna Awatere Huata has already got into it with them. Deborah Coddington has that slight problem about debts in the family. There are one or two others we have our sights on, with some interesting facts that may come up in the new year. That is a very interesting party over there. New Zealand First has one person who stands out but unfortunately—[Interruption] Ron Mark! We must pass on that news to Winston Peters. Ron Mark thinks he is the one outstanding member of New Zealand First. The problem with New Zealand First members is that they only come alive at 10 o’clock at night, and by 7 o’clock in the morning their peak has passed. Nobody has told Winston Peters yet that politics occurs during daylight hours in New Zealand, by and large. If one is to succeed, one has to get up at 7 o’clock in the morning and go to bed at 10 or 11 o’clock, or midnight.

We look forward to the reaction of members opposite to the seabed and foreshore announcement. It will be another disaster for the National Party. Nobody will believe a word of what National members say. National is a party headed for oblivion—and it is a question of who replaces it: New Zealand First or United Future. My money is on United Future. If one has God and the hunters and shooters on one’s side—a private army and the intervention of the Almighty—one cannot possibly go wrong.

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): I intend to move an amendment to the motion, because adjourning the House at this point is an utter disgrace. It is totally deplorable. One of the most important announcements in this Government’s history—indeed, in the country in the last decade—will be made by this Government after the House adjourns so that Parliament is denied the opportunity of debating it. I move, That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Tuesday, 10 February 2004” and substituting the words “Thursday 18 December 2003 for the purpose of debating Government decisions relating to the seabed and foreshore.” Let us have the announcement tomorrow, and let us come back into the House on Thursday and debate it. This is a very important issue.

Mr Speaker, I echo the thanks to you for your hard work this year. It has not been an easy year for you, for the Deputy Speaker, or for the Assistant Speakers, including my good colleague Mr Clem Simich. Like Dr Cullen, I would like to thank the messengers, the catering staff, the security staff, the construction staff, the telephonists, the staff of the Parliamentary Library, and all the others around here who make this place tick. Let me thank the parliamentary staff of the National Party, and let me thank also my caucus colleagues. This has not been an easy year. Why? Because, for three reasons, the economy has actually been quite buoyant. The first reason is the great reforms of the 1990s. The OECD report published just a week ago stated that New Zealand was the seventh fastest growing economy in the OECD over the last decade. Why? Because of the reforms of the last 10 or 15 years. It is nothing to do with this Government; it is to do with the 1990s. Secondly, we have had the lowest exchange rate in New Zealand’s history through 1999, 2000, and 2001. That is nothing to do with the Government, at all. As Dr Cullen referred to my previous history, the other thing worth recalling is that monetary policy works with about an 18-month lag. What we are enjoying right now is also partly the result of outstandingly good monetary policy until 18 months ago.

Let me also thank colleagues in other parties that detest this Government—New Zealand First and ACT. We have some differences with New Zealand First and ACT, but, like National, they detest most of what this Government is doing. Let me also refer to United Future. I greatly regret that it continues to support this Labour-Progressive Government, because in many respects the family values espoused by United Future are very close to those espoused by the National Party and fundamentally different from those espoused by the Labour Party. As for the Greens, I say that National does not have much in common with that party, apart from the fact that we both have a respect for the environment. The problem is that the Greens seem blind to the fact that it is wealthy societies who can, and do, look after the environment—not poor societies. The Greens have not yet realised that. The National Party is committed to individual responsibility, private enterprise, and reward for individual effort. The National Party wants a society where there is self-reliance, not dependence; competition, not State monopoly; choice, not compulsion; plain honest speech, not political correctness; and one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders, not preferences based on race. There should be one standard of citizenship, ideally, for all members of Cabinet, too.

What of Labour? It talks of growth and prosperity at every opportunity, but almost every policy it puts in place erects more obstacles to growth. Let us take the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision we have just passed. How can Labour members pretend that that will help New Zealand workers? Dr Cullen and Helen Clark, like Father Christmas distributing lollies, are pretending it is a free good. It has to be paid for by the workers of this country, and those members know it. It is deceitful, it is disgraceful, and it is telling something a good deal less than the truth. The amendment to the Employment Relations Act will reduce wages and employment opportunities. Anything that makes it more difficult to hire staff will make it more difficult for employers to pay staff what they are worth—and key members of Cabinet know it. Despite that fact, they proceed in that disgraceful way.

New Zealanders are a tolerant people, but enough is enough. Since this Government came to office, a net 30,000 New Zealanders have left this country every year. There have been 50,000 out and 20,000 back—a net loss of 30,000 New Zealanders every single year since this Government came to office. That is, a net figure of 145,000 New Zealanders have left. That is what we risk—a gradual erosion of our country’s future—and this Government does absolutely nothing about it.

In closing, let me ask the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as they enjoy their own Christmas, to think of those who, as a direct result of this Government’s policies, will not be enjoying their Christmas. They should think of parents with their children and grandchildren overseas. They have left New Zealand because this country has gradually declined in relation to the rest of the world. Our standard of living is now 30 percent below that of Australia, and below that of Singapore, the UK, and the US. I refer also to victims of crime—the crime this Government has allowed to take place by being soft on criminals. I refer to all the people who are afraid to let their children walk to school unsupervised or to play outside the house unsupervised, to all the people who cannot get hospital care when they need it, and to all those affected by the accelerating deterioration in race relations in this country. They will not be enjoying Christmas. In spite of all that, I have to say that I wish the Prime Minister and her Cabinet a very merry Christmas, but I do not wish them a happy New Year, because we will ensure that their new year is a miserable one.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): It is obvious from the early closing of Parliament that for this Government the wheels are coming off.

Edwin Perry: Haven’t got a spare, either.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, it has not got a spare, either. Today will be remembered, because in all my experience I have never seen a Parliament rise so early—and, on a Tuesday. It has never risen on a Tuesday, and never on a Tuesday night. Today will be remembered as the day when this Labour-led Government ran up the white flag and ran for cover, rather than debate the pressing issues of our time. Like Saddam Hussein, Helen Clark is heading for an underground bunker, so she can escape not only the Māori MPs but the people of New Zealand who expected leadership and got a loser. Members know how Saddam always said his troops would die for their country; well, she expects her troops to die—but she is never here. Any time there is trouble, she is gone. We cannot see her for dust and small pebbles. That is Helen Clark—this person beloved of the media who keep on saying that she is more in the Holyoake mould. I have never heard such a joke in all my life. She is never here to confront the campaign, never here to confront the issues in Parliament, and always running for cover. On election days, election weeks, and election months, she comes out for one meeting a day and runs back home for a rest. The meeting is usually with schoolchildren, not adults. It is all time and motion, spin and propaganda.

She loves letting other people do her fighting for her. She wins all her fights by a hundred yards. She is gone—never here. Why is this House rising so early when there is so much more we should be doing? I ask: what about petrol price rises? Up goes the currency, but there is no fall in petrol prices. Worse still, the Government is slamming on a tax, to finance Auckland’s roads, it says, when it knows full well that that is an exercise in deception. For every $2 collected it is spending $1 on the roads; the Government is robbing people blind. I ask members about the 300 schools the Government is going to close—300 schools. Can we imagine Trevor Mallard if this side of the House were doing that? Can we imagine Trevor Mallard, with his cleft-palate sound, if we were doing that? Then there is the rising currency that is paralysing exporters. What is the now new prisoner—the man guilty of the Stockholm syndrome, Michael Cullen—doing about that?

Ron Mark: Nothing.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He cannot do a thing. He says there are no instruments that can be used to give exporters a fair go in this country, even though they are the most critical people in New Zealand. He will not move a muscle and nor will Helen Clark, because they are too scared of being perceived as being anti-business. But it is damaging all of New Zealand now, and they have no answers for it. Why will we face interest rises next year? What is their answer? Out there, ordinary New Zealanders know that this Government has just seen its best time and is starting to fall.

It is no use Damien O’Connor shaking his head, or Darren Hughes shaking his head. I know he is new, but since February his glorious leader has lost 25 percent of her vote, and as soon as she tumbles under 30 percent, it will be a case of: “Goodbye Helen.” Looking around for the lad, I say that maybe Darren Hughes’ chance will come, but Helen Clark is on a slide and she will not win the next election. Do members know why she is running? Because she has got the Māori members upset. The Māori members are upset.

Opposition Members: Where are they?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I cannot answer that question. I cannot say where they are, but they must be off with Snow White, because there is only one here. There she is on TV and radio today, trying to explain away Tariana Turia’s words. We all know what Tariana Turia meant—everybody knows. Why should Tariana Turia not say it, as that is precisely what the Labour party members promised in 1999 to deliver to the Māori people? The Labour Party were so besieged in the Māori seats that they promised Māoridom anything and everything. The only thing is Tariana Turia is lining up and saying that it is payback time.

David Benson-Pope: What you want is a big scam.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, if that member wants to look at a big scab, he should look in the mirror. I should not have said that, but it is Christmas, and nor should that member have said it. I want to give this Government a warning that the people of this country will not tolerate any more separatist government or separatist policies. They have had a gutsful of weirdo policies emanating from the back bench, when it comes to prostitution and all sorts of weirdos’ rights. A back-bench member believes that P should be legalised. Where does this guy come from, on the Government’s back bench, that this Government is supporting? I have never seen such a weird, liberal bunch in this Parliament in all my life, and that is saying something, because there have been some past times when there have been some weirdos here. But this bunch takes the credit. All the time, whilst the major economic and social issues go untreated, they proselytise their own peculiar, narrow, shallow, weird, odd points of view.

David Benson-Pope: Delamare’s telling the whole country what he thinks of this man.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, I see. Delamare is now Lianne Dalziel’s adviser. The man she called a liar, a fraudster, and corrupt is now her adviser. Mind you, as damaging as Delamare is, given her performance, he cannot be the only one. There has to be somebody else out there who is advising her, as well. [Interruption] He cannot be as incompetent as that. This is a Minister of Immigration who cannot explain why in New Zealand today there are 300,000 people who cannot speak English—300,000 in this First World democracy—at a time when the great Labour Party and National Party prided themselves on getting rid of illiteracy.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Read the statistics.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, they are all there. They are all in the briefing paper to the Minister, except she does not read them. Poor Lianne Dalziel! She knows she is on a hiding to nothing. She knows she cannot win. She knows that every day in this House, it is like taking candy from a baby. I know it is not fair. Frankly, my colleagues say to me: “Winston, you’ve got to find a new job. That one’s far too easy.” But in the interests of the nation I keep on doing it, hoping upon hope that more New Zealanders will hear the truth, and one day they will rise. They will rise up and throw this useless Labour Government out. [Interruption] There you go! Is she speaking in this debate? No. Her debate is always by way of interjection. Now, I have to ask members this.

Darren Hughes: Give us your foreshore policy.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is on the Internet. It was there on day one. That member should go and read it. Let me tell members this, though. Out in Māoridom, they are rising in their tens of thousands behind New Zealand First, and the Government will not stop them. Do they know why? Because we say what we mean and we mean what we say. We promise Māoridom progress for sacrifice, not tears. We focus on health, welfare, education, First World jobs, and above all, a place in one’s own country. Māoridom knows that we will not sell out to the foreigner. Māoridom knows that Asia will not run New Zealand—and nor will the United States or the UK. Māoridom knows when they vote for New Zealand First they get New Zealand for New Zealanders, run by New Zealanders, and they get fair policy.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: They get it now.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I want to tell the Labour Prime Minister that an immigrant is someone living legally in a country not of his or her birth, and that does not include those of us who go back 1,000 years, 50 years, or, for that matter, 100 years. I have never heard so much bunkum. “We’re all immigrants.”—rubbish! We are not all immigrants. Those who arrived here and settled here from another country are immigrants. The rest of us are indigenous, whether we are white or we are brown. That is our policy.

I want to say this. The Prime Minister has become a victim of her own success, and pride goeth before a fall. New Zealand First is on the rise. The Government will not stop us now—nor will its friends in the media stop us now. Very shortly those members will find out, by the end of next year, what that all means, for the early election they will be forced to hold.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): On behalf of the Green Party, I would, first, like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the impartiality and fairness that you have always displayed in the House, even when you are under intense pressure from the shouting match that often characterises this House. I would like to thank the largely invisible army of people who support MPs, who oil the wheels of Parliament—the security staff, the messengers, the people who take care of our travel, who feed us, and so forth. I would like to express a debt of gratitude to the Green Party staff, inside and outside Parliament, who do an outstanding job, often under considerable pressure, and to Green Party members all around the country for their commitment and support.

I pay tribute to my Green colleagues for their passion, commitment, and courage. The Green Party brings a new perspective, a new vision, a new set of agendas into this House. Indeed, we bring ideas that many would regard as radical, right into the heart of this political establishment. So it is hardly surprising that some of our colleagues find some of our ideas a little unsettling.

When my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons put genetic engineering on the political agenda 6 years ago it was alternatively ridiculed or ignored in this House. Now it is a passionate, mainstream concern of New Zealanders, which the Government and this Parliament have chosen to ignore at their peril. It has been sad to see that the Labour Party—a party that in the past was praised worldwide for its courageous opposition to evils such as apartheid and the nuclear arms race—is now so freely embracing the perils and dangers of irreversibly releasing genetically engineered organisms into our precious environment.

The Government may be congratulating itself on pushing genetic engineering off the political agenda, but let me assure it that genetic engineering is simmering away just beneath the political radar, and it will not disappear.

The Green Party brings a long-term perspective into this Parliament, which works most of the time to a short-term electoral calendar. Where others focus on a prospective energy crisis next year, we are equally concerned at the depletion of the world’s oil reserves, and the consequences that this will inevitably have for our oil-dependent economy, not just next year but for the next decade and beyond. While others fret about whether we will have a 3 percent or 4 percent growth rate next year and whether Australia or Singapore is growing at a faster rate than us, we are equally concerned, or more concerned, about the long-term impact of unsustainable growth and rampant consumerism on our magnificent environment and our quality of life.

We bring a social agenda, as well as an environmental agenda, into the House. We will continue to push for far-reaching changes to the way in which we treat low-paid workers and beneficiaries, women, and children. We simply do not accept what seems to have become the norm that children must live in poverty indefinitely, and we hope that there will be cross-party support—certainly support from the Government—for my colleague Sue Bradford’s member’s bill to introduce a universal child benefit. We will continue to support workers and unions across the board in their bid to improve our quality of life through such things as 4 weeks’ leave, pay equity, flexible working hours, and greater protections in the workplace.

The Green Party has noticed a disturbing trend during the past year for the Government to put the interests of other countries ahead of the interests of ordinary New Zealanders. Annette King justified—or attempted to justify—her inexcusable decision to ride roughshod over a parliamentary select committee inquiry, by saying that she could not possibly keep the Australian Government waiting for another few weeks. That is astonishing. The democratically elected Algerian politician Ahmed Zaoui has been holed up in prison in solitary confinement for over a year because the Government does not want to offend our overseas intelligence partners, or expose the shallowness and bias of much of their so-called intelligence.

The Labour Government has sent soldiers into the Iraqi war zone to try to curry favour with the Bush administration, and lifted the moratorium on genetic engineering against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders for, presumably, the same reason, because there does not appear to be any other.

As the year draws to a close and we reflect on what we have achieved in this House, I confess to being deeply disappointed by the report of the Standing Orders Committee debated earlier today, into the rules governing behaviour in this House. Is it because the Standing Orders Committee is one of the last all-male bastions in this House that it dismissed in such an offhand manner both Ross Robertson’s excellent submission that the House adopt a code of conduct for MPs, and the submission by Wellington High School students that was made over a year ago that called for an end to the hostile, aggressive, and at times abusive behaviour—the shouting match, in fact—that too often passes for debate in this House?

Just as it took a boy to point out that the emperor had no clothes, so it took a bunch of high school students to point out the obvious truth: that we have come to accept as normal behaviour in this House a level of unpleasantness, aggression, and verbal abuse that would not be tolerated in a classroom, in a playground, in the workplace, or in the home. “Our leaders legislate against violence in the community, yet behave in an aggressive and even violent way themselves.”, the students pointed out in their report. “MPs are supposed to be leaders and good role models; don’t they understand that there are young people and children watching them in the gallery every single day?” The students issued a simple plea: “We ask parents not to hit their children, students not to bully their peers, sportspeople to show sportsmanship, people to respect their work colleagues, and now we are asking a simple plea that our leaders lead by example.”

But what did our all-male Standing Orders Committee do? While insisting on something as deeply and profoundly superficial and offensive as saying that women, as well as men, should dress in business attire—whatever that means—for the decorum of this House, the committee sidelined all the suggestions to the committee for improving behaviour in this House. No wonder MPs are held in such low esteem in the community, as Ross Robertson observed in his submission!

We may be an MMP Parliament, but we continue to operate as if this were a quintessentially male place of old-style, old-fashioned aggression, competition, and point-scoring. Like many MPs I take deep personal offence at the level of abuse and intimidation that so often occurs in this House. On a number of recent occasions, such as when I was interrupted eight times by points of order during a 3-minute speech, I felt as if I were the yard of an all-male boys’ school being intimidated by a gang of playground bullies.

I have tried to cope with this behaviour, as I am sure many other MPs in this House have, by attempting to ignore it. But the truth is that by remaining silent we are tolerating and condoning this unacceptable behaviour. I therefore appeal to colleagues to help change the unnecessarily negative environment in this House by challenging unacceptable behaviour, insisting we adopt a code of conduct, and incorporating that into the Standing Orders of the House.

It is equally unacceptable for MPs to make racist remarks in this House and it is a source of frustration to the Green Party that Speakers’ Rulings prevent us from identifying racist statements in this House, and we hope that this will change, too, for we cannot take leadership on this issue unless we are able to name and identify racism.

I suspect that women MPs will need to take a lead in bringing about a cultural revolution in this House. Many of us had high hopes that with women comprising one-third of the membership of Parliament, a woman Prime Minister, women Ministers, and a woman co-leader of our party, we would be able to create a more cooperative working environment in this House. But the truth is that we and the Standing Orders Committee have abjectly failed thus far to bring about a cultural change in this House. As Indira Gandhi once said, “You can’t shake hands with a clenched fist.” I urge all MPs to reflect on this over the Christmas break. Perhaps in 2004 we can make a difference not only to the life of all New Zealanders but to the life of this House.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak in the adjournment debate at the end of the 2003 Parliament. We have just listened to the Green MP Sue Kedgley tell us that the Greens want the standard of Parliament to improve. What the Greens really want to be able to do is to have the Standing Orders altered so that they can call people racist. I fail to see why the Green Party thinks naming individuals and calling them racist will improve behaviour here. Then she complained that it was terrible that the Standing Orders Committee was an all-male committee. Well, if that is a problem, why did the Greens send a male? They could have fixed that. Why complain to us just because she could not get on to the committee? Indeed, the other great complaint she made was that people are not taking GE seriously enough. I guess that is the reason the Greens’ bubble seems to have burst.

But let me turn to the matter at hand—that the House should adjourn on 16 December. [Interruption] Sorry? What is the member’s problem?

David Benson-Pope: What about the $35,000 worth of Mainfreight fees?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I earned every dollar of it, too. Members opposite feel absolute envy of anyone who is in business, anyone who is successful. That member has managed to crawl himself on to a trip to Australia that is designed for people who are starting their political careers. Who is the Labour Party sending? It is sending its senior whip—that fine young member whose career is about to start—and Steve Chadwick, another new, budding member. Of course, that is the trouble with the Labour Party—it has no new people.

But let us turn to the motion that the House should adjourn on 16 December. Mr Speaker, you have been here a bit longer than I have, but I cannot remember the House ever adjourning this early. Either we congratulate the Government on solving all the problems that needed to be solved, or we go along with the amendment. Or perhaps there are other reasons why the House wants to adjourn early. [Interruption] Parliament is quite expensive and the member opposite is paid whether or not he is here. Should he be working? I draw to the attention of the House that the biggest political issue this year has been who owns the beaches and the foreshore. Has this House dealt with that matter?

Opposition Members: No.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: And when is the Government intending to deal with the matter?

Opposition Members: Tomorrow.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Tomorrow, when the House is not meeting. Is that parliamentary? Would a Government that is prepared to be transparent and accountable, and a Government that believes in Parliament, do that? No, it would not. I believe that this House should sit, so I want to move an amendment to the motion to delete the words “Tuesday, 10 February” and replace them with the words “Thursday, 18 December”. We should give the Government whip 1 day off. The Government can have its public meeting, then it can come back on Thursday and debate the foreshore issue.

David Benson-Pope: It’s already been moved.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: It does not matter; I am allowed to move that motion, too.

Mr SPEAKER: That amendment has already been moved by Mr Brash.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Well, I am going to support it. I have found Mr Brash to be a leader of some wisdom, and I have great pleasure in supporting him. I ask the member opposite whether he is so confident in his Government’s foreshore policy that he is prepared to vote for this amendment, and to come here and tell the House and the country why we should support it. [Interruption] To be fair to Darren Hughes, he is one of the few people who held a public meeting for ordinary members of the public. Admittedly, only 16 turned up, but he held a meeting, unlike other members opposite. They were prepared to go to hui, at taxpayers’ expense, to talk to Māori, but were they prepared to hold hui for the rest of the New Zealand public? Were they prepared to hold publicly held meetings?

Jill Pettis: Yes.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: No, they did not. They held them in their electorate offices for a few pensioners. Well, if they are prepared to hold a meeting, they will vote for the amendment, will they not?

I also tell the House that we have not solved every other problem. I remember that this time last year an individual was sent to jail, he turned up, he was signed into the jail, and an hour later he was put out, under the Government’s Christmas bonus release. The Government told us that would never happen again. [Interruption] The fishwife is shouting out that she remembers that. She is upset too about a criminal getting a 1-hour sentence—[Interruption] Look how upset she is! It was probably one of her relatives! She remembers it well. Well, what is happening this year? This year the Government has decided to release 242 prisoners, and it does not know how many have committed violent offences. It does not know how many rapists are on that list. According to the Minister of Corrections, it has no idea—he just signed the Christmas bonus release. Well, let us come back on Thursday to examine that issue, because we all know that one of the first things that half the prisoners given early release last year did was to go shopping in our place.

Simon Power: What did they get?

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: They got a lot of videos and TVs, and a few other bits and pieces, which of course they needed. Half of them are back in jail. Some of them are getting released again. I say to members opposite that if they think they have solved every problem, what about the dreadful crime this year—

Jill Pettis: The member is making it up.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Does anyone else remember the name Coral Burrows? That member does not remember Coral Burrows’ name. Does she remember the name Steven Williams? Am I making up the fact that Steven Williams had 88 previous convictions? She is very silent now. He now has 89 convictions and we have a Labour member who is prepared to support Steven Williams. She is prepared to vote for an early adjournment, because she does not care that a person can have 88 convictions and commit a dreadful murder of that sort. If we had any sort of justice system he would have been in jail, but, of course, that Labour member from Whanganui is prepared to support his not having been jailed. She is prepared to support an early adjournment of Parliament, because she thinks it is just that a man like Steven Williams can have a record of 88 previous convictions, many of them for violence, and still be out free and able to commit a murder.

Jill Pettis: Yes.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: The member says “Yes”. I tell the House that we ought to be re-meeting because we need to look at our justice system. We need to have a system that holds people accountable and tells people like Steven Williams that they will go to jail and stay there and rot, and not be able to kill young girls such as Coral Burrows. For that reason I tell Jill Pettis, who appears to be the only member of Parliament—in fact, the only person in New Zealand—prepared to support Steven Williams that she should rethink, because when she votes for this adjournment she is voting for the Steven Williams’ of this world.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: That is disgusting.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I think it is disgusting, too, and that is what I think about the justice system. So I hope that I will hear from the members of the Labour Party, and that they will start to vote for a justice system.

But let me just complete this speech. I wish you, Mr Speaker, a happy Christmas. I wish my own team and all other members of Parliament a happy Christmas. I say to our ACT staff that they have worked hard and they deserve a good Christmas. The people who work in and around this building—the messengers; the staff in the Parliament Library, who, I think, are a tremendous asset; and all the other staff—work hard for us, and I wish them and yourself all the best for the Christmas period. But I hope I will see you next Thursday.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): This is supposed to be the time of goodwill for all. I want to begin in that spirit by wishing every member of this House, whatever party they represent, whatever disagreement we have had during the year, the very best for Christmas and the New Year. I also extend that best wish to all the staff in Parliament Buildings—the people whose services we rely on, yet take for granted, and whose job does not end when this House adjourns but who will work on, often over the Christmas break, to ensure the smooth functioning of this organisation and the fact that we can do our job.

I thank, particularly, my own team of members of Parliament—the United Future team who have contributed so much this year—our staff, and all of the people who work with us, and I wish them all the very best for Christmas and the New Year.

I wish you, Mr Speaker, in that same spirit, the best for this coming holiday period, and I place on record our appreciation of the continued strength of leadership that you show this House as our Speaker. You are one of the few Speakers who has carried on that function over successive Parliaments without any loss of your mana or reputation. But having paid you that compliment, can I be allowed a minor quibble—I am sure Mr Prebble would agree with me—that having to always speak after the Greens in the House means that we speak to a nearly empty Chamber. I would like you, in the New Year, to take some steps, if you are able, to rectify that matter.

This has been a momentous year for New Zealand in many respects. I want to say to all members of the House that, as we review it, 2003 has been a time when some significant legislation—of which we might have different views—has been passed. It has been a time when some significant new ground has been set and some significant new directions have been charted. In that context I was intrigued by the speech from the Leader of the Opposition. He indicated that his party shared the same commitment to family values and family policies as my party.

Jill Pettis: He was mistaken.

Hon PETER DUNNE: He was, indeed, mistaken, as the member says, because only last week his party was vehement in its opposition to something that Plunket has described as the best Christmas present New Zealand children could ever have—the establishment of the Families Commission.

Once more I say to Dr Brash and his colleagues, as they contemplate the Christmas that lies ahead, that United Future’s position is absolutely clear. Our commitment to families and the well-being of families is unshakeable. We will not support any party in Government that does not share that commitment and does not share our support of the Families Commission. I made that speech last week. The National Party pooh-poohed it. I repeat it today, and I repeat it in the light of Dr Brash’s pretence that somehow the members of his party and mine have similar views on this subject. By their record they have demonstrated they do not.

I think that goes to the heart of the role that this party is attempting to play in this Parliament. Dr Brash chided us for not yet having withdrawn our support from the Government. I do not think he actually meant that, because in an MMP system of Government a party like United Future needs to be there to provide support to the public’s choice as the majority Government of the day. Reverse the scene for just a moment. Would Dr Brash be so keen for us to be withdrawing our support from a National-led Government? I do not think so. The fact that he can say that tonight suggests that, actually, he is a fair-weather friend. He knows in his heart of hearts that whatever the numbers stack up to be, if he is going to be in a position to form a Government after the next election, he will need to broaden the base of his support. By then saying to us: “Prove yourselves to be unreliable, prove yourselves to be a party that cannot be trusted, but work with us.”, he is, in effect, destroying his own argument.

I am proud of the contribution my colleagues have made over the last 12 months. Come April of next year, when the confidence and supply arrangement between ourselves and the Labour Government will, I am certain, still be in operation, we will have exceeded in duration the total time of the National – New Zealand First coalition Government. By this time next year we will have exceeded in duration the total time of the Labour-Alliance Government. We will have demonstrated that, for the first time in three Parliaments, MMP can be made to work, because the support party works constructively with the major party of government on the issues it agrees upon but it also reserves the right to oppose them vigorously on those matters that it opposes and disagrees with the Government on. We have demonstrated that throughout this year.

I have been forthright in my criticism of what I regard as an overly politically correct attitude by the Government on a number of issues, and I will continue to take that view, but at the same time we recognise that good government requires a balance. Good government requires a party to be kept on its toes. Good government also requires constructive opposition. That is the one thing we have not had this year. It is the one thing that we have attempted to provide from time to time, as well as our role of support.

I think that this is a time of year when New Zealanders are simply politicked out. Whatever the great issues of the day, New Zealanders are now focusing much more on the time that lies ahead for them and their families over the summer break. As they go away to their barbecues and their baches over the summer, they will want the assurance—which I am confident they will be given tomorrow—that New Zealanders will not be drawing up the barricades behind the barbecues against fellow New Zealanders on the beaches. New Zealanders will recognise that the one thing we all have in common is that we are all in this together. We have no future as a divided society, and in that respect I want to say that I have no truck with those who seek to play immigrant New Zealander against immigrant New Zealander of whatever generation, colour, or calibre. Every single one of us, whatever our length of time in this country, is an immigrant. Every single one of us, by virtue of that fact, brings something to the table that contributes to our unique spirit as New Zealanders.

I go back to the words of Norman Kirk in that respect. He was a truly great New Zealand visionary with a sense of where this country could be—a sense about the contribution that all New Zealanders make to that national ethos of being a Kiwi. What we need to be doing, and what we ought to be thinking about and embarking upon over this summer period, is how we can rekindle that spirit of nationhood, how we can set aside the petty and the puerile divisions that divide us, and how we can come together on the basis of what we show to the world as the unique spirit of our New Zealand nationhood.

If we are able to achieve that, it does not mean that we set aside our political differences or our differences of principle, but it means that we recognise what we have in common. If we are able to achieve that, then, as we approach 2004 and beyond, this country will be more positively focused and will be better able to address some of the great issues with regard to our identity, our future, and our common bond as New Zealanders that we have to confront but are incapable of doing so at the moment.

What this Parliament needs to focus on, next year and the years beyond, are the things that bring us together, rather than for ever dividing itself and tearing itself apart over the things we disagree on. If we do that, then the matters that Sue Kedgley and Ross Robertson, and myself in a previous time, have raised in relation to the behaviour of members of Parliament will be addressed. If we do that, then those issues of principle about what it means to be a Kiwi today and how we contribute to a positive future and to moving forward will be addressed. If we do that, then we will not end up with the sorts of petty divisions that see this Parliament vilified by so many New Zealanders as not representing their aspirations and their hopes.

Finally, I express my hope for 2004—that all of us come back reinvigorated from the challenge of the summer break and committed as never before to working positively in the interests of this country for a better future, rather than simply tearing ourselves apart as I suspect we have done far too much of during 2003. My best wishes to all members as this House adjourns.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development): Along with other party leaders, I express to you my thanks and congratulations on your work this year, and seasons greetings to all members of Parliament. Seasons greetings also to our staff in Parliament Buildings, and in particular to the VIP drivers who, as anyone who has been a Minister knows, are just about the most exceptional people in terms of service to those who they work for that one could hope for.

When Don Brash and other leaders, including Mr Prebble, suggested that they wanted to come back on Thursday, it made me laugh a bit, because they are relying on the Government to pass the motion so they can actually go. I notice they want to come back on Thursday. They do not want to come back next week, or continue to work—it is just for a day or so. That kind of cant does not have much place at this time of the year.

Winston Peters, of course, berated the Prime Minister for not being here, and for occasionally not being in Parliament. I say to Winston Peters that the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has led this country magnificently over the last 4 years, will lead it equally magnificently for the next 2 years, and, as far as I can see, as far into the future as one would like. Winston Peters might like to recall that he could not even survive for 2 years as Deputy Prime Minister, let alone lead the country. The fact is that Winston Peters will never ever get the chance to run this country, because the people of New Zealand recognise the quality that is required in a Prime Minister, and Winston Peters does not have it.

If Mr Peters and members of New Zealand First want to enter into what is entirely a legitimate debate on population and immigration policies, in my view they should do so in a way that does not do disservice to the proud liberal traditions of New Zealand and New Zealanders. I wish they would do it without damaging the reputation of New Zealand in the rest of the civilised and enlightened world. As Minister of Economic Development, I know the truth about how much damage Winston Peters does to New Zealand’s reputation in other parts of the world.

Jim Peters: No policies!

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Well, we asked for at least one of the three different policies on the seabed and foreshore issue that Winston Peters has as he goes around the country. We did not get one of them.

Do we say it again? We are all descendents of immigrants in this country. There are no exceptions, including Winston Peters, myself, and everyone else in this House. I find it incredible that someone like Winston Peters can go around the country making political points at the expense of vulnerable New Zealanders—some of whom come with high qualifications to work in New Zealand, others who come to make their lives here, and they are denigrated day after day by someone who does it for no other reason than to make cheap political capital.

Most New Zealanders know it, and I suspect that Don Brash and others in the National Party know it, too. The idea of being in the Government again with someone like that holding any sort of responsibility must fill them with horror, yet they have to somehow try to accommodate that. It would make me sick to think of doing it as a mature politician.

We come along at Christmas time and get the refuge of the desperate politician. Just before Christmas, Mr Prebble railed against law and order. I suggest to Mr Prebble that he should think about the chickens that have come home to roost in New Zealand over the last few years—the dysfunctional communities and families that we have seen, the drugs and alcohol abuse, and all the rest of it. I suggest that he looks in the mirror sometimes, thinks back to the policies of 20 years ago, and starts to ask himself how many of those policies are now bearing fruit in terms of the legacy that Governments like ours have had to pick up.

I say to Mr Prebble that the legacy this Government will leave to future generations is far better than the one he left to us. I might not be here to actually experience it all, but I am proud now of the legacy we are leaving, because over the last 4 years we have left a better legacy for the next 10 or 20 years than anything that happened during the time that Mr Prebble or Mr Shirley were in Government. I remember those days well.

This has been a great year and a great period for New Zealand. We are one of the fastest-growing economies in the Western World. Members opposite cannot deny that. We have the lowest level of unemployment in 16 years. Would members opposite deny that? Every single region in New Zealand is in positive growth mode. The kids of New Zealand have a positive future not only in their own town or region, but also in their own country. Those who left New Zealand in the last 20 years are coming back in droves, because there is a future for them now in their own country.

But the miserable members opposite will not celebrate that fact. They hope for some kind of failure for New Zealand, so they can enthuse gleefully. Guess what! New Zealand is not failing; New Zealand is succeeding magnificently, so Don Brash, Winston Peters, and Richard Prebble can eat their hearts out. Against a backdrop of the rest of the world, which is not doing particularly well, New Zealand is doing well. In the past, when America, Europe, and Asia caught a cold, we caught pneumonia, but New Zealand has done extremely well in the last 4 years. We as a Parliament should be celebrating that fact. I ask Don Brash why the Opposition will not celebrate that New Zealand has done well. Why does he not say: “Gee, it’s been good. Personally, it would have been better if there had been a failure, but there wasn’t, and I have to give credit to the Government.”? But, no, the Opposition hopes that New Zealand will fail. It is a miserable position.

We have 6,000 to 7,000 young kids who are apprentices. Four years ago, we did not have that. There was a time in the 1980s and 1990s when the word “apprentice” was a dirty word in this country. It is not any longer. There is a future—[Interruption] Oh, well, people who are cynical will laugh, but not out in the regions, where one meets the people who have their kids into apprenticeships and training. Young New Zealanders have a future in their own country, so why not celebrate that? Mr Hide is trying to interject, but he has never been young. I think he was born old, so he has nothing to celebrate. This Government and its members have a lot of celebrate, and I congratulate them.

Today, by a thumping majority, New Zealand First, Labour, the Progressive party, and the Greens passed an extra week’s leave, to take effect in the future. I pay tribute to my colleague Matt Robson for championing that cause. I challenge the members who rail against it to say that if their party were elected to Government, it would wipe out that fourth week of leave. Will they stand and say that they will wipe out that extra week? Every time extra public holidays have been given in this country, the conservative Opposition and conservative employers have opposed them. They warned that the end of the world was nigh when we got a Christmas holiday, an Easter holiday, Waitangi Day, Anzac Day, and every other public holiday in any other week.

If the National Party is serious, it will say that whenever it gets elected—which will be quite a long time away—it will repeal the extra leave. I bet it will not—any more than members opposite are serious about opposing this adjournment of Parliament. They will say they oppose it, but I bet quite a few of them have their holidays and flights booked already. It would come as a terrible shock to them if the adjournment motion were lost and they had to come back, because they have all their holidays booked. Their words are just a sham.

I will finish by saying that the National Party has had a change of leadership, which is a regular occurrence, but I congratulate Don Brash. However, I want to pay my respects—and I mean this seriously—to Bill English for the mature and loyal way he accepted what must have been a very deep disappointment to him. I admire that, and although I cannot mention that he is not here, I think the way Bill English handled that defeat—and it is always disappointing for political leaders to lose their positions—

Hon Richard Prebble: Ha, ha!

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I will say my words with sincerity to those people I respect, so Mr Prebble will not hear much from me—ever.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I rise to support the amendment to the motion moved by Dr Don Brash. I understand that I could well be the last speaker in the debate tonight, although there is potential for one more, and I would expect that that speaker will be Helen Clark herself—the woman who has had a fantastic year as Prime Minister; the woman who has had some fantastic experiences in leading the country. How do I know this? Because she told us. The Prime Minister has told us that she is the victim of her own success. Well, when did we ever have a leader of this country who described himself or herself as a victim of success? I think that is borne of the fact that she is terrified every time she goes through the door of the Labour caucus, because she does not know what Tariana Turia is going to be doing, she does not know what Dover Samuels is up to, she does not know what Steve Maharey is up to, she has no idea whether Ms Mahuta is even going to turn up, and, at all times, there is this huge reliance on the United Future party.

Hon Richard Prebble: Where is the Māori caucus?

GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Prebble asks an interesting question. He asks why members of the Māori caucus are not in the House talking tonight. Well, there is a free function on! Does that answer the question? It must be terribly worrying for the Prime Minister to have to rely on United Future. I heard Peter Dunne before giving one of his famously sanctimonious speeches about how sensible his party is, how proud it is to have supported this Government, and how long it has continued in coalition. Well, last Friday I was at a public meeting with one of his members, who described the Labour Government as the most hopeless, most irresponsible, and most reckless in New Zealand’s history, and he looked forward to the day it was out. So there is the sensible United Future party being represented—

Hon Richard Prebble: Who was that?

GERRY BROWNLEE: —at a public meeting by Mr Alexander. He is the only decent member in that party. We just heard from Mr Anderton, who is suddenly being a doyen of right-wing politics and of right-wing economies. He is the man who stands basking himself in the successes of the Labour Government throughout the 1990s—a man famed throughout the country for turning up with a $2,000 cheque and $20,000 worth of photography gear to make sure the picture gets into the newspaper. I ask Mr Anderton this: if he is so opposed to Winston Peters and his immigration policy—and I certainly do not think the National Party agrees with it—why is it that he has spent so many years in Opposition fighting foreign investment in this country, fighting the scourge of foreign ownership in this country? Now, suddenly, feeling a bit of success he is a doyen of those policies and is out there telling New Zealand how good they are for them. No wonder his party fell apart.

The big issue that needs to be talked about in this debate is the seabed and foreshore. I have heard other speakers talk about it tonight, but I know that there are New Zealanders who, tonight, are wondering whether their camping site, their little slice of New Zealand, is going to be available to them for, perhaps, the last time this Christmas. They are the sorts of people who work hard and save all year to be able to put their gear in a caravan, or pack up the trailer, go to the beach, and have a couple of weeks enjoying the sun and enjoying some of the best things this country can offer, and this Government has put that under threat. It will not matter what is announced tomorrow. There will be no comfort for any New Zealander over the coming months. I bet that because this Government has been so recalcitrant in dealing with this issue, there will be some protest groups up and down this country that do some stupid things that simply set race relations in this country back by decades. The fault for that will lie directly at the door of Helen Clark.

The National Party does want to be back here on Thursday, because we want to be heard on the seabed and foreshore issue. We have no confidence that Helen Clark is going to come up with a solution. We know that that solution will be grossly tempered by the extreme views of Tariana Turia. We know that even though the Minister of Conservation sits there laughing, he must be terrified about what that decision will mean for the coastline in this country in the conservation estate. If anyone thinks that is not a big problem, here is the quantity: 8,700 kilometres is currently being claimed by Māori, with claims lodged in the Māori Land Court. How long is the New Zealand coastline? About 19,000 kilometres. So we have the thick end of 40 or more percent of our coastline now being claimed by Māori, and the Labour Party is saying that it will set up the Mickey Mouse system of—what are they called—cultural-use titles, and allow hapū, iwi, and everyone else to put their annotations on those titles. That will send shivers up the spine of New Zealanders. Talking about spine, I see the member for Otaki, Darren Hughes—the great white hope—laughing at the prospect that New Zealanders will lose their right to go to the beach.

Opposition Member: “Helen’s handbag”!

GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, “Helen’s handbag”, as he is often called; a young man with a big future. All I can say is that if it were not for his varicose veins, he would be completely translucent.

The issue of 4 weeks’ holiday also came up in the debate tonight. What sort of a Government tells workers in this country that it has a surplus in excess of $7 billion—we know it did some tricky numbers around the accident compensation long-term liability figure—but that it will make them wait 4 years for an extra week’s holiday? Every worker will pay for that with a wage cap for each one of those 4 years. I have to say that the National Party will be on the hustings next year, and, in 2005, mopping up votes, because New Zealanders are just not that silly. When they see a Government that is more interested in telling them how to think than in encouraging them to think for themselves, they will reject it—and the list is very long now. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

GERRY BROWNLEE: It is OK, Mr Speaker; it is only Russell Fairbrother. He is only a short-term member. He is leaving shortly. Everyone knows that. He came into the party with a huge reputation. He has sat in the back corner all year and has been able to ask only three questions in the House since the House began early in the year. That is sad. The Labour Party does not like clever thinkers. The Labour Party does not like free thinkers, and it hates hard workers. The Labour Party cannot stand hard workers. [Interruption] I say to Mr Hughes that our country has the proud boast of having a $17-an-hour economy. That is the average earnings per hour in this country. If we add in Helen Clark’s huge salary, and add in the huge salaries from the private sector and the excessive salaries in the public sector, we end up with an average of only $17 an hour. That tells me that there are people in Mr Hughes’ electorate who cannot afford Christmas this year. We see that member sitting there and smiling as the Government quietly takes from people the opportunity to go to a beach freely and enjoy a bit of the great indoors. He sits there and smiles while the Government cynically tells people that if they behave themselves and do not have a wage round for 4 years, it will give them another week’s holiday. What will they do with that? They cannot afford what they have now.

This Government does not have its eye on the best interests of New Zealanders. How can a Government skite about a $7 billion - plus surplus and not want to have New Zealanders’ incomes rising? Even in safe seats like Otaki, the tide will run out and it will run out fast. Let me tell members about the Wanganui seat. It will be gone—it will be gone for all money. I know of a small clothing firm in Wanganui that employs 45 women, mainly Māori women. This year that clothing company went to Mr Anderton and said that it could expand its business significantly if it went to the United States and was able to sell its product to the likes of Brook Brothers and various other stores. Mr Anderton’s officials said: “That’s looks good, but we’d rather you went to a trade fair, because, then, we can come, too.” They are known of course as “Club MED”, because of the extensive travel undertaken by officials in that department. When we got down to it, no money was available. That member will be out after the next election.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 48

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr SPEAKER: Fellow members of Parliament, as the first session of the forty-seventh Parliament comes to a close I pay tribute to all the people who contribute to the efficient functioning of this House.

First, I pay tribute to my colleague and Deputy Speaker Ann Hartley, and to the Assistant Speakers, Clem Simich and Ross Robertson, who as a team have been great to work with. I give my profound thanks to the Clerk of the House, Dave McGee, who is not only respected internationally for his profound knowledge but whose sound advice has been a great support to the House, to me personally, and in particular this year, to all other members of Parliament. Thanks also go to his deputy, Mary Harris, as she completes her first year in that important role. Tribute must go also to the staff of the Clerk’s Office, whose professionalism and administrative services maintain the smooth running of the House. They service the Table of the House, compile the Hansard record, process legislation, questions and petitions, and serve the select committees.

I thank the general manager of the Parliamentary Service, Joel George, for his skills and professional advice. I give my thanks to all Mr George’s senior managers, to members’ support staff, including members’ executive secretaries and the support staff of the parliamentary parties, and to the staff of the Parliamentary Library, the Chamber and gallery officers, the security staff, the building services staff, the telephonists, the travel office staff, and the reception and visitor services staff. I would like to pay a special tribute to the VIP Transport people who drive us. I think that of all the services one gets when one is privileged enough to be a Minister of the Crown, the Leader of the Opposition, or the Speaker, that is probably the best. My thanks go to the Serjeant-at-Arms, Brent Smith, and to all those who serve with him. They are an essential part of the running of Parliament.

I thank the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, George Tanner, and his staff for their role in the process of legislation. My personal thanks go to all those who have worked to support the committees that I chair: the Business Committee, the Parliamentary Service Commission, the Standing Orders Committee, and the Officers of Parliament Committee. I would like to thank the Controller and Auditor-General, Kevin Brady, and his staff for the highly professional services they provide. I thank also the Chief Ombudsman, John Belgrave, his fellow Ombudsmen Anand Satyanand and Mel Smith, and their staff for the valuable role they play. In addition I thank the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Morgan Williams. My thanks also go to the research units for their work on behalf of MPs. I think they make some of the MPs’ speeches worth listening to.

To the leaders of parties in this House, the Leader of the House, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, the deputy leader of the National Party, Gerry Brownlee, and the party whips, I give my thanks. I acknowledge the efforts of all members of Parliament who, despite enormous workloads, continue to serve their electorates to the full and to make important contributions to the select committees. My personal thanks go to my own staff: Sean Rota, Pam Reader, and Roland Todd, and to Helen Kennelly in the Deputy Speaker’s office. In particular, I want to thank Debbie Hannan for her very successful service as my press secretary. I am pleased to be able to welcome Bethney McLennan in her stead. My thanks also go to my electorate secretaries in west Auckland, Christine Schuster, Margaret Sutton, and Schibo Zhang, for their important efforts on behalf of constituents. I thank you all once again for your support and work throughout the year, and for the contribution you make not just to this House but to New Zealand and its people. As I draw this session of Parliament to a close and you go to join families and friends for the coming break, I wish you all well until we gather here in February 2004.

I would like to conclude by repeating the comments that all party leaders have made tonight. I wish every member of this House a very, very successful break, a very peaceful break, and a prosperous new year.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Tuesday, 10 February 2004” and substituting the words “Thursday, 18 December 2003, for the purpose of debating Government decisions relating to the seabed and foreshore."

Ayes 49

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Noes 71

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

Motion to adjourn House and sitting days agreed to.

The House adjourned at 9.11 p.m.