Thursday, 17 June 2004

Thursday, 17 June 2004

Thursday, 17 June 2004

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House, as prearranged, the Government has scheduled the first reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill on Tuesday so that supporters and signers can be present. This will be followed by the joint debate on the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill, and further work on the Committee stage of bills being considered later, if necessary. Wednesday is a members’ day. On Thursday the first readings of the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will be progressed.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I wonder whether the Leader of the House would be prepared to assist us by indicating at this early stage where the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill might be sent for select committee consideration.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I do not think a final decision on those matters has been taken at this stage. I will consult with the member about that later.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday, 22 June, because of the parliamentary luncheon for the delegation from Trinidad and Tobago.

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Schools—Ethnicity and Decile Funding

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his answer to written question number 1735 (2004), that if the ethnicity factor of school decile-funding was replaced, “differences would be minor”; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): Yes.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the Education and Science Committee yesterday that he has not responded to Official Information Act requests regarding calculations on school funding, because: “I’ve got concerns about schools being panicked unnecessarily until decisions are made.”?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that research by Dr Terry Crooks, as reported in the select committee inquiry report, demonstrates that removing ethnic data affects only 20 schools by more than 1 decile point, and that most of those schools have their decile levels adjusted anyway; if so, what is his response to those findings?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, I can confirm that is consistent with the briefings that have occurred, and the Government’s response to the findings will be announced in due course.

Hon Bill English: What calculations has the Minister done regarding ethnic weighting in decile funding that lead him to the conclusion that if schools are told about those calculations they will “panic”?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have no problem with schools being told the truth.

Hon Bill English: If the Minister has no trouble with schools being told the truth, then why has he defied all Official Information Act requests, to the point where the Ombudsman has had to approach the Minister’s office directly to instruct him to release information—as the Minister has said himself: “The Ombudsman has a view that we should have been releasing more than we have been releasing.”—and, if there is no problem, why does the Minister not just give us the information?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Because I have no problem with schools being told the truth.

Hon Brian Donnelly: If, as seems to be the case, the inclusion of ethnic data into the calculations on decile funding has minimal or nil effect, why then should it be included, at the risk of possibly creating some level of antagonism and misunderstanding by schools?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: At some time I hope to have a discussion with the Minister who was responsible for doing that, and with the former Ministers who were responsible for increasing that funding—which includes the member.

Nuclear-free New Zealand—Status

2. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Has he received any reports suggesting that decisions on New Zealand’s nuclear-free status should be determined by other nations rather than by ourselves?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): Yes. I have a report in front of me that shows that on TV3 last night this statement was made: “If we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable—and that, of course, would be after we became Government—we would then seek a referendum for any change in the law.” That statement was made by Don Brash, who clearly believes that New Zealand should abandon its sovereignty and independence to make its own decisions, and give that over to another country.

Darren Hughes: Is that an isolated report or has the Minister received other reports of this nature?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, I have received two other reports of a similar nature. One of them states: “Without reservation we will support our close allies Australia, the United States and Britain when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” That abandonment of our making our own decisions according to our values and judgment was made by Simon Power, the National Party spokesperson on defence. I have another report—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister has given enough.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister have any further reports on this matter?

Hon PHIL GOFF: That is a very intuitive question! I have a report stating: “We will opt out of the Kyoto agreement at the first chance, if countries like the US and Australia don’t sign up.” That abandonment of judgment and sovereignty was made by Nick Smith, abandoning the longstanding role—even under a National Party Government—that this country has had in leading the Pacific nations against global warming.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister grossly misquotes my statement. I seek leave of the House to table the statement that was made, so that the House may have the true, correct—

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a statement made by the member concerned?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is a newspaper report on statements made about the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a statement made by the member himself?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is a newspaper report—

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

Hon PHIL GOFF: I seek leave of the House to table a statement made in the Nelson Mail on 13 May 2004, in an article headed: “Smith vows changes to RMA, Kyoto exit”.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I sought leave to table a document, but that was objected to by the Government. Suddenly, the exact same motion is put to the House by Mr Goff, and the Government now wants to table the very same document. I am very happy to have it tabled, but there is a Standing Order that says the same motion cannot be put to the House twice.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is wrong about that. He does not know the Standing Orders. The first point I would make is that I have quite frequently been confronted by situations in this House that are not strictly logical.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister had any reports that the complacent approach to the dangers of nuclear power expressed by some parties may be influenced by what might be called the “Homer Simpson” approach to nuclear safety?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Comparing Homer Simpson to the National Party is grossly unfair on Homer Simpson.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Mr SPEAKER: Before the member asks the question, I want to advise the House that the Minister has said that her answer will be longer than usual, and I have accepted that from the information she gave me.

Glenelg Children's Health Camp—Children's Medical Examinations

3. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she stand by her earlier statements that she had “checked the file” and conducted “extensive searching of the available records” in relation to complaints about medical examinations at the Glenelg Health Camp prior to answering oral and written questions about the role of the ministry and the Minister; if so, does she stand by her answers to those questions?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): Yes, I do. But as I advised that member in answer to question for written answer 6779, the department is currently searching archives for any material that would assist me to provide a full answer to that written question. The following further documents have so far been located. In February 1988, there was a ruling by District Court Judge McAloon against allegations of sexual abuse by Dr Espie. In November 1988, there was a circular letter from Parents Against Injustice Society (NZ) (PAIN) received by the then social welfare Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, after being sent to the Prime Minister, calling for a ministerial inquiry. In April 1989, there was a letter from the then social welfare Minister, Michael Cullen, to PAIN, advising that he had asked for an independent review of a case where allegations of sexual abuse were disputed. Subsequently on that day there is a press release issued by Michael Cullen, confirming that concern caused by the inadequacy of evidence in a number of cases had led him to ask Judge Ken Mason to conduct an independent inquiry into them, and to make recommendations as he saw fit. In November 1989, there was the first report from Judge Mason setting out his review, where his findings had been based solely on the papers, and stating that the present series of complaints did not constitute grounds for a ministerial inquiry. In January 1990, there was a letter from the then Prime Minister, Geoffrey Palmer, stating he did not believe a ministerial inquiry was appropriate. In October 1990, there was a further letter from Judge Ken Mason to Michael Cullen, updating his previous report and stating that he had received and reviewed further information, and had met with complainants. He stated: “… my tentative view is that in these cases also there is no cogent evidence to justify ministerial intervention.” In 28 October 1990, there is a letter to the then new Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, asking him to initiate an inquiry, which was transferred to the then social welfare Minister, Jenny Shipley. On 7 December 1990, there is the official second report by Judge Ken Mason to Jenny Shipley, stating: “I have given anxious consideration as to whether a formal ministerial inquiry should be initiated. In my view … no grounds exist which would justify that course.” There is a letter at the end of January 1992 from former Prime Minister Jim Bolger to PAIN, stating there was no evidence of inappropriate action on which a ministerial inquiry should be based. He reported to the Government that nearly all the cases had been subject to thorough scrutiny by the courts, and it was difficult in the light of that to justify an inquiry on the scale that was suggested. At the end of January 1993 there is a further letter from the then Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, stating: “I cannot justify holding an inquiry of the kind you would like.”

I will be seeking leave at the end of this question to table those documents, with the exception of the first one: the District Court judgment, which I understand is still subject to the leave of that court.

Katherine Rich: Why has the Minister miraculously found all this information, which has been asked for over a period of some months, and will she confirm to the House that when she told us that she had “checked the file” and that there had been extensive searching of the available records, she had not actually checked the entire Glenelg Health Camp file; and, if not, why did she not check the entire file at the time?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I can confirm that I have not personally opened any of the boxes in which this material has been found, but I can repeat my agreement with both that member and Deborah Coddington, who has also been asking questions on this issue, that as any further information comes to light it will be made public. This is the first question I have been asked in the House, and I have provided all the information. Further information may well come to light following today.

Katherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question to the Minister asked her to clarify whether she had checked the file, as she told us in the House. She did not answer that question. I am interested in her comment that she had “checked the file” and whether she had done so, because it would appear that she had not and that she has misled the House.

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

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seemed apparent to me—and, I am sure, to many other members—that the Minister was prepared to respond to the point of order raised by Katherine Rich, and I wonder whether she should be allowed to do so.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it was a point of order. That is very different from a question. If the Minister were prepared to respond to a question, I would allow her to do so. That was a point of order, and I did not need any further assistance on it. I took advice, and accepted it.

Georgina Beyer: What were Judge Mason’s recommendations, following his review?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Judge Mason conducted two reviews of the alleged sexual abuse cases. After the first review, completed in November 1989, he concluded that the present series of complaints did not constitute good grounds for a ministerial inquiry. However, he said that the complainants should have the opportunity to elaborate or expand on their complaints. After considering that additional information and meeting with the complainants he issued a second report in December 1990, again concluding that no grounds existed that would justify a formal ministerial inquiry.

Deborah Coddington: Does the Minister stand by her statement to the House on 13 May, when she said: “I have looked very carefully at the very issue raised by the member in her question, because I am aware that the alleged abuse occurred in 1987. The first incident that is reported within the Ministry of Health system is 1993.”; and if she now concedes that that answer is not correct, will she withdraw her answer, correct it, and apologise to the House?

Hon RUTH DYSON: That was a question in relation of the Ministry of Health’s files and is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. Today I am answering questions as the Minister responsible for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and I am not able to answer on behalf of the Minister of Health in this instance.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very interesting reply. The Minister seems to be saying that if she gave an answer on behalf of another Minister that is demonstrably false, she has no responsibility for correcting that answer or apologising. That seems to be to be an interesting situation, because I suspect that the Minister of Health does not feel that she is under any obligation to correct an answer that is wrong. The whole House now realises that the answer has to be wrong, because we listened to the long answer that went back to long before 1993. I would like to know whether the responsibility that Speakers have said is on Ministers to correct answers falls only upon the principal Minister, or whether it falls upon the Minister who stood in the House and gave the answer, because one or the other of them ought to be correcting the record.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The first answer given by the Minister related to a search of the health files. It was accurate in terms of the search at that point. The Minister has ordered further work to be done since then, investigating the social welfare files. Confusion may arise because, of course, the Glenelg Health Camp operated under health, or did at that point, whereas the issues of sexual abuse operated under the then Department of Social Welfare at that time. I thank the Minister also for allowing me to see the documentation, to remind me about something I had completely forgotten about in the intervening 15 years. A little bit has gone on in that time.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to say to the member that it is a hypothetical point that he is raising. I do not think that was what the Minister was actually saying.

Katherine Rich: When the Minister made the statement to the House: “I have checked the file.”—not officials—and that there had been “extensive searching of the available records”, what does she say when she has read correspondence that shows that Michael Cullen, then Minister of Social Welfare, wrote a formal ministerial directive to the then Director-General of Social Welfare on 25 October 1989, asking him to commission Judge Ken Mason to review some Glenelg Health Camp cases that the Minister said had “disturbing features”, which the Minister “wanted checked out”?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I can confirm that on that date, after extensive searching of the files of the former Department of Social Welfare and of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, all the information that was made available to me was outlined in this House. The earliest one was 1993, and I did then, and subsequently, assure the House that if any further information was made available, it would be made public.

Georgina Beyer: Has the Minister received any information, or indeed reports, on how the then National Government of the day responded to Judge Ken Mason’s reviews?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The then National Government took no further action in response to Judge Ken Mason’s second report, stating that he did not think a ministerial inquiry was justified. In January 1992, former Prime Minister Jim Bolger wrote to one of the complainants, stating that there was no evidence of inappropriate actions by an agent or official on which a ministerial inquiry should be based, and nothing to justify such an inquiry. A year later he repeated that view in a letter to another member of Parents Against Injustice.

Deborah Coddington: Why does the Minister keep repeating that as Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) she has only just started searching the file, when she has refused to respond to my Official Information Act request of 16 March requesting all the information going back to 1983 regarding complaints about Glenelg Health Camp, and to my repeated requests on 14 May for the same information; or is it just that she is involved in a cover-up of two senior Ministers?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I did not ever say what the member alleged at the start of her supplementary question. As I said, the archives are still being searched. Further information may well become available. What I have provided to the House is all the further information that is available to me up until this date.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Can the Minister confirm that at the time a press statement was issued by myself as Minister of Social Welfare and that media interviews were given; if so, is it not a bit late to engage in a cover-up?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I am sure that members of the public at that time found both the content and the way in which the Minister of Social Welfare at the time presented the information as riveting as we currently do with his media interviews.

Katherine Rich: If media interviews were given at the time, press releases were issued, and there is now apparently a lot of information that has turned up from the archives, why did the Minister continue to maintain that the first allegation was in 1993 under National’s time in Government; and why did she continue to ignore the Labour Government’s involvement, if it was not to cover up for senior colleagues who she knew received the first allegations?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member has missed the point entirely. I provided the House with the information that I had available to me at the time. If I had known of any other correspondence or any other Minister’s involvement, regardless of whatever party political affiliation that Minister had, I would have provided that information to the House at the time. I seek leave to table the documents I outlined in my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table all the documents referred to.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is an important point to clarify. Obviously we would not want to block leave for those documents to be released, but we do know that recently in a similar situation with a written question on the Minister’s other portfolio responsibility, a number of names of persons that should not be released were attached, and we had to send it back so that those names were not released. Could we have an assurance from the Minister that in the correspondence she has on her desk ready for release, there are no names of persons who are adversely affected by this case?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I would certainly think that is sensible. I would just raise the point that that would not include the name of former MP Jim Gerard, who quite properly brought this matter to my attention confidentially.

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

Katherine Rich: I seek leave to table a ministerial directive from Michael Cullen to the then Director-General of Social Welfare, pointing to disturbing features about the Glenelg Health Camp case.

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

Meningococcal Disease—Control

4. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to address the continuing meningococcal epidemic?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): The meningococcal vaccine is the significant Government investment in child health. The roll-out of the vaccine is designed to focus attention, effort, and resources on reaching those most at risk, and the goal is to vaccinate 90 percent of the population aged 0 to 19 years within the first 2 years. Clinical trials of the vaccine have been very encouraging, demonstrating that the vaccine is safe and will provide protection against the epidemic strain of group B meningococcal disease.

Steve Chadwick: Since the epidemic was first identified in 1991, how many people have been affected by the disease?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Between 1991 and 2004, there have been 5,421 cases, including 220 deaths. Eighty percent of the cases were in the 0 to 19 age group, with a third of those being 4 years old and under. In 2003 there were 540 cases, including 13 deaths. Those are appalling statistics for our children, and the Government is committed to reducing the number of cases. The vaccine programme will be New Zealand’s largest ever immunisation programme.

Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister doing anything to address the continuing tuberculosis epidemic facing the Auckland District Health Board, which is experiencing the highest number of TB cases in more than a decade, with more than two-thirds of those cases found in people born outside New Zealand; if nothing, why not?

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

Hon ANNETTE KING: Certainly, a lot of work is being undertaken in tuberculosis, including the most up-to-date treatment of tuberculosis.

Police—Resourcing

5. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Has he received any recent reports indicating police are insufficiently resourced; if so, what does he intend to do about this?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education), on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes, the Minister saw a media release from the questioner, but as the Commissioner of Police told the member yesterday, safety of his staff is of paramount importance. Police are being provided with more extensive training, and improved technology and safety equipment, including link-line radios, to ensure police are protected in what is sometimes a very dangerous job.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister of Police seen recent research that shows that the perception of the overall performance of police in New Zealand is down, public opinion of the police is less favourable, and opinions about whether the police are fulfilling their role well within New Zealand society are down; if so, would he not agree that one of the main reasons for that loss of public confidence is that under his tenure the authorised staffing levels of our police have fallen dangerously out of kilter with the workloads, and our policemen and policewomen are simply not able to meet the public’s expectations?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, no, and if the member stopped running them down, we would be in a much better position.

Jill Pettis: What new resources is the Government giving police to fight and continue to reduce crime?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think I have to give an edited version of this particular reply, because the resources have been so extensive due to the Minister’s successful battle with my colleague the Minister of Finance. As a result of that work, the Government is spending more to combat P and other amphetamines, it is spending more on combating organised crime, it is spending more on security and counter-terrorism, it is spending more on buildings, police cars, and equipment, and it is spending more on family safety. We are even cleaning up some of the scraps down Courtenay Place!

Rod Donald: Can the Minister confirm that each year the New Zealand Police spends the equivalent of 150 full-time sworn officers on cannabis offences relating to personal use; if not, what is the correct figure?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I regret to inform the member that, as the acting Minister of Police, I do not have that information, but I am sure that if the member puts down an oral question to the Minister, he will get the appropriate reply.

Hon Tony Ryall: What action will the Government take to compensate police for the cost of the Holidays Act, considering the warnings of a senior police officer contained in an email, which states that it has the potential to create huge backlogs for staff, to have a direct impact on those looking after prisoners over the holiday periods, and to have a huge impact on front-line counter staff?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: While this is a matter more for the Minister of Labour than the Minister of Police, I think it is fair to say that in this area, as with a couple of others, the Holidays Act is being examined for its effect on salaried staff who already have penal rates built into their full rate.

Dr Muriel Newman: Is the Minister aware that the Police vote—excluding road safety—as a percentage of total Government operating spending, has reduced from 1.6 percent in 1999-2000, the year Labour came to office, to 1.5 percent in this year’s Budget; given that crime has gone up over that time, could it be that the two are linked?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I can inform the member that police appropriations have gone from $840 million in the year ended 30 June 2000 to $1.061 billion in the financial year we are about to enter—an increase well in front of inflation. The point that I think it is important to make is that Labour went to the electorate promising to emphasise health and education, and to boost extensively spending in those areas, and this Government has done that. As acting Minister of Police, I think that is a good thing.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister tell the House who is right: Councillor Lynley Claridge and youth workers Catherine Graham and Jim de Thierry, who are reported in the Southland Times today as saying that they fear a police officer could be killed because police in the district are forced to work lone shifts; or the Minister of Police and his Government, who seem to think the police have all the numbers they need, despite the growing workloads and escalating crime?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think it is fair to say that the Minister of Police has never said that the police have all the police numbers they need. The Minister is always fighting for more, and he has been particularly successful. The key point to be made with regard to rural policing is that assaults on police last year were at a rate of 0.29 per sworn officer in rural areas, and a rate of 0.56 in urban areas. The assault rate on urban police, who police together, is about double the rate of that on rural police.

Jill Pettis: Why didn’t you do something about it when you were in Government?

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Mr Ron Mark.

Ron Mark: Given the interjection from the senior, undignified whip on the Government benches, I seek leave of the House to give an explanation of exactly what New Zealand First did whilst it was in Government with the National Party.

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

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that that member, who asked me by means of an interjection to say precisely what we did while we were in Government, has just denied me leave to give her an answer, could you please assist me by keeping those sorts of interjections, which are clearly meaningless and designed to interrupt my question, to an absolute minimum—if not to zero?

Mr SPEAKER: The member is absolutely correct, and had the senior whip made an interjection after the member had started the question, she would have been in a very interesting position in this House.

Ron Mark: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is it not the truth, despite all these claims of what the Minister of Police and the Government are doing to resolve staffing issues in the police force, that on 29 September 2002 a member of the Southern Communications Centre wrote personally to the Minister of Police, expressing grave concerns about the escalating workload, the pressures of inadequate staffing levels, the dangerously high stress levels—

Mr SPEAKER: Please come to the question.

Ron Mark: —and the fear that the personal safety of officers on patrol was in jeopardy; and if it is the truth that the Minister received that letter, what has he done to resolve the issue with the Southern Communications Centre since 29 September 2002—other than nothing?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do not have all the details in front of me, but I assume what the member said is correct—that the Minister of Police received the letter. I can confirm for the member that the Southern Communications Centre deals with 19,246 calls per call-taker, while the Central Communications Centre deals with 19,240.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister of Police tell the House whether he has read in the June edition of the Police News the statement made by one Rob Neil of Canterbury, a highway patrol officer: “It is not a matter of if a tragedy will happen with respect to police safety through understaffing and over-workload; it is a matter of when.”; and if the Minister has read that and understands it, can he give the House a categorical assurance that should a police officer be injured or killed as a result of the communications centre’s failure to respond, he will not only resign his portfolio but resign from this House?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This Minister is sick to death of people who encourage people who assault police.

Dr Muriel Newman: I seek leave to table the documentation that shows that the Government has been cutting police spending as a percentage of overall spending.

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

Civil Union Bill—Marriage

6. LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What is the distinction between a civil union, as proposed, and a marriage conducted in a non-religious context?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice): There are a number of clear distinctions between a civil union as proposed, and a marriage. For example, marriage has always been, and will continue to be, available solely to a man and a woman, unlike civil unions that are available to different and same-sex couples. As well, civil union partners will not be referred to in legislation as “husband and wife”; those terms will continue to be used exclusively for married couples. Thirdly, marriage celebrants are not required to perform civil union ceremonies.

Larry Baldock: Can he confirm media reports that the proposed Civil Union Bill will enable couples to transfer from a civil union to a marriage, and vice versa; and if so, does this not just confirm that there will be very little difference between marriage and civil unions, except that one does not apply to same-sex couples?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I can confirm that the bill contains a clause with that effect in both directions at the present time, but as members of the House will be only too aware, whether the final form of the legislation is in that shape will be entirely determined by its progress in the select committee.

Russell Fairbrother: What other changes to the Marriage Act are proposed by the Civil Union Bill?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The answer is “None”. The proposed Civil Union Bill does not change the Marriage Act. The institution of marriage remains solely available to a man and a woman, and the terms “husband and wife” and “marriage” are not removed from any legislation.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister not agree that the heart of the issue is that this bill gives rights to same-sex couples, and that the parties in this House opposed to the bill simply do not believe that same-sex couples should have any rights at all, and believe that they are not entitled to equal treatment under New Zealand law?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I do agree with the proposition put forward by the questioner, but I would add that Government members have made a decision that the Civil Union Bill and its companion bill will be a conscience matter. I read in media reports that the major Opposition party, the National Party, has made the same decision and I would encourage other parties, particularly United Future, to give such freedom of choice to their members.

Larry Baldock: Can he confirm that under the Marriage Act, couples are free to get married wherever they like, and with as much or as little religious ceremony as they like; if so, does this not make a nonsense of one of the justifications for the Civil Union Bill—namely, that it allows couples to pledge their commitment, without the trappings of marriage?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, and no. I refer the member to the editorial comment in the Nelson Mail, which says: “This is a bill appropriate for the times, recognising the reality of relationships, instead of attempting to deny their existence.”

Gerry Brownlee: Apart from the terms “husband and wife” and the term “marriage” itself not being available to those in a civil union, what other aspects unique to marriage at the moment will be excluded from those in a civil union?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The proposals in the Civil Union Bill and its companion bill are predominantly about the protection of rights of individuals in our community. There are no victims in this legislation, and I do not believe that most New Zealanders mind people having rights and protections for the relationships they choose for themselves.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will probably give the old story that the Minister has addressed the question, but this is a fairly important issue. It is not party partisan. It is, as the Minister has informed the House, something that people should exercise their consciences on. I asked the Minister a very specific question, and I got an answer that was more to do with the mechanics of how the bill will pass than with the question itself. I asked him simply what other aspects that are currently unique to marriage might be denied to people in a civil union. I would have thought the Minister in charge of the bill might have a list in front of him.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is perfectly correct. He did ask that question but I thought the Minister, at the end of his reply, addressed the question.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware of any protests by United Future members that indicate they feel so strongly about this bill that they will withdraw support from the Government, or is it a case of much noise in public, and silence where it counts?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for the United Future party.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member must word the question so it is in order. I will give him another chance as it is Thursday afternoon.

Peter Brown: With respect, I asked the Minister whether he is aware of any approaches by—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Jill Pettis: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: That will be the last comment that she will make this question time. When I listened again to Mr Brown’s words “Is he aware” in relation to the actual bill, I think the Minister does have responsibility.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am able to confirm that the normal objective and friendly relationship continues to exist between the United Party and the Government.

Larry Baldock: Can the Minister confirm that the marriage legislation amendment bill recently introduced into the Australian Parliament would expressly deny legal recognition of the civil union of New Zealand couples, and does he think that that will serve as a barrier to those considering a civil union, when couples could simply marry and not face the same problem?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not aware of the legislation the member refers to. However, I can confirm that the civil union proposal will not apply outside New Zealand jurisdiction.

Oil Prices—Budget Economic and Fiscal Update

7. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Why did the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update assume the price of oil would ease back to US$19 a barrel, and is that assumption now being revised?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): That is a very good question. The Treasury forecast in the Budget assumed a long-term equilibrium price of US$19 a barrel, based on historic trends, and consistent with average oil prices in the 1990s. The short-term price assumption was based on a consensus forecast in futures market pricing, and that was for a short-term price path just above $30 a barrel; the assumption about the long-term equilibrium price is being revised for the next forecast round, given recent price trends and geopolitical events.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that it would be prudent to ensure Government investment shifts New Zealand away from oil dependence, rather than reinforcing it, given his statement that oil prices will never be back at 1990 levels?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I did not say that. Indeed, levels around 1991 were actually quite high at one point. What I was indicating was my own personal view that over the long term we would have to expect a higher track for oil prices than we saw in the 1990s. The Government is already taking action. In this year’s Budget there is an increase of over 25 percent in the funding going to passenger transport community services.

John Key: Does the Minister agree with BP’s chief economist that there is “no global resource or reserve shortage”, and that the price of oil, which in real terms is a fraction of what it reached in the 1980s, is in a large part rising because of demand issues that, over time, can be addressed with increased supply?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I do not agree with that entirely. Certainly, I agree with the member that one of the factors here is increased demand, particularly from China—and no doubt increasing also from India—as China’s own supplies start to run down. However, I do not think that at this stage there is a clear indication that world supply, in terms of reserves, is increasing as rapidly as demand is likely to over the next 10 to 20 years.

Marc Alexander: Does the Minister agree that one reason oil prices have not eased to the degree predicted in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update is an unpredictable rise in consumption by 4-litre, gas-guzzling vehicles such as the one left running outside the press gallery last month by the Green MP Keith Locke?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I certainly think that it is advisable that people look at their own vehicle usage, and the nature of some of the vehicles one sees around this place does not contribute. I do recollect the Green Party having a somewhat strange machine travelling around the country once, spewing out pollutants. But then, that was no different from the ACT bus that was spewing out both verbal and other forms of pollutants.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that a massive road-building programme without associated investment in public transport, such as being advocated by National, would leave New Zealand exposed to massive economic risk in the face of high oil prices?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. I think the most extraordinary thing about National’s statement on Auckland transport was to reject the notion that public transport had any key role to play. On the other hand, those who would argue that we should not build roads at all are merely encouraging cars to sit there idling away, producing pollutants, and going nowhere.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What steps is the Minister taking, in the light of increasing oil prices, to ensure that transport investment by the Government supports energy-efficient rail freight and passenger transport?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We have already improved the level of funding for passenger transport. As I said, it is going up more than 25 percent in the coming year. We have today announced major changes that should assist in getting a coherent national land transport strategy, we have been very supportive of the Auckland rail strategy, and I notice from statements in the media in the last 24 hours that there is now strong expectation of a satisfactory deal around the acquisition of the rail network by the Government.

Rod Donald: Has Treasury undertaken any modelling to determine whether a more proactive approach to import substitution could help blunt the adverse effects of rising oil prices; if not, when will it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. I am not clear how engaging in import substitution of imported goods and services would necessarily reduce oil consumption in the world at large. It is also fair to say that in terms of international oil prices New Zealand’s demand is not a large factor.

John Key: I seek leave to table a copy of this morning’s Dominion Post press article that shows that BP’s chief economist believes there are three times the levels of reserves that there were in the 1980s and plenty of untapped supply.

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

John Key: I seek leave to table Don Brash’s outstanding speech on Auckland’s roading crisis and the solution that National would have. He does not claim for one moment that there is no demand for public transport; he argues a priority.

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

Treaty Claims—Tainui Meetings with Minister

8. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Why was there a series of meetings between representatives of Tainui iwi and Government ministers and officials regarding the tribe’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims following the introduction of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, when there had been no previous meetings since October 2003, and what was the outcome of those meetings?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Negotiations between Tainui and the Crown were not progressed after the death of Sir Robert Mahuta because of the uncertainty as to who then held the mandate to negotiate. The recent meetings were held at Tainui’s request to discuss the impact of the foreshore and seabed legislation on the settlement of their outstanding historical claims, including those relating to the Waikato River and the west coast harbours. Tainui also expressed at the meeting a desire to resume negotiations.

Gerry Brownlee: Was the Minister’s and the Prime Minister’s assurance to Tainui that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill would not be an impediment to settlement of their claims to the Waikato River and west coast harbours necessary in order for the Government to retain the support of Nanaia Mahuta, who declared her continued support for the Labour Party only after such a letter had been extracted from the Government?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: No. To the best of my knowledge it was not a condition.

Mahara Okeroa: What progress has been made in the negotiations with Tainui to settle historical claims?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: There are ongoing discussions between Crown officials and representatives of the Tainui iwi, focusing on issues around mandating and the Crown’s preference to deal with comprehensive claims from large natural groupings. To date, however, no mandating document has been received by the Government.

Pita Paraone: Does the Minister consider that the meetings referred to in the primary question followed a similar process of explanation and negotiation to that of meetings held between recent National Governments and iwi when discussing treaty settlements and the subsequently abandoned fiscal envelope proposal?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: To the best of my knowledge we have followed a similar process. The previous Government entered into negotiations in much the same way as this Government has done.

Stephen Franks: Was the possibility of entitlement to aquaculture areas part of the discussion; if so, was it based on a principle of need, or just part of a general crude race privilege across all iwi?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I have no recollection of aquaculture being mentioned in any of the meetings I attended.

Gerry Brownlee: What factors or compromises enabled her to provide the letter of assurance to Tainui that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill would not be an impediment to the settlement of their claims to the Waikato River and west coast harbours, when both she and the Prime Minister have been telling other New Zealanders that the bill will preserve the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand in Crown ownership?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I see no contradiction between those two statements. The bill does do as the member said, and also there is no impediment to continue with the negotiation of historical settlements.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister telling the House that the negotiations that will take place with Tainui over the Waikato River and the west coast harbours will not discuss ownership of the seabed and foreshore of those west coast harbours, and that title to those places will not be transferred to Tainui?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: This House is not the place to negotiate historical grievance claims. We will, of course, negotiate according to precedent. The precedent, I understand, from the previous Government was that ownership of the lake beds of Taup and Lake Ellesmere was transferred to iwi.

Hon Richard Prebble: Is the House to understand that the Government has resumed negotiations with Tainui purely because it recognises that former MP Mr Tuku Morgan does have a mandate to negotiate for the tribe; if so, is it not a fact that Mr Morgan has achieved more for Tainui in 12 months than Labour MPs have achieved in 4 years, and in fact is that not a sign of the power of the new Māori Party?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The member obviously did not hear the answer to the supplementary question in which I said that to date no mandating document has been received by the Government from Tainui.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the House take it from her previous answer that, notwithstanding the claims made about the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, and notwithstanding the passing of that bill supposedly protecting the seabed and foreshore of this country being in public ownership, her Government may negotiate ownership of parts of the seabed and foreshore of the west coast harbours, to see them pass into the ownership of Tainui?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: As I said, the House is not the place to negotiate the settlement of historical grievances. We will review, in terms of those negotiations, past practice, including the practices I have made previous reference to. I cannot answer the question, because I am not in negotiations with Tainui at this stage.

Information Technology—Availability to Teachers

9. HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is he taking to make information communications technology more available to teachers?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Enormous steps. This year’s Budget allocated an additional $12 million, so that around 7,000 primary teachers can benefit from an extension to the Laptops for Teachers scheme. Already more than 17,000 principals and intermediate and secondary teachers have received laptops through the scheme. I will make it clear through my newsletters; as schools receive their laptops, that the National Party voted against this scheme.

Helen Duncan: What feedback has the Minister received on the success of the Laptops for Teachers scheme?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Feedback from teachers who already have laptops through the scheme has been really positive. They report significant improvements in teaching use of technology, and they are also helping them in terms of easing teaching loads. Laptops give teachers access to state-of-the-art resources, and they can considerably improve their teaching practice.

Student Allowances—Married Students

10. BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): Does the Government’s decision to subject married students under 25 years of age to parental income testing for the purposes of assessing eligibility for student allowances reflect the view that they are still financially dependent on their parents?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General), on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): This decision reflects the Government’s intention to apply the parental income test in a consistent manner to all students who do not have dependent children, whether they are married, single, or in a de facto relationship.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could the Minister clarify in what capacity she is answering the question. We have read in the newspaper that the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) is on bereavement leave, and has been replaced, for the time being, by the Hon Margaret Wilson. I would be interested to know whether she actually is the Minister, or whether she is replying on behalf of the Minister, because over coming weeks I myself might be asking her questions, and I would like to know whether she will be answering as the Minister, or as the Attorney-General on his behalf.

Mr SPEAKER: My understanding is that she is the Minister. She will be Acting Minister, because the Minister is on leave. I now have a document in front of me. She is the Acting Minister.

Hon Bill English: So should she then begin her answers by replying as the Minister, and not saying that she is replying on behalf of the Minister?

Mr SPEAKER: Technically, I suppose, yes, and she was wrong.

Hon Bill English: It is not just technical. I know how important it is to these Ministers as to whether they are on behalf of the Minister, or the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, she is the Minister.

Bernie Ogilvy: Does she agree that the decision to get married implies a degree of financial co-dependence that supplants any notion of continued parental support; if not, does she know of any married couple that still relies on its parents for pocket money?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I apologise to the member for not getting my designation correct. I am happy to answer any questions from him in the future. Yes, I do know of many instances—in fact, not only parents, but aunts and uncles.

H V Ross Robertson: What other allowance changes affecting students under 25 years of age were made as part of Budget 2004?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Two changes were made to the parental income thresholds. Firstly, over 36,000 students will now benefit from changes to the current thresholds. The lower parental income threshold is increased from $28,000 to $33,696, and the upper threshold is increased from $50,572 to $62,148. Furthermore, from now on, parental income thresholds will be annually adjusted for inflation, so eligibility will no longer be eroded by inflation as it was in the 1990s.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the increase in thresholds cost the Government an additional $55 million, which will go to students, but that the measure referred to here saves the Government $50 million, so students are only about $5 million better off?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I cannot confirm the accuracy of those figures, but I am happy to check them for the member.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Did the Associate Minister, or even the Minister, discuss with United Future, prior to the delivery of the Budget, that the change mentioned in the primary question had to be made because current policy, according to the Ministry of Education, discriminates in favour of married people—a situation that her Government could not possibly countenance?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The member is correct. Not only this Government, but the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, requires that the legislation be consistent. I also note that United Future did welcome the changes that were made at the time.

Metiria Turei: How can this Government justify removing student allowances for married students, claiming it contravenes human rights legislation by discriminating against de facto and single students, when this Government continues to discriminate on the basis of age, and when there is no good reason to justify treating a 24-year-old differently to a 25-year-old?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The Government took advice on this precise point because there might well seem to be an illogicality about it. However, the age was set in the past, I understand, by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith at the time the policy came in. In the assessment that was done under the New Zealand Bill of Rights legislation, the advice I received was that it was not discriminatory in this particular set of circumstances.

Bernie Ogilvy: Can the Minister confirm that students who have worked for 96 weeks before commencing study will now also have to be tested for student allowances based on their parents’ income, because not to do so would be to discriminate on the basis of employment; and, if so, what is so wrong about assessing students on their own income when they have clearly already demonstrated financial independence from their parents?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The point is to assess the financial position of the students at the time of the application, not on whether they have a work history.

Bernie Ogilvy: Why does the Government argue that it is discrimination on the basis of employment to exempt those who have worked before study from parental income testing, yet it is somehow not discrimination on the basis of employment to allow those who are under 25 on the dole to have their eligibility assessed on their own income?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The purpose behind the policy is to assess the financial position of the students at the time they are seeking the allowance.

Children—Sexual Exploitation

11. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Justice: Does New Zealand face a large problem of children internally trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): No, a claim made yesterday in a US State Department report that New Zealand faces a large problem of children being internally trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation appears entirely unsubstantiated. The report apparently draws on research done by the New Zealand child protection organisation ECPAT, but that organisation has described the claims as “utterly misleading” and “a pretty wild statement”. ECPAT has said that it is not aware of such trafficking happening in New Zealand.

Moana Mackey: What steps has the Government taken to deal with the problems of trafficking of persons and child prostitution?

Hon PHIL GOFF: New Zealand has taken extraordinary measures to deal with people-trafficking and child prostitution, including a national plan of action against the commercial sexual exploitation of children, and taking a leading role in the Bali process against people-smuggling and trafficking. The Government passed legislation in 2002 that subjects people-traffickers to jail sentences of up to 20 years and fines of up to half a million dollars. In 2001 we made being a client of a child prostitute—defined as one under 18 years of age—a criminal offence, and the House currently has before it the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which creates an offence punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment for inducing a young person under 18 years into any act for commercial sexual exploitation.

Parole Act—Victims' Rights

12. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: What rights did he have in mind when he promoted the provisions of the Parole Act 2002 that require the Parole Board to uphold victims’ rights?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): As the member states, the Parole Board is required by the Parole Act of 2002 and also by the Victims’ Rights Act of 2002 to uphold victims’ rights. Among the extensive new rights given to victims by the Act are the rights to be notified of parole hearings, to make submissions to the Parole Board—written or oral—to receive information relating to the offender in order to make those submissions, and to be notified of the board’s decisions.

Stephen Franks: Do victims have a right to expect that a sentence will comply with the Sentencing Act and denounce crime and deter it, and ensure accountability, so that crime does not pay; if so, why is the Parole Board still not permitted to take account of any of those purposes of sentencing, and the courts now have to fix a non-parole period to achieve them?

Hon PHIL GOFF: All of the principles the member has mentioned are, of course, part of the Sentencing Act and set out quite clearly what the judge must take into account in sentencing the offender. The Parole Board can look at a number of factors, but the paramount consideration of the Parole Board, as I think everyone in this House would expect, must be the safety of the community and whether release of the offender would mean undue risk. Obviously, the Parole Board has a job to keep the community safe. That is why that is its paramount consideration.

Lianne Dalziel: To what extent are victims or their representatives taking advantage of the right to make submissions to the Parole Board?

Hon PHIL GOFF: More and more. In 2002, 280 submissions were made by victims or their supporters to the Parole Board. In 2003, there were 441 submissions. In the first 5 months of this year alone the number is already up to 826. I note the comment in today’s New Zealand Herald by Garth McVicarof the Sensible Sentencing Trust that for the first time the trust has been able to represent a victim in an official capacity before the Parole Board and that this is “the result of growing recognition of victims’ rights”.

Peter Brown: Is it true or false that people are being released on parole who have shown no signs of rehabilitation and have made no genuine attempt to do so; and, if that is true, what is being done to address that issue?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Let me repeat that the key consideration—the paramount consideration—for the Parole Board must be that release of the inmate creates no undue risk to the community and that safety is the paramount consideration. If the Parole Board were following the guidance given by this House in legislation, it would not be releasing such people.

Stephen Franks: I ask my question again: why is the Parole Board still prevented from taking account of the purposes of sentencing, including to denounce crime and deter it and to ensure accountability, so that crime does not pay—and before the Minister answers, I should tell him that I was at the Parole Board hearing mentioned by Mr Garth McVicar, and the Parole Board was obliged—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has asked his question. That is extra material. It is not essential to the question that has been asked.

Stephen Franks: I have not asked the second part of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has actually asked a full question. Sometimes I allow people to ask a little bit more, but the member was making a statement. He cannot do that.

Stephen Franks: I ask that I be allowed to complete the question. I will not continue the statement.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can ask a specific second part to the question, but there is to be no comment or statement about anything else.

Stephen Franks: —and that the Parole Board admitted that it could not take account of the purposes of sentencing?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I repeat my answer: the Parole Board can take account of a variety of factors, but its paramount consideration must be the safety of the community.

Hon Tony Ryall: If the Parole Board is doing such a good job of protecting the public, why do half the people it releases end up in prison within 2 years?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I must say that the situation is somewhat better than when that member was the Minister of Justice. But the fact is that when people are released on parole, statistically—on the recidivism work done by the Ministry of Justice—it shows that they are half as likely to reoffend as when they are not released on parole. Those figures speak for themselves.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 16 June on the .

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): What a terrible disappointment this Budget must be to all those Labour back-benchers charged with the job of trying to sell it to their constituents. What a terrible slap in the face this Budget is to working New Zealanders. Four out of five families in this Budget have had the boot put into them by this Government. The so-called family support package, which effects only one family in four, is an absolute disgrace. We have had our finance spokesperson, John Key, do some in-depth analysis of what this package means, and we cannot believe that the Government could have been so foolish as to allow it to progress.

Let us take a household where there are two parents, or two earners. One earns $50,000 a year—a reasonably chunky salary—and the other works for just a few hours a week earning $10,000 for the year. The effect of this package is that the family that is going the extra distance and finding the childcare to be able to get out and earn that extra $10,000 will only increase its household income by $2,850 for the year.

Simon Power: That’s hopeless! Why bother?

GERRY BROWNLEE: One has to ask oneself the question whether that part-time work is worth it. The fact is that even if it was a job that paid $10 an hour—a very modest hourly rate in today’s world—the effect of this package would be to reduce the pay for each of those hours worked to just $2.60. The question is why anybody would go to the effort of working 20 hours a week and trying to get an extra $10,000 into the family’s budget, to find out that the Government’s package structure means that each of those hours is worth only $2.60. So much for the Labour Government and its cries about the minimum wage in this country, when it is able to bring in a family support package that puts a worker in part-time work under this regime earning about a third of the current minimum wage.

That is totally unacceptable, and it is one of the reasons why, as New Zealanders take a closer look at this Budget, they will begin to sense this—not only in their pocketbooks—and emotionally disconnect from the current Government. It is not possible to go out and tell New Zealanders that they are better off with Labour, when they find on a weekly basis that they are being treated like this. Why would anybody want to better themselves or improve their responsibility levels in a job to get a bit of extra salary when the rewards will be eaten away by the current Government?

Even in a family where the gross income is $38,000 a year—and that is the new benchmark for wealth in this country; families earning $38,000 a year and above are considered by the current Government to be rich. Adding in all the extra bits that the Government might like to give that family would take its income up to $42,860 a year. Compare that with someone who has made a bigger effort to get better qualifications, to move up the job scale, to take on extra responsibility, and is earning $60,000 a year. That family’s gross income will be $45,236—in other words, only $2,376 a year more than the family that has a household income of some $22,000 gross less.

People may get bamboozled by the figures when they are put out like this, but when they go to their bank accounts and see the effect of the Government’s package, they will not be happy. There is no way that they will buy into Darren Hughes telling them that they are better off with Labour. They will find out very quickly that the problem with Labour is that it does not value work. Labour does not want to respect the dignity of work, and does not care that working New Zealanders who are making an effort should receive the rewards they are striving for. It will not happen.

Over the last three weeks of the adjournment we have got around the countryside to talk to workers in their workplaces, and they are horrified when they learn what the package is. If I go to the engineering works in my own electorate where the tradesmen on the floor are currently earning about $70,000 a year because they work hard and are well qualified, I find that they are very upset when they find that they will not be significantly better off than someone who earns $38,000 under this package.

In fact, the difference between someone earning $38,000 a year and someone earning $70,000 a year under this package is $2,856. Why would someone put him or herself through years and years of extra-qualifying and experience-gaining, only to earn $2,856 over and above someone who earns $38,000 a year? That is not a recipe for a happy workforce, and it will see the demise of the Labour Government. What that Government does not seem to understand is that this package is a boot in the aspirational desires of four out of five working families in this country.

Darren Hughes: He’s not very well prepared.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Hughes over there is getting terribly excited and upset by this revelation. He is one of the back-bench members who were dragged up to Mr Maharey and Dr Cullen’s offices and convinced that this was the Budget that would save his seat. Now he is discovering it is the Budget that will confirm his early re-entry into civilian life—if one can put it that way.

The other aspect of the Government’s difficulties at the moment is the way those members are progressively alienating ordinary New Zealanders. Coming before the House next week is the Civil Union Bill. Why would any Government want to put a bill into the House that it knows at least 20 of its members will not vote for? I say to the Government that it should not try pulling the stunt of making it a conscience vote in the hope that there will be enough votes in the rest of the House to get it over the hurdle. Rather, it should make it a party vote, and see if it survives. It would simply go down, those members know it would go down, and they should not underestimate the capacity of the rest of the House to require the Government to show a little bit of fortitude by declaring it a Government vote.

We are seeing the demise—of my voice, actually—but also of the Labour Government before us. This is a Budget that New Zealanders will turn very sour on, very quickly. I ask this question: has there ever been a period in New Zealand’s history when there have been such extraordinary commodity prices and apparently magnificent economic growth, but such appallingly low growth in salaries and wages? I do not think there has been such a period. At any other time in this country’s history when there have been the same returns from the farm gates, salaries and wages have taken a significant leap in the right direction. But this time that has not happened, because Labour does not value workers or care for the dignity of work, and simply has an ideological bent to make all New Zealanders the same. This Government will be rejected for that.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, the senior Government whip’s interjections were excessive in the last speech. I did not want to interrupt the member’s speech, but I would just warn you that they were excessive.

Simon Power: Why did you not warn her in question time?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet; there should be silence.

MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill): Can I say two things to the member who preceded me. First of all, if Darren Hughes is facing Roger Sowry, it is no contest. Mr Sowry was twice beaten by Judy Keall and once beaten by Darren Hughes, and I can assure the member who preceded me that Darren Hughes will be here for quite some time yet, so Opposition members had better get used to it.

Secondly, can I also say to the member, who complained bitterly about workers’ wages, that I am always amazed at how the National Party becomes a job delegate for the low paid when it is in Opposition. This is not new to me. I used to be an employee of the hotel workers union and, latterly, the Service Workers Union, as it was, and I will never forget the then MP for Wallace, Derek Angus, getting off the plane and bemoaning the fact that workers were getting a very small pay increase. One of the most fascinating things is that the very first piece of action the National Government brought about in 1990 was to cut benefits and to slash wages and conditions. So when those members complain about wages not keeping track with growth, let me make one thing clear to them: their alligator tears are not believed by anybody and especially not by workers. It might sound strange, but workers actually outlast the boss. The boss normally goes before the workers go, particularly in larger businesses. As a result of that, we are most certainly not impressed by those members’ new-found interest in working people.

I have some bad news for the National Party, and it goes like this. This is a good Budget for New Zealanders. It is good for families and it is good for the economy, and there is a lot of evidence of that in the newspapers so far. Those who run the social agencies and food banks are delighted. They are looking at a situation where their services will not be required as often in the future, because this particular Budget is making the first significant redistribution of income support across low and middle income earners, amounting to $1.1 billion once it is fully introduced. That is significant for families. When one talks about having an additional $10, $15, or $20 just to pay the milk bill and buy some bread, when one talks about giving families $60, $70, $100, $130, or $150 a week at the conclusion, one realises that this is a good Budget for low and middle income earners. Let me say that, having done some door-knocking during the adjournment, I know that the sad thing for the National Party is that people actually understand that.

They also understand one other thing, which I do not think the Opposition is being terribly good about highlighting in this debate. They understand that that additional money is being provided in a way that will last forever. Let us look at that. There is a surplus. John Key goes on about the surplus of $6 billion, and how we should give everybody tax cuts. The Waihī family who were in the Sunday Star-Times some time before the Budget, complaining about the fact that the Government had given them nothing—a family with four children and whose single income-earner is a teacher on $55,000 a year—will be $150 a week better off by 1 April 2007. They will be $60 better off by 1 April 2005, and $110 better off by 1 April 2006. They will be significantly better off. What would a tax cut—Rodney Hide’s lovely 20c flat tax that he likes to talk about—have given them? It would have given them $39 a week. I am still waiting for the Waihī family to say thank you. I do not think they will, because I think we know where the information came from and I think we know who put them up to giving that particular story. So I am not expecting a thank you, at all. I tell members this much: that family will not say thank you, but they will pocket the money and they will use it for various things, I am sure—and fair enough and good on them. Who cares? They will vote for Rodney Hide anyway. We did not have their vote in the first place.

But the majority of New Zealanders actually do understand that the Budget brings significant income redistribution. I want people to consider a little more what the Minister of Finance has said since this Budget was announced. He has said that we must keep an eye on the abatement rates. He knows that the abatement rates can easily get out of kilter as the economy grows. That is the other bit of bad news for the Opposition—the economy is growing.

Hon David Cunliffe: What Opposition?

MARK PECK: The member should not ask “What Opposition?”. There is an Opposition. Its only policy is tax cuts, but I will deal with that in a minute. I want to look at the issue of the economy. Here are some numbers. There was 4.9 percent growth in gross domestic product (GDP) in the year 2000—that was the first year of this Government—then there was an additional 2.7 percent in 2001, 3.3 percent in 2002, and 4.4 percent in 2003. That accumulates to a 15.3 percent increase in our GDP since the year 2000. To put that into context, there was a $15 billion increase in economic activity in this country.

We can see it around the provinces and the cities; we can see it in people’s hopes and aspirations. What is the biggest complaint I get in Invercargill at the moment? It is the lack of skilled workers. That is the biggest complaint I get now. It was galling that Gerry Brownlee brought up the matter of the engineer on $70,000. Why is the engineer on $70,000? Because those skills are in demand at the moment. Those particular workers are in a position where they can demand a salary over and above what they would have had in the past. I find something strange about Mr Brownlee suggesting that that worker, on $70,000, would wilfully take a cut in pay in order to pick up family support. Come on! Hang on a minute! Workers are not dumb. Workers know that Governments come and Governments go. Do they trust them? No! They do not trust them, because they know that when the National Party gets back in, it will attack the wages and conditions of the very people it now claims to be interested in. I say to members on the opposite side of the Chamber that they just have to wake up and smell the coffee, and understand they will be on that side for some considerable time to come.

We do not have to believe just what I have in my notes here. Let me look at a couple of issues that are happening in my own area. Bill English will be delighted at this. Fonterra has increased its payout for the past season to $4.23 per kilo of milk solids. It was forecasting a payout of under $3.50, so that is a significant amount of extra cash in the pockets of dairy farmers at a time when the New Zealand dollar has been relatively high. Who can remember the last time it got to 70c? Now we are celebrating because it is about 62c and declining—although the crossover rate with Australia is a little bit of a burden at the present time.

At a time when the worth of the dollar is high, one would have thought that farmers would be gloomy. Well, no, there was another very interesting headline in the Southland Times, and it was along the lines that farmers’ confidence is at its highest level since 1999, when the survey started. Farmers in Southland are looking forward to an extremely good year. Let me tell members why. This newspaper is the 15 June edition of the Southland Times, which is hardly known for being a great left-wing rag, and it reports: “US domestic cow beef and New Zealand bull beef surged 10c and 8c, respectively, to both achieve their highest ever prices.” Here is the rub: “Normally at this time of the year imported lean beef is often at or near its seasonal low for the year,” because US beef is already on strength. So our beef farmers are looking forward to an incredibly good year, as commodity prices pick up. But that is not all. The report also states in relation to dairying: “The new season opened on a very bright note. In the last two weeks dairy prices have extended their winning streak and are now 25 percent higher than last year in US dollar terms.” This is at a time when there has already been an increase in Fonterra’s payout.

The farmers are happy. I have some bad news for Bill English: I was in Dipton in the weekend, and the farmers there think we are marvellous! They think we are just great, and they want to know why Paul Hutchison does not want us to have trade agreements any more. They want to know why that is.

This is a good Budget for New Zealand, and I am proud to support it.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I can be sure that no one is any the wiser for that sequence of unconglomerated verbiage! If ever there was a Budget where the Government giveth and the Government taketh away, it has to be Michael Cullen’s Budget of 2004. After all, on the one hand he has given billions of dollars as election bribes, and on the other hand he has caused thousands of people to be locked into dependency. I would like to congratulate my colleague John Key on the excellent work he has done in showing up the sheer cynicism of this 2004 Budget that the Labour Government has perpetrated on New Zealand, which will have the consequence of putting New Zealand back years.

Let us just look again at those two-parent families with two young children, living in Wellington, one on $38,000 a year and the other on $60,000. By the time we have allowed for Dr Cullen’s so-called initiatives, what has happened? The family originally earning $38,000 has an income of $42,860, and the income of the family earning $60,000 has come down to $45,000. But the real questions are where is the recognition of incentives for work, where is the recognition of extra qualifications, and where is the recognition that some jobs are more difficult than others. Under this Labour Government we see absolutely no recognition of any of those absolutely basic incentives that are likely to drive our economy. When we go to the more extreme example of one-income, two-parent families with three young children, living in central Auckland, one grossing $70,000 and the other grossing $38,000, we see that after Michael Cullen’s Budget the difference between them in terms of net income is a mere $2,800, and we realise the full significance and cynicism of this Labour Budget.

What is just outstanding is that this is undoubtedly a Budget that locks many New Zealanders into dependence. It is not a Budget that shows any, any semblance of being aspiring. The fact that we know that every Australian man, woman, and child is $175 per week better off than his or her counterparts across the Tasman should drive any responsible Government to ensure that economic growth, and sustained economic growth, are at the forefront of its policies. Yet in this 2004 Budget we see the very opposite. It is quite incredible that when we go back to Helen Clark’s Speech from the Throne in 1999, we read that she stated: “My Government … is committed to maintaining tight fiscal discipline and has begun with itself. Extravagance in the public sector will not be tolerated.” Yet we see in this Budget that billions of dollars will be put out over the next few years in order, clearly, to bribe those in the electorate whom the Labour Government knows it can bribe and who are susceptible to bribery. We see billions of dollars being put out to lock many thousands of New Zealanders into welfare dependency, while at the same time only one in five households is being helped.

I want to talk for a moment about the area of health. Vote Health now receives $9.9 billion per year—an increase this year of $332 million. Yet yesterday we heard the news that the Auckland District Health Board is considering firing up to 1,400 employees because of its $48 million deficit. For over a year that hospital board has been under intensive monitoring, and for over a year it has spent in the order of 13.8 percent of its total revenue on management and administration, when the national average is about 25 percent lower, at 10 percent. The Minister of Health must have known about that, yet yesterday we reached this crisis where 1,400 employees are likely to lose their jobs because of the total disregard for good management within the health service. Here is a Minister who knew about the crisis—the board has been under intensive monitoring for a year—but she has just let it evolve without doing anything about it.

There is no doubt that this Labour Government is responsible for introducing one of the most complex health bureaucracies ever perpetrated on personkind. It is inefficient, ineffective, and layered with bureaucracies. That is one of the reasons why the Auckland District Health Board is in such difficulty as we meet here today. It is déjà vu from 1989 when the Minister of Health at the time, Helen Clark, fired her own dysfunctional health board, of which her husband was a member. They cannot learn. This Labour Government is destined to drag New Zealand down into a mire of welfare dependency and poor economic growth.

But it is actually worse than that, because despite the Government injecting a massive amount of money into health—the total this year is $9.9 billion—we get less. We know that the number of major joint replacements in 1999 was in the order of 5,200; the number came down in 4 years to 4,481. There is more money, and fewer services.

It gets even worse than that, as we see in a letter from the Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, to Annette King in which he said: “Dear Annette, Analysis of Ministry of Health data suggests that despite significant revenue increases, volumes in the sector are static, if not declining.” If ever there was an absolute indictment on a Government, it is this. There is an absolute lack of effectiveness, efficiency, or quality in the area of health spending, which is so important to the Government. What did the Minister of Finance say? He said, in a letter to the Minister of Health: “Analysis of Ministry of Health data suggests that despite significant revenue increases, volumes in the sector are static, if not declining.” This is a very, very serious indictment on this Labour Government.

I go back to what the Prime Minister said 4 years ago: “My Government … is committed to maintaining tight fiscal discipline and has begun with itself. Extravagance in the public sector will not be tolerated.” Government members are certainly getting very, very comfortable with their LTDs. Only 2 weeks after this Budget, we heard that the Accident Compensation Corporation celebrated its monopolistic existence with a party costing $800,000. That money could have been used for hip replacements and other very necessary health interventions. Instead, the corporation flagrantly spent the money on an $800,000 party.

This Budget, which has designated billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money for redistribution from one group to another, has, at the same time, just locked many thousands of New Zealanders into dependency. It is not a Budget of aspiration. It is a Budget of desperation.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I have a proposal to save the Government $6 million next year, and literally hundreds of millions of dollars in the years after. An amount of $6 million has been set aside to run the Parole Board, and $6 million happens to be what the typical serious offender costs this community over a lifetime. The Department of Corrections statement of intent shows that the average chronic offender costs the community half a million dollars in crime costs in the 5 years after he or she is released.

Members should do the calculation, but before they do I want to talk about an experience I had on Monday of this week. I went before the Parole Board with Mrs Belinda Reaney. Mrs Reaney’s 7-year-old son was slaughtered in his bed by a naked man chanting “Kill a Pākehā.” It was not very long ago—in her mind it seems like yesterday. Yet in 2002 she had to front up to the Parole Board to try to persuade it that a sentence of 10 years was not enough for Anthony Roma. She and her husband failed.

Their good friend Graham Pedler wrote a short letter to the Parole Board, explaining that the board’s conditions of abstaining from drugs and alcohol, and having family support, were fanciful. He said: “I wish to put you on notice that I believe Anthony Roma will reoffend while on parole.” He was out of prison for only a few months when he sexually attacked someone in a park.

So the Parole Board was quite respectful to us on Monday. Its members were not looking very smug as they admitted that they had no idea what was meant by “undue risk to the safety of the community”, when we asked what “undue” was. The board members were not supercilious like Minister of Justice Phil Goff, and the Labour members opposite, when they admitted that they did not know what “the rights of the victims” meant where that is referred to in the Act. They are troubled by the jurisdiction they have. They know that it is an awesome responsibility. They know that the risks they impose on the community are simple gambles, simple guesses. They were at pains to say they have no alternative but to guess.

So the board also acknowledged what we have known for 2 years, and what Minister Goff has known since he first made sure it was in the Parole Act, that they are not even allowed to take account of the purposes of sentencing. This is a group of well-meaning people, appointed at a cost of $6 million, to let offenders out before their sentences end, knowing that that will cost many millions more, and they cannot even interpret their own Act.

I suggested to them, and I will suggest it again, that they take a steer from the Minister of Justice on what “undue risk” might be. The Minister, in this House on Tuesday, told us what he thinks “undue risk” is. When he scoffed at the idea of allowing a nuclear-propelled ship into our ports, the Minister said that an undue risk was any risk, however negligible. No one has been hurt at any port in New Zealand, or in the world, by a nuclear-propelled ship, but that was too much risk for the Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, wearing his foreign affairs hat. I ask Mr Goff why there is any early release whatsoever, if that is the test. If yesterday it was too much of a risk to New Zealanders to allow nuclear propulsion, which has never hurt anyone, why should the Parole Board not apply that test when Mrs Reaney comes before it and asks: “Why are you considering Anthony Roma for release again?”. Why would anyone consider Anthony Roma for parole, when he has never explained why he murdered a 7-year-old boy in his bed, whom he had never met, and why he then thought he should be entitled to be released into the community to do it again?

Hon David Cunliffe: Sob stories are no substitute for substance.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Mr Cunliffe says that it is a sob story, and I see smirks from a number of members. I see Mr Cosgrove smirking as well. We do not think it is a smirking matter. When Mr Goff went into his vein-throbbing act on the risks from nuclear propulsion, he pretended that no risk was worth running, yet he imposes the risk that more than 1,000 parolees, two out of three, will hurt or steal from other New Zealanders within 2 years. We know it, and they know it, and he asks the Parole Board to release them.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs): That was a desperate, bankrupt speech from a party that has nothing to offer New Zealanders, except nastiness, bitterness, envy, and division. It was absolutely astonishing to hear the carping, whingeing, sneering, and division from the Opposition. This Budget is the best Budget that New Zealand has had for a generation. It addresses the needs of all New Zealanders, whether they be workers, families, children, businesses, health services, public health of this country, education, particularly early childhood education, communities, and housing. The list goes on and on.

This Budget is the best Budget for a generation. It addresses the deficits left by the bankrupt policies of a National Government over the 1990s—and the social, financial, environmental, and cultural deficit. It was not just Te Papa, the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, and the Royal New Zealand Ballet that were left short of money. It was our schools, kindergartens, and childcare centres, universities, hospitals, general practitioners struggling in the communities to fix New Zealanders’ well-being and health, primary health services, mental health services, and public services across New Zealand, and we all paid for that. We paid huge prices for that.

This Government has said that it will not follow the mean, divisive, savage, sour policies of the conservative National and ACT parties. We know the cost of the services used by New Zealanders. But we also know the cost of not providing decent services. We know the cost, and the cost to people. We have worked really hard, and this Budget is a triumph for all New Zealanders. It has a new approach. We are offering leadership and good public services across the board. We are offering partnership with business, the community, and local government across the board, and we are seeing the results. We are looking for growth and innovation to grow the cake, and now the time has come to pay back the New Zealanders who have worked their guts out for the last 10 or 15 years and seen no return to their families and communities in the services they need to raise the capacity of their families and communities.

We are seeing more money go into science and research and supporting export and business. One big business in Auckland Central said to me: “We’ve looked at our results, and we always do well under a Labour Government. We support you, because what you’ve done in this Budget is put money in the pocket of small businesses, working people, and communities.”

Stephen Franks: Name it.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I will happily name it. Colin Giltrap. [Interruption] I do not accuse my constituents of being liars and hypocrites. I see the way that that member treats his supporters. I do not treat the people who support me, like that. This Budget is about opportunity for all. It is about fairness and security. It is all very well for the ACT party to go on about people being safe in their homes. What did ACT do? It saw a National Government hack into police, community services, housing, community groups, local government, and all the basic services that New Zealanders need for growth in our community, country, and businesses.

This is the best Budget for a generation. In particular, I want to talk about Auckland. I am the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues and I am very proud of what this Government has done. I will be delighted to tell members across the House what we have done. We have grown the New Zealand economy so that Transfund now has nearly $400 million a year more to spend on New Zealand transport. We have gone from a total budget of less than $900 million to over $1.3 billion a year. We have grown the Auckland share of that from the pathetic average of less than 22 percent that that Government allowed, to over 32 percent. For the first time ever in history, Auckland is getting its fair share of the transport spend across New Zealand.

We have taken the National Government’s stupid anti-environmental and anti-business capping off public transport. We are allowing for the growth of public transport, because that is good, efficient, and makes sense. We have spent more than three times what the National Government spent on public transport in Auckland. We have brought back the rail corridor that Ruth Richardson flogged off with no protection and no requirement for investment, for $1. We have taken it back. We are doing things like double tracking the western line, so that we can put good passenger services alongside freight services.

This is an excellent Government that has set new targets for Auckland to work in partnership. Auckland is New Zealand’s main international city, our main export and import centre, the main service centre for the whole of New Zealand, and we want Auckland to get working. We are not giving Auckland anything that we are not doing for the rest of the country. For the first time we are giving Auckland its fair share.

We are looking at roading projects, looking at linking up the northern motorway with the western motorway, and finishing State Highways 20, 16, and 18. We are looking at the connections with the airport. We have done them all. Later I will table a chart from Transit New Zealand that shows where Auckland’s projects are. I will show what that bankrupt National Government—which had no plans, no funding, no partnerships, and did not care about New Zealand—has done, which was very little of anything. We now have major projects that are being finished, like the Grafton Gully project, the Puhinui interchange and all of those major investments in New Zealand. The National Party left office in 1999 with the Albany to Pūhoi realignment built, but nothing else. There were no plans, no funding, no consents, and National did not care.

We now have Dr Brash saying that he will fix Auckland’s transport problems by lunchtime. But what do we have? We have the member for Epsom saying: “But the eastern corridor’s not going through my electorate. It won’t happen.” Dr Brash has said that after he gets into power the eastern corridor will be built in 10 years. That is as good as National’s other promises. It will come to nothing.

However, it is all right, we are safe, because New Zealanders know that what the National Party offers is despair, envy, and division. The National Party will sell Kiwibank, privatise accident compensation, scrap the nuclear-free policy, and cut health, housing, and education. We will go back to the politics of envy and division. National would send troops to Iraq or anywhere else that America or Australia told it to. Every time there is a war National will just say: “Let’s jump. Let’s see how high.”

Some very good comments have been made about this Budget. Who said that it is a landmark redistribution from the rich to the low paid and critically the not so low paid? John Armstrong said that in the New Zealand Herald. Who said: “I felt he”—Steve Maharey—“really got what I was saying. I went down there not pro-Labour but I came back pro-Labour. He explained to me the big picture that there were phases of implementing policy from the poorest up and I understood it.” The Waihī family who starred in the Sunday Star-Times said that. Who said: “The package is a welcome signal. The government is saying to the country that it values people who want to work and it’s prepared to provide rewards and incentives to back it up.”? Who said that? The National Business Review stated that.

When we have papers like that stating that this is the best Budget for a generation, I can only say that I agree with them. This is the best Budget for a generation. This Budget is a real commitment from this Government to all New Zealanders that we will work with all New Zealanders to make this economy, this society, our communities, and our nation a place where we will be proud to grow old because our grandchildren will have opportunity. They will have training, hope, and an opportunity to make a difference.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): When listening to some of the speakers on our Government side of the House I have often wondered what the “led party” is when they talk of the “Labour-led Government”. I checked with the Parliamentary Library and the coalition Government was formed between the Labour Party and the Progressive party. There was no “led party” as part of that, and United Future has given its support for confidence and supply. Perhaps there is a “swinging the lead party”, which would probably go as an accolade to New Zealand First, but I am pleased to announce that there is no “led party”. I am also pleased to report that a number of my Labour colleagues have stopped talking about the “led party”, because I know it does not exist.

I know they have stopped, because I have been getting some odd mail. I got an odd letter in my mailbox the other day outlining the virtues of the Labour Budget. The Parliamentary Service - funded document asked me what financial gains were available to my family in Labour’s Budget. I did the calculations and discovered there is no financial gain for my family in this Budget. Therefore, I could not be voting Labour at the next election, whenever that may be, but I will vote for the continuation of the Labour-Progressive coalition Government because that Budget says to me that I have a very good reason to vote for that coalition.

I want to outline why I am pleased to support the Labour-Progressive Budget that is being discussed here today. It is the most forward-looking or progressive Budget of the five Budgets delivered by the minority coalition Government since we came to office 5 years ago. Budget 2004 includes a significant amount of investment in programmes designed to promote the transformation and strengthening of the economy, because this progressive coalition Government knows that ongoing social and economic progress go hand in hand.

The key to understanding the Labour-Progressive Budget is to appreciate that its value lies in the work it permits in propelling the transformation of the base of the New Zealand economy on to a higher level. Budget 2004 takes a comprehensive approach to economic development. It is focused on strengthening and deepening New Zealand’s connections with the world economy. In other words, it helps us to do a better job of selling to the rest of the world high-value, high-skilled products that customers overseas want to buy.

There is $500 million over 4 years in this Budget—that is, half a billion dollars—to help to unleash New Zealanders’ creativity and talent. We are in a position to start to invest more in the financial welfare of our nation’s children and in our families because we are investing adequately in our people’s talents, creativity, and enterprise. In other words, we are playing a constructive part as a Government in helping New Zealanders build the foundations for a stronger economy to sustain future social investment in our people. The social dividend is important.

Our broad approach is not limited to the economic development portfolio. It is across the board: commerce, small business, finance, education, science and technology, immigration, and a number of related portfolios. In this heated atmosphere on immigration it would be worthwhile for members to pause and to think of the contribution of migrants in so many ways to our economy, and to remember that just because the leader of New Zealand First discovers a set of allegations, unproven and untested, he therefore says that there is an economic crisis. One swallow does not a summer make, nor allegations, often unfounded, by the notorious leader of New Zealand First against the immigrant population of New Zealand.

This Labour-Progressive Government is investing in science, and in the education sector. This Budget signals another dramatic improvement in early childhood education and another $54 million in the war on drug pedlars. We are investing to make tertiary education more affordable. It is a Budget to be proud of. The Labour-Progressive Government holds 53 seats in this House. I therefore acknowledge with respect the vote of confidence from United Future’s eight members. From what I know of the manifesto of the Green Party, it should consider voting for this Budget.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Greens support the Government’s additional spending on education, particularly in early childhood. The plan for 3 and 4-year-olds to, eventually, get 20 hours’ free childcare at community-based centres is a very good thing, but that is 3 whole years away and covers only this age group. We need the support now, urgently.

Some funding for special-needs children in early childhood is equally needed, and gratefully received by parents. Much of this good work is risked when these children reach primary and secondary school, where they will be subject to a public education system that is grossly underfunded.

Our schools are in crisis. Ongoing resourcing scheme funding has not increased, so special-needs students in primary school still miss out. We can give teachers laptops, but they are useless without funding for professional development and technical support. asTTLe and other assessment aids need resources attached to them to alleviate the workload problems that will only lead to frustration and burnout in our teachers and the failure of those tools to achieve their aims.

In 2003 the Government recorded a $5.5 billion Budget surplus, yet the flow of funds to primary and secondary schools over recent years has not relieved any of the funding pressure on schools and teachers. This in turn means that the quality of public education is under threat, by not so much creeping as galloping user-pays.

The right to a free education has been enshrined in New Zealand law since 1877. Schools can charge mandatory fees and enforce those fees in only very limited circumstances. Other than that, donations are entirely voluntary. But because of their funding pressures, schools are not being clear about these voluntary donations, and are therefore increasing pressure on the community and parents.

One recent case was that of the boy who was banned from his school ball because his family had not paid his school fees. The family has now complained to the Human Rights Commission, and schools are justifiably nervous about the ramifications of the commission’s decision, given that they rely on the thousands of dollars that parents pay in fees to run their schools. Then there is the debt collection agency that helped 10 schools recover subject fees, despite protests from parents who believed that they contradicted the principle of free compulsory education in this country. How many schools and families are now involved in this?

The fact is that fees and donations are now seriously critical to the funding of schools, because operations funding is dismally inadequate. From 1992 to 2001 Government operations funding for each student in secondary schools rose by 30 percent, but school fund-raising—school fees, subject fees, and cake stalls—increased by a staggering 173 percent. Put another way, schools must now find 17 percent of their basic operational funding from parents and the community. Our public education institutions, schools, and universities are increasingly relying on parents and students to make up the Government’s funding shortfall.

By comparison, in the past 4 years, funding to private tertiary education providers has increased from just $17 million a year, when Labour first took office, to well over $150 million a year. This funding for private tertiary education has exploded, despite concerns over the quality, management, and accountability of many of these tertiary courses.

Then, of course, we have the Budget announcement of an extra $40 million for the marketing of international students and the provision of international scholarships, which benefit the private sector and subject the funding of public schools to the vagaries of the international education market. This is not sustainable, secure, and quality provision of education to New Zealand children. It is gambling with their education and New Zealand’s future.

So-called donations—that is, school fees—have increased rapidly over the past decade, just as tertiary education fees, along with student debt, have skyrocketed. The continued bulk funding of schools and universities is disguising the underfunding of schools, and opens the door for galloping user-pays—a user-pays philosophy that resonates much more with the elitist, conservative right wing than the apparently socially responsible Labour tradition.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): This is a Budget we can really be proud of. It is fiscally responsible, socially responsive, and, most important, it delivers to families, to working people, and to superannuitants. It invests in the areas that I think are most important to this country. It invests in education. It invests in health. It invests in the core services, such as justice and police, and, most important, it is good for families. This Budget is so good because it gives assistance to working families at the time they most need it—when the costs are greatest as their kids are growing up, when their incomes are limited.

Who in this House would say that that is not the group that most deserves to get a lift from this Budget? That is a rhetorical question, because the National Party and the ACT party would have given it to their mates. They would have given a flat tax rate, which would have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to those who need it least, and a pittance to those working families that are struggling to give their kids a chance in life. This Budget helps more than 300,000 families, most of which are supported by wages. It gives them a significant lift in their income. It acknowledges the needs of those on the lowest incomes in our society, but, importantly, it creates a real incentive for those people who are able to work to join the workforce, because they are much better off by doing so.

For families in the $25,000 to $45,000 income bracket, this Budget will also deliver a benefit averaging about $100 a week over the first 3 years in direct family assistance. On top of that it gives help where it is needed in terms of accommodation supplements. In my area of Auckland, housing costs are high. Aucklanders will do well out of this Budget, because they need that help with the high accommodation expenses they face. It will help those people struggling to be in the workforce and provide quality childcare assistance.

Someone in my electorate of Mt Roskill with three kids, earning maybe a little bit over the medium wage of $52,000, will be better off by $100 a week by next April. The April after that, he or she will be better off by $140 a week, and by April 2007 better off by $170 a week, and getting 4 weeks’ minimum holiday a year. Unless, of course, “Uncle Scrooge”—Dr Brash—comes along and takes those things away, just as the National Government in 1990 took away the penal rates, the overtime rates, and the things that working people had worked so long for in New Zealand.

Beyond that, I think the Budget makes real advances in education. The rate of subsidy in childcare, in particular, will rise significantly. For around 28,000 families the average gain will be about $23 a week. Tertiary students are already benefiting from the fact that they are not paying interest rates on their student loans while they are still studying. They are benefiting from the fact that student fees have been frozen, and then capped. This Budget puts another $110 million into the student area by helping students from lower-income families become eligible for a student allowance, and I welcome that.

In health, there will be a great many people in my electorate, particularly the elderly people, who will benefit from this Budget. I particularly want to thank the Minister of Health for acknowledging the needs of older people in my electorate who require hip and knee replacements. The promise that this Budget makes, and will deliver on, is that we will double the number of knee and hip joint replacements. As a result of this Budget, some 9,300 older New Zealanders a year will regain their physical independence.

On 1 July this year, just 2 weeks away, all those over the age of 65 enrolled in primary health organisations will become entitled to cheaper health-care and to $3 pharmaceutical prescriptions. The older people in this country, who have worked so hard to build the nation we participate in and enjoy today, will be getting just rewards from this Labour-led Government.

I want to look briefly at the justice area, because I have a personal responsibility for it, and it will benefit greatly from the Budget. Budget 2004 commits funding of just over $1 billion to the justice system over the next 4 years, and some of that—for the braying member, Mr Franks—will go into building new prisons. Mr Franks, who has accused this Government of being soft on crime, has to acknowledge that the tougher sentencing laws in this Budget for serious and recidivist offenders mean that more people are being locked up for longer. I regret that that is necessary, but for the protection of the community there are categories of people for whom sentences must be much tougher, and are.

Because of a record police budget, and record police staffing, the rate of solving crime in this country over the last 4 years has consistently improved. More criminals are being apprehended, and more are being convicted as a result. In particular, this Budget focuses on the scourge of methamphetamine, and the organised crime that is associated with it. An additional $39 million is being invested in this area with additional police clan-lab teams being formed, more staffing resources for the analysis done by Environmental Science and Research, and better interception and surveillance work.

A small but important area to me is the $9 million we are investing in the Budget to increase juror fees and assist jurors with the costs they face in parking and childcare. That is a critical investment in ensuring that ordinary New Zealanders can play their role and fulfil their civic duties in the justice system of this country.

Last, but not least, I want to come to my other portfolio responsibility, which is in the area of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This year we will open a new embassy in Warsaw, at the heart of a growing area—the new States that are acceding to the European Union. In 2 years’ time we will have a post for the first time in Cairo, in Egypt. The investment we are making will ensure that we can better promote our trade and therefore the prosperity of this country. But it will also enable us, as a small but fiercely independent country, to play our role in the world promoting international peace and stability, and countering the threat of terrorism.

Of course, if the National Party wants to make a saving, it will probably make it in this area, because why would one need a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in this country when the National Party is prepared to hand any decision-making over foreign policy to the capitals of other countries? My God, what did we see today! We saw Don Brash saying that he would move towards changing our nuclear-free status “if that was acceptable to the Americans.” One does not make one’s own policy in this country under a National Government. A person goes to another capital in another country, and that country will do it for them.

Then there was Simon Power. He said that National would do, when and wheresoever, whatever the political and military leaders of other countries asked of us. That is totally reneging on using our own judgment and our own values. Mr Power, Mr Brownlee, and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith all committed themselves to participating in the invasion of Iraq, notwithstanding the fact that it was opposed by 80 percent of New Zealanders.

Last but not least we have little Dr Nick Smith. He said we would opt out of the Kyoto agreement unless the Americans and the Australians said it was OK. That would mean reneging on the leadership that our country has shown in the Pacific to our smaller neighbours, who look to New Zealand for solidarity and support in their fight to stop global warming.

This is a Budget I am proud of. This is a Budget committed to sound management, to decency and fairness, and to giving ordinary New Zealanders a fair go. I commend the Minister of Finance for the work he has done, and I commend this Budget to the country.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): A number of people on the other side of the House, if not most, would probably agree that I am a relatively simple person. Indeed, a number on this side would probably say the same thing, although not necessarily to my face. But one thing I suspect a number on that side of the House, and certainly a good number on this side, will concede is that I am not a bad local member of Parliament; that I am in touch with the electorate; and that I hold a seat that, in any demographics, should actually be held by the Labour Party, but is not. I am sure the Labour Party will acknowledge that at the last election it was held by a record majority.

I wanted to open my Budget speech with those comments for this reason. A number of people on the other side must be extremely disappointed in the outcome of this Budget. One of the things that never ceases to surprise me—and it happened when we were in Government, and it is happening now with the Labour Party in Government—is that Governments seem to get out of touch with their electorates. They seem to get out of touch with what is happening in the constituencies. One of the things that I know the Labour Party and the Labour Government were hoping would be an outcome of this Budget was an increase in popularity in the polls. It must be an awful disappointment to them that wherever they look they find they are not getting the response they expected.

Let me tell members why that is occurring. The reason is that the Government is out of touch with what the people of this country are thinking. New Zealanders are concerned about the social engineering that has been going on subtly over the last 4 or 5 years. What they see in this Budget is that here again Helen Clark, with the support of Michael Cullen, is trying to manipulate the minds of the public through giving them back their own money. People are not buying it. They are not interested in Michael Cullen saying to them: “I’m going to make you feel better by giving you some of your own money back.” The people of this country want the opportunity to use their own money their own way. The public of this country have become very cynical about politicians right across the board, and right now they are extremely cynical about this Labour Party Government, which they perceive is using this Budget and their money in an endeavour to buy their votes at the next election, and people are not buying it.

I say to Michael Cullen and Helen Clark that if they think they have changed the minds of the public with this Budget, and will get support out of it between now and the election, then they are sadly mistaken. Too often we see—and I say this about the past Government as I do about this one—that it is so easy for a Government to lose touch with the sentiment of the people, because it gets so ingrained, so engrossed, and so involved in trying to manage the things that are important to it today that it forgets to look beyond and to look at what people are thinking.

When I go back to my electorate of Northland and get down to what the people are feeling—and I say again that I think it is acknowledged that I have my nose to the ground and that it is a pretty good political nose—I know that people in Northland and across the country are saying: “We are extremely disappointed in what Michael Cullen, Helen Clark, and the Labour Government have tried to deliver to us today in this Budget.”

There is so much cynicism around now, so much concern about social engineering, and so much worry about the fact that this Government is out there trying to use the public’s money to buy votes, that people just will not buy it. People are cynical about this Government, they are cynical about the Prime Minister, and they are cynical about Michael Cullen’s Budget, and, as a consequence, this Government will be disappointed in the outcome of what it thought would be a bumper crop. It will be an absolute failure. The Government will have to look elsewhere to get votes, and those votes will not be there for it when it expects them.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The member for Northland claims to have his nose to the ground. The only time he does that is when he is pulling his head out of the sand.

I am very pleased to be supporting the Budget at the conclusion of this debate. What is the National Party opposing in this Budget? First, it is opposing more money for hard-working families in New Zealand. What National members are all saying—look at them sitting there, the serried ranks, with faces and minds totally blank—is: “There’s not a penny in this Budget for me so I’m voting against it.” On this side of the House we are saying: “There is a lot of money in this Budget for the people who need it; that’s why we are voting for it.” A three-child family on $40,000 a year will, by April 2007, be receiving an extra $124.77 a week, plus anything extra for childcare, plus anything extra from the accommodation supplement. That does not pay for the member’s nightly visit to the Chinese takeaway, but for ordinary people in this country it makes a huge difference to their level of family income.

National members are opposing $3 prescriptions for the over 65s. Why should they not? They charged for people to go to public hospitals when they were in Government. They introduced a new income test on the pension when they were in Government, for a brief period of time. Of course they would oppose cheaper prescriptions for the elderly. They are opposed to the business spending to support businesses in New Zealand. They are opposed to the money for training methods, which would help Shane Ardern learn how to drive a tractor properly at some point in the future, or at least to be able to tell a new tractor from a clapped-out one, which he cannot tell at the present time.

National members are opposing the new money for childcare assistance. They are opposing the new money for out-of-school care and recreation. They are opposing the new money for transport in Auckland, because that is part of what is built into this Budget.

What were the alternatives? Not surprisingly, National members had a little caucus and they asked: “What would we most like from the Budget?”. With one voice they put up their hands and said: “Tax cuts for me, please.” So the National Party’s policy is tax cuts. Well, sort of, because what is its policy on tax cuts? Two years ago Dr Brash said there should not be any tax charged once one reached a certain level of income; that the tax rate should be zero above a million dollars a year, or so—which he was approaching at that point. He was one of my employees in that respect. Then about a year ago—

Deborah Coddington: Who presented that report?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Goodness me, Deborah Coddington has woken up again.

Then a year ago Dr Brash was saying that the priority was to reduce the top personal tax rate. Then in March this year he said: “No, no, we didn’t mean that. We should reduce the middle tax rate first, then we will reduce the top personal tax rate.” Then he said: “Well, we will still reduce the top personal tax rate, anyway.” Why are they confused? It is because Washington is too busy to make up its mind what the National Party’s tax policy should be. Until Washington makes up its mind, National members will not know what their policy will be on tax cuts.

Then we had the true absurdity. By means of questions and speeches we reached the point where both National and ACT were arguing that people would be better off if they had less income but a lower effective marginal tax rate. They thought that people should take a $100 a week cut in income in order to have a lower effective marginal tax rate because they would feel better about that if they did. If, by some chance, somebody came along and told them they had won Lotto, and were now the Chief Executive of Telecom, and so their income had gone up from $25,000 a year to $1.5 million, they would say: “Oh good, I will be so much better off, and I will no longer have to get family support from the State to support my family and children.” The member needs to get his head out of the sand because his nose is not to the ground. People prefer more money in their pockets.

Then we had John Key’s policy. John Key is developing a new policy—at least, he thinks it is new, because he has not been around very long—to borrow lots more money and spend it so, it is hoped, the economy will grow and we can pay back the debt. It is called borrow and hope.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I remember that.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, 20 years ago there was a little short fellow who sat in this seat for quite a long time. He had this funny kind of laugh. His policy was borrow and hope and it turned out to be borrow and no hope. We spent something like 20 years fixing up borrow and hope from that gentleman. That is Mr Key’s policy—the wizard of international finance.

National’s health policy is to abolish the primary health organisations and to pay more for pharmaceuticals. Its policy is to lift the restrictions on Pharmac and let the drug companies charge what they want. We will pay more for pharmaceuticals and John Key will borrow more money so we can pay more for pharmaceuticals. That was another brilliant policy announced by Dr Hutchison at one point. That policy was very Washington—pay more to the pharmaceutical companies.

National’s final policy is what I call “go with a glow”. National’s answer to all our prayers is somehow to change the nuclear-free policy, because if we do that there will be a light upon the hill or somewhere, which will be a nuclear ship coming into New Zealand. By these means, miraculously, National believes we will get a free-trade agreement with the United States, and our incomes will suddenly rise to the level of those of Australia—even though Australia already has a free-trade agreement with the United States, so there is a slight problem in that respect. Nobody believes a word of it, because National’s latest policy is to go and ask the United States whether it likes it, and then National will put it to the people by way of a referendum. So the United States will be the Lower House, and the people of New Zealand will be the Upper House, in the National Party’s view of the constitution. Once a policy has been signed off by Washington and the Pentagon we are allowed to do it in New Zealand.

All National’s other spokespeople said the Government was not spending enough in their areas. They wanted more spending on early childhood education, health, tertiary education, police, courts, prisons, on absolutely everything—and less tax, and to reduce debt faster. All these miracles would be done by National in one fell swoop.

Shane Ardern: No trouble.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There speaks the economic genius from Taranaki. That member has finally decided that if he drives a tractor far enough up the parliamentary steps, then sooner or later enlightenment will descend upon him and he will achieve this miraculous Holy Grail—he can spend a lot more, tax a lot less, and save a lot more simultaneously. This is known as “Shane-nomics”, or something of that sort.

I think National needs to take a leaf out of ACT’s book—ACT’s solution has been to change its leader—because National’s leader has scarcely been heard of for months. He made one speech—a speech that imitated Sir Robert Muldoon in his favourite watering hole, the Ōrewa Rotary Club. He rode for a while on that speech but now the momentum is tailing off again. He cannot spend the whole of his life bashing Māori and making a political career out of that. There have to be more answers and there are not any from National. There is only one, yet again—make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the elderly suffer. Somehow or other this is called governing in the national interest.

Mr SPEAKER: The question was that the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill be read a second time. Since then a number of amendments have been moved. The first is in the name of Rod Donald.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be amended by omitting all the words after the word “has” and inserting the following: “no confidence in the Labour led minority Government because, despite there being some positive initiatives in the Budget, its continued failure to take adequate measures to protect New Zealand from the release of genetically engineered organisms exposes our health, our environment, and our economy to significant and quite unnecessary risks.”

Ayes 9

Green Party 9.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment to the amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

Mr SPEAKER: The next amendment is in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be amended by omitting all the words after the word “House” and inserting the following words: “has no confidence in the Labour minority Government and records with regret that this Government has failed to provide leadership and policy to enhance New Zealand’s export performance and per capita incomes, has failed to address New Zealand’s burgeoning balance of payments deficit, has failed to deal with escalating crime, has failed to provide sufficient numbers of police, has failed to deliver a First World health system, has failed to curb the burgeoning Treaty of Waitangi industry, has done nothing to stop excessive immigration, and does nothing to lay the foundations for building a better, more prosperous nation for future generations of New Zealanders.”

Ayes 47

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 70

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

Mr SPEAKER: The final amendment is in the name of Dr Don Brash.

A party vote was called for on the question, That all the words after “That” be omitted and the following inserted: “this House has no confidence in the Labour-led Government because it has squandered New Zealand’s greatest ever opportunity to invest in policies which would restore this country to the levels of prosperity enjoyed by Australians; because it has chosen for New Zealanders policies which promote dependence rather than independence; and because after five years of over-taxing hard-working New Zealanders, it has embarked on a programme of cynically-timed election year giveaways to many of those same New Zealanders, funded by their own taxes.”

Ayes 34

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7.

Noes 70

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Abstentions 13

New Zealand First 13.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7.

Abstentions 13

New Zealand First 13.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Border Security Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 26 May.

Clause 1 and 2 (continued)

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): It was interesting to listen to Dr Cullen talking just a moment ago about the economic policies of the National Party. I am sure one could ask what that has to do with the Border Security Bill, but this is what it has to do with it. A series of events took place that brought the Government to a position where it decided it needed to introduce this bill. The first one was the major assault on the US. It is amazing how Dr Cullen distances himself from the US at the moment, but the major assault on the US on 11 September 2001 resulted in this Government—and many Governments around the Western World—deciding that there needed to be another look at border security. There is nothing wrong with that; it sounds like a sensible thing to do.

Government officials were set to work and told to go ahead and draft a bill, which they did. They did a lot of work on it, and it went to a very good select committee. The Government Administration Committee’s staff looked through the bill, and by and large they came back with some sensible recommendations. The select committee agreed with those recommendations, and then at the eleventh hour, or the eleventh and a half hour, the Minister, the Hon Rick Barker, decided there was an opportunity to introduce a couple of new clauses, clauses 7B and 8C, that would charge the industry—that is, importers, exporters, and the shipping companies in between—$20 million in tax.

If we go back to where I started, with the 9/11 event of 2001, we have to ask this question: was this whole initiative started as a result of a security breach or a potential security breach? Was it designed to try to fix any problems that may occur at our borders in relation to security? The answer is yes, of course it was. The second question is this: has the State normally funded security? The answer is yes, the State normally has funded security. The third question is this: what makes this situation different from anything else historically? I am sure the Minister in the chair, the Hon Taito Phillip Field, will take a call to answer those questions. I am sure he knows about this.

Opposition Member: You’d never know he was the Minister.

SHANE ARDERN: Well, there it is. He is in the chair, and I am sure he is the Minister. The Minister will answer those questions, and the answer is that there is no difference between these security measures and all the other security measures. So the simple conclusion that the National Opposition has come to is that this is no more than a greedy, back-door tax, like a lot of the other greedy, back-door taxes that this Government has tried to introduce.

In fact, on counting them up, I think we are now up to about 23 new taxes, despite the fact that in 1999 Labour stated on its pledge card that there would be no new taxes. Then at the next election, in 2002, it reinserted that statement in another pledge card, and stated there would be no new taxes. Yet today here is new tax No. 23, under the guise of the Border Security Bill. So I know the Minister will take a call to explain to us why this move is unique, and whether there is a another jurisdiction in the world that has introduced such heavy costs on the industry—the exporters and importers—as a result of 9/11. I am sure the Minister will know that, because he will have the list right in front of him when he answers that question. But there is no explanation that we can find anywhere in the Western World as to why, as a result of this security measure, one should introduce what is now a $16 million tax.

The fact that the Government backed down and reduced the amount from $20 million to $16 million is in itself an admission that Government members got it wrong. That is in itself an admission that they should have read a bit more closely the Treasury recommendations, in which Treasury stated that there were no known extra costs with regard to industry access or other costs, that the cost was purely a security cost, and that the Government would be setting a precedent by introducing it.

Maybe the Minister in the chair will take a call. Maybe he will not; there is no evidence that he will. But I suggest to him—

Hon David Carter: Why doesn’t he move? Is the Minister still alive?

SHANE ARDERN: The Minister is still moving over there. So he may take a call and enlighten us as to why the Government felt the need to put a $16 million tax on the industry—on exporters, and the like. The Treasury guidelines clearly stated that the Government had to define what the cost was.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): It is interesting that as we move to the Committee stage of the Border Security Bill, we have just completed the Budget debate, in which the allocations the Government makes to the various Government departments to carry out core Government functions are discussed. My opening comment on the border security legislation is that this Government is shirking a core responsibility of central government. A core responsibility of central government is to provide border security to protect this country, so that we hope we never see the sorts of events that occurred on September 11 2001 in New York City. But this Government shirks core responsibilities. It now attempts to pass some of the costs of providing border security on to the importers and exporters of this nation. As my colleague Shane Ardern has said, that is just another sneaky attempt to pass a further tax on to New Zealanders.

We do not need to be reminded that this is tax No. 23 from a Government that came into power promising but one tax increase—the “envy tax”, which took income tax to 39c for people at $60,000, a level of income that the Government’s own Budget now acknowledges is about the level to which people need Government assistance. There have been 22 tax increases, and now this one, destined to raise a further $16 million from New Zealand importers and exporters and about to be rammed through the Committee today, is tax No. 23.

I acknowledge that the events of September 11 changed border security for all nations around the world. We clearly now need to put more resources in border security here in New Zealand. We clearly need to acknowledge that other countries around the world are putting more stringent controls on their borders. I fully accept the United States of America has every right to up the ante with regard to imports into that country, and to require further stringent checking of any New Zealand goods that go from here to the United States of America. But the point at which I totally disagree with the current policy of the Government is the point at which it shirks its responsibility by passing this legislation back on to the private sector and telling it to pay because the Government will not.

It is little wonder, when the Government can skite about a $7 billion surplus, that it is now starting to hand more and more money out in a desperate attempt to buy popularity, but, in doing so, it is putting another tax on the productive sector of New Zealand. I spent yesterday at the Mystery Creek field day, where farmers have the chance to show their ability to secure the prosperity of the economy. I can tell members that most of the farmers I spoke to are totally aware of the new tax that is about to be passed by the Government—the “terrorist tax”, as they call it—and all of them said to us that that is not a cost that should be passed on to the productive sector of New Zealand, but a core Government function. It was interesting to note that at those field days there was a little stand tucked away in a corner—the Labour Party stand.

Jill Pettis: Not tucked away in a corner!

Hon DAVID CARTER: I assure Jill Pettis that it was tucked away in a corner but surprisingly—

Simon Power: Anyone there?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes! That was the surprising thing. There were quite a number of New Zealand farmers there, and they were berating the poor volunteers the Labour Party had found to man that—

Simon Power: Any MPs there?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I did see one MP. It was Jim Sutton, but he was in disguise.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): If the issue in this bill had been addressed correctly—in other words, if the Government had accepted that the extra cost of border security was to be paid for by general taxation—I think everybody in every party in this Chamber would support the bill We are absolutely in favour of increased border security, and absolutely in favour of the costs being met. But, instead, the Government chose to levy $8 million from exporters, $4 million from importers, and $8 million from trans-shippers. In its generosity, it has halved the $8 million from exporters, leaving them facing a bill of $4 million. The exporters will not be charged directly; the levy will be charged against the carrier. The ship will be charged an amount that I have seen but cannot recall—

Simon Power: Four.

PETER BROWN: I think each ship will be charged so many hundred dollars. I forget the exact amount. Let me tell members what that will do to the shipping industry per se. The small ships that go around the Islands and carry a limited amount of cargo will have to pass on the cost, and because it will be spread across a relatively small amount of cargo, the increase on those exports and imports will be relatively high. The larger ship that is trading further will, no doubt, absorb the cost to some degree, and therefore the importer and exporter will pay proportionally less. I ask whether that is fair. Is it fair to Pacific Island nations, for example, who might be dependent on small ships operating to and from New Zealand? It is not.

When we last debated this bill the Minister of Customs, the Hon Rick Barker, took a call and endeavoured to explain his thoughts on trans-shippers and trans-shipments. The trans-shipping of cargo means that cargo comes in on one ship, is landed on the wharf, then goes out, possibly on another ship or sometimes on the same ship, and maybe at a later date or time. The sum of $8 million will have to be raised from that cargo, and, again, I have no doubt that the charge will apply to the shipowner.

The principal reason we are charging exporters and importers is the risk of a bomb being in a container, or something like that. Let me suggest that if a bomb were in a container, the person who was up to mischief would leave the cargo on the ship, sitting in the harbour. That person would not arrange for it to be trans-shipped out; it would be left on the ship. There is no charge against that—thankfully. I do not want to give the Government any ideas!

Quite clearly, ensuring the safety of cargo that is taken out of a ship, later to be reloaded on to another one—or even on to the same ship, as I have just suggested—is the responsibility of this nation. Quite clearly, that cost should be paid for out of taxation. When we think of the value of exports out of this country, we know that this country could not survive without exporters. None of us would survive without exporters. This country takes the cream of their cake in many, many ways, and, clearly, exporters or carriers should not be charged for border security. Border security is a cost that we should all bear—everybody—and it should be borne evenly across all walks of life and all activities. In other words, it should come from general taxation.

The Government is doing a huge disservice to the people who make this country tick—namely, exporters and importers. I would urge the Government in the fullness of time—I know that it is too late for this bill—to re-look at this legislation, because that $20 million should be a charge we all come to terms with and all pay for, and I have tried in the time available to illustrate why it is unfair. New Zealand First would have loved to support this bill, but we will not vote for something that in principle is totally wrong. It is totally wrong. This bill should have provided for the Government to meet the costs of border security, and I think the average New Zealander expects that. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the average New Zealander would demand it, if he or she were asked who should pay for border security. Why should it be a private enterprise outfit like an exporter or importer? Quite clearly, it should be paid for by taxation.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT): It is interesting to hear Peter Brown say that New Zealand First will not vote for something that in principle is totally wrong, because that does not reflect that party’s track record to date. Like the National Party, ACT agrees that there is an increased need for border security, but this Government has inserted in this legislation—as it does increasingly with legislation that comes before this House—a new provision that is just another way for it to raise taxes from people.

The bad principle in this legislation that Peter Brown talks about—and he is absolutely right—is that it gives private industry the role of protecting citizens. That is the State’s role. It is the core function of Government to protect its citizens from harm—from each other, or from people in other countries. That is one of the reasons why this legislation needs to be supported. We need to protect people in this country, whether it be from terrorism from outside, from war, from attack, or from other threats, like larvae that could cause diseases, or plant materials that could affect everybody’s quality of life if they got out of control. Gorse is a classic example of one such plant that we have now. And that is why Governments collect taxes. They collect taxes from people so that people can be protected.

But what this Government is doing with this legislation, with clauses like new clause 7B, which inserts new section 34A, “Fees and charges relating to granting certificate of clearance”, is just introduce another way to raise taxes. The initial figure that Treasury came up with was $19.7 million, and the Government was told that it was an arbitrary figure. It was just plucked out of nowhere. Now it has come down to $16 million, but, increasingly, this Government is making private industry in this country pay twice for something. In this case, it is paying for a public good. Border security is a public good and it should be funded out of the consolidated account.

This Government would get nowhere if it introduced a bill that levied private citizens every time they called the police to their properties to protect them from people who were stealing their goods or about to harm them. No Government would get anywhere trying to pass legislation like that, or to insert clauses into bills that forced that sort of tax on to people, because protection is the role of the State. The ACT party does not oppose user-pays where it is a private good. But, as I said, protection is a public good, and the Government is totally abandoning the true functions of the State in passing this legislation with clause 7B, which enables the Governor-General to make regulations setting fees and charges.

What will we see done with that money when it is collected? What we will see done with it is exactly what we have just finished debating. We will see that money being used to bribe voters for future elections. That is what it will be used for.

It is not prudent fiscal policy that has given this Government a $7 billion surplus; it is the overtaxing of the people of this country. We have seen so many new taxes come in. We will see more new taxes and levies come in very soon that will sock another area of private industry in this country—the private tertiary institutions that educate international students. Again, we will see the majority taxed to protect the few. This is what we are increasingly seeing. We saw a tax come in with the motor vehicle dealers’ bill. What did one of my colleagues from National say before? Fifty-nine new taxes have come in.

Shane Ardern: 23.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: It is 23. I should not say that too loudly; it will be 59 by lunchtime! There have been 23 new taxes just since the last election. That is a disgraceful record. It is such a pity that the Government could not resist bringing that clause into this bill, to gather up more taxes. If it had not done that, the bill would have received the wholehearted support of all members.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Is it not interesting that in the Chamber this afternoon not a single Government member has risen to his or her feet to defend what the Government is proposing to do in imposing a new tax on the wealth creators of New Zealand? If Government members really believe that what they are doing in this bill is right and proper, even the Minister would feel the need to get up and defend the reason why exporters and importers should have to pay into the Government’s coffers an estimated $6 million a year.

Shane Ardern: $16 million.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague corrects me. An extra tax of $16 million per year is being imposed through this bill. I want to know why we have not heard a contribution from Mr Jim Anderton. He is the Father Christmas of industry.

Hon Member: Who?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He is a maiden member. I understand that some of my colleagues do not know who Mr Anderton is. But Mr Anderton has been going around New Zealand, playing the role of Father Christmas and saying how much this Government supports industry. He is writing out cheques for this business and for that business, and saying that this Government values exporters. I would like to know from Government members what is sound about Government policy, when Mr Anderton runs around the country playing favourites and writing out cheques, and the Minister of Customs imposes a new tax on every single exporter in New Zealand for the costs of security.

Is it not interesting the number of times I have heard Labour members get to their feet and say security is a core function of the Government? They suggest that it is outrageous, for instance, that members on the Opposition side of the Chamber believe that if prisons can be better run by the private sector rather than by the State sector, we should do that. We would still get the taxpayers to pay for prisons; it is just an issue of how their management is delivered. But Government members do not support that; they say that security is a core function of the Government. Why do they change their tune now? Why is it that when it comes to an issue of border security and dealing with the threat of terrorism, suddenly this Government wants to pack up and send the bill to exporters?

I also want to challenge the minor parties in this Chamber that will support sending the bill for these measures to industry. Will the United Future party support the Government in imposing a $16 million tax on all the businesses in New Zealand?

Shane Ardern: The United Future members have certainly spoken against it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, let us just test their courage. What about the Green Party, which is keen to spend—

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am not sure whether the speaker on his feet intended to do so, but to imply a lack of courage or resolve is contrary to the Standing Orders. The member should know that, and he should withdraw his comment. When he talked about testing people’s courage, in my view that was contrary to the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member should avoid that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply say to the United Future party that its members cannot go around telling the exporters of Nelson that they are on the side of the economy, and then jump into bed with the Government and vote for legislation that will impose a $16 million—[Interruption] Why did the member not simply say that?

Hon David Carter: He had to check.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He had to check. Mr Dunne, the leader of the United Future party, did not even know that party’s position. I hope the United Future members will join in this debate, and I hope they will put pressure on the Government.

I would be interested to know about the Green Party. What is the position of the Green Party? Its members spoke out against this legislation, as well. Will they be voting for these provisions?

Hon David Carter: Ian Ewen-Street put out a press release saying he was opposed to the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is getting even more interesting. We have Ian Ewen-Street of the Green Party saying he is opposed to the bill, so I ask the Government where the majority is coming from.

Hon David Carter: I think Ian Ewen-Street may have changed his mind.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I see. The Green Party has done a flip-flop in the tussle we see between United Future and the Greens for a relationship with Labour, which gets more interesting by the day. The Green Party has done a U-turn. It, together with every Labour member, is going to dump on exporters and importers, and impose this $16 million tax on them.

My challenge to the Labour members is this: how can they possibly justify collecting a whole lot of taxpayers’ money, giving it out in industry grants, and then imposing this sort of new tax on industry? I challenge Government members to think again. I challenge them to justify why those who create the wealth for New Zealand—the fishers, the farmers, the forestry industry people, and all those who work in the manufacturing of those products—should be sent the $16 million bill that has come as a consequence of Mr bin Laden and al-Qaeda. That is where this bill has come from—from those concerns with regard to security. Why should that cost be imposed on those who create wealth for New Zealand?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I was not going to speak in this debate, until I heard that extraordinary speech from the member who has just resumed his seat. I put on record categorically, without equivocation or anything of that nature, that United Future has opposed the Border Security Bill from the moment it was proposed, has voted against it at every stage in the House—I do not know where the member has actually been—and will be voting against it at this Committee stage. My colleague Gordon Copeland, who has done a huge amount of work on this bill—and I am grateful that Mr Ardern acknowledges that—has received a personal commendation from the trade and tourism coalition for the work he has done in mounting a very strong campaign against the provisions of this bill. If members of the Opposition were more interested in the reality of the issue than in petty politics, they would have acknowledged that and also Mr Copeland’s contribution, both in the House and through the select committee process in the Government Administration Committee.

This bill does create new impositions that are unacceptable—impositions that we think fall properly within the defence of the realm and are public responsibilities that should not be borne by any individual sector of the economy. We have made that point throughout the debate on this bill, right from the time it was proposed and before it was even introduced to the House, when we were talking to the trade and tourism coalition and others who are affected by it. We raised questions in the House from the time that this measure first came on to the agenda, which I am sure that the Minister would testify to, and we have spoken against it on every occasion. Let there be no doubt about the strength of our opposition. Let there be no doubt about our view that this is not a wise move. It is not in New Zealand’s long-term interests in terms of our ability to grow our export trade, and it is also not in our long-term interests in terms of any sense that if impositions are made upon us in order to meet requirements imposed by other countries, we should duck the notion that those are legitimate defence of the realm matters, and pass the buck to the particular sector upon whom we think some benefit may accrue.

This is a bad principle. It is wrong in its concept and wrong in its practice. We have opposed it, and let there be no doubt about that.

LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The question is that the question be now put.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National): Mr Chairperson, I sense that you have accepted the motion, and I am not disputing that in any way. I wonder whether I could perhaps seek the Committee’s indulgence on a special occasion. Given that Mrs Ardern, Shane’s mother, is in the gallery and has come to see her son perform, I wonder whether the Committee may by leave—and I seek leave for this—allow Mr Ardern to make a 5-minute contribution, so that Mrs Ardern can watch her son perform and continue the pride that she has in him. I so seek leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course? There is not.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I acknowledge the speech of the previous speaker, the leader of United Future. Yes, United Future has voted against the Border Security Bill all the way and has opposed it all the way, and I congratulate it on that. The question is whether United Future would have been so unequivocal in doing that if the Green Party, which also spoke against it and voted against it on a couple of occasions, had not buckled. That is the question. I wonder whether it would have been; I am not sure whether it would. I shall come back to the bill for a few moments, and remind the Labour Party of a couple of documents it put out. I think the Prime Minister is on the front of one of those documents. I am not sure whether it is her. If paintings are signed by Helen Clark, does that mean they are hers? I am not sure about that.

For the benefit of Labour Party members who want to forget these little documents, I remind them that the 1999 document states: “Create jobs through promoting New Zealand industry and better support for exporters and small business.” That is pledge No. 1. “My commitments are”—how unequivocal is that? That is absolutely what that document states. The first four words of bullet point No. 7 read “No rise in income tax”. If members look at the 2002 document, and I am pretty sure that is the Prime Minister on the front of it, but, as I said, a painting signed by Helen Clark may not be hers, although this looks as though it could be—

Hon David Carter: It’s not my mother.

SHANE ARDERN: It is certainly not my mother; that is for sure. The document reads: “Work with all sectors to create an innovative, growing economy with more jobs.” Pledge No. 7 on the back of the leaflet reads “No rise in rates of income tax” again. If dumping $16 million worth of new taxation on exporters, importers, and the shipping companies in between them is not a step away from those two absolute, golden commitments that were supposed to be unbreakable—“My commitment to you.”; Labour’s commitments to voters—what is it? The Minister may want to take a brief call to answer that question. Certainly, members on the Opposition side of the House are curious about how commitments like that are made and then absolutely ignored in the way the Government has in clauses 7B and 8C of this bill.

I would also like to know what the Hon Michael Cullen is going to do with the extra $16 million of taxation he will collect from our exporters, importers, and shipping companies. As the member Peter Brown mentioned before, that figure is made up of $4 million from exported goods, another $4 million from transhipped goods, and $8 million from imported goods. Of course, the figure was $8 million from both sides until the Government backed down on the export side by 50 percent, and brought the figure back to $4 million. What will Michael Cullen do with that extra $16 million of taxation once he has received it? The Treasury papers that were presented to the Government Administration Committee stated that charges for services provided by Crown agencies that are in excess of the cost of the provisions could be interpreted as a tax. That is where we come to the conclusion from that this must be yet another tax. In fact, it is tax No. 23—23 new taxes.

Given that the Committee gave me the indulgence of making a speech because my mother is present I will not linger on that argument any further, other than to say that this is a back-door tax. We oppose it, and it should never have been introduced. Other than that, the bill is a reasonable piece of work that needs to be passed, and I am very pleased that the United Future members have stood up and been unequivocal in the Committee for the first time in the whole time that they have supported this Government. We have had a win there on this back-door tax.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 220 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 54

New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 219.

Bill reported with amendment.

Bills

Visiting Forces Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): At first glance this bill is a reasonably straightforward and uncomplicated piece of legislation. In fact, during the second reading a number of members referred to it as such, describing it as legislation that was straightforward, simple, uncomplicated, and a reasonably simplistic instrument. I can tell the Committee that the work that went into getting this bill to where it is does not in any way reflect that this is a simple and straightforward piece of legislation. Whilst the bill itself might be small in size, in the sense of the number of pages that it contains, it certainly is not uncomplicated.

There are, indeed, complicated matters relating to jurisdiction, contained in the Visiting Forces Bill; and although in its simplest and purest form it is designed to update and amend the law relating to recognised international practice, and to enable New Zealand to give effect to status of forces agreements concluded with other States, and to repeal the Visiting Forces Act, the jurisdictional questions contained in the bill, I would submit—and I would be interested in the Minister’s view on this—are not straightforward, actually. I know that the officials did a fine job of trying to explain to members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee over and over again, how the primary and secondary jurisdiction was to work in the absence of a status of forces agreement—or a “SOFA” as it quickly became known. I suspect that that is like military lingo, but, nevertheless, it was a term that was adopted by the committee very quickly.

The guts of the Visiting Forces Bill is contained in Part 2, but I just forewarn members—and no doubt the chairman of the select committee, the Hon Peter Dunne, will have a view on this—that although the bill looks simple, it contains quite complicated messages. It is not a straightforward measure. National has indicated it will be supporting this bill, and will continue to do so through the Committee stage. The bill does do those things that are set out in the purpose clause.

I do not want to say anything more than that at this stage, other than to say that Part 2 contains the complicated and in-depth jurisdictional questions. I am sure the Minister, if he has a quick flick through, will be interested to see what the new clause 8 definitions do, because it is not straightforward. I imagine for soldiers on the ground a quick look at clause 8 would not solve the questions they had in their mind about jurisdictional issues, at first glance. It is the sort of thing that takes a bit of getting one’s head around.

I do not propose to add anything further in respect of Part 1, but I look forward to taking a call this evening on Part 2 and discussing with other members of the Committee of the whole House the provisions contained therein.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to take a brief call on Part 1, partly in response to the comments the previous speaker has made. This bill, on the face of it, is relatively straightforward legislation. It has been promoted as an amendment to replace the Visiting Forces Act of 1939 and to update law and practice regarding visiting forces coming to New Zealand. It is very difficult to argue against that. I think it is true that although all parties, as far as I am aware, will be supporting this measure, there are some issues that the member has alluded to that will take maybe a little bit of time as we move through. I do not say that in any sinister sense, but if I draw particular attention, when we get to Part 2, to some of the provisions around clauses 12 to 14, they will be the issues that attract attention.

In essence what this bill seeks to do is recognise the arrangements whereby forces that are, for some period of time, stationed in New Zealand are subject to the law and discipline of this country in respect of activities they take on outside the terms of their attachment. In that sense the bill is parallel to some of the legislation we have been passing recently, dealing with cases where New Zealand forces have been deployed overseas. It is a normal practice. It is good to see the concept we have of status of forces agreements, which are concluded on a case by case basis with visiting forces, now being given, in effect, some form of regularity by this bill. It is updating legislation that is over 60 years old, so it is very timely in that regard.

But I do draw to members’ attention—not that there are problems or massive difficulties or even divisions over the clauses I referred to in Part 2—that there were provisions that exercised the select committee’s mind quite intently and they are ones that need to have issues around them teased out rather thoroughly. Because it is one of those cases, I think, where we all know the end point we want to end up at—it is a matter of how we get there. We do not want to see people who are in New Zealand who commit crimes in New Zealand, inadvertently placed in situations whereby they might be subject to a higher penalty in another country—particularly the death penalty—nor do we want to see a situation where they slip through the cracks and escape any potential penalty. So those provisions are very critical in the bill, and, as the previous speaker has said, and I concur with him, when we get to Part 2 they will be ones, I suspect, that the Committee will want to debate in some detail.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Visiting forces

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I have nothing to add to the Hon Peter Dunne’s comment. They are spot on. We are into Part 2 where some of the clauses the member raised will be examined. I was interested in his reference to clauses 12 to 14, and perhaps at the risk of asking across the Chamber, I suspect I will leave those clauses to Mr Dunne, as I deal with clause 8, because I think this is where the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was put in the position where it had to produce a new clause to reflect the jurisdictional dilemmas, I guess, that we found ourselves in. Because frankly, for those of us who are not experts in military law—I am not sure whether we have any in the House, but I suspect that Richard Worth or Ron Mark may be—

Ron Mark: I used to be in the front.

SIMON POWER: He used to be in the front. I am certainly not an expert in military law but reading it as a lawyer I found it difficult at first glance, so it is worth walking the Committee through this. Because what the new clause says—and the officials are to be congratulated on working their way through this; it was not straightforward—is that in the absence of a status of forces agreement the service authorities of a visiting force to another country or State have the primary right to exercise criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction in respect of certain offences. So essentially the bill says the controlling country of those forces gets the first shot, shall we say, at the alleged offence.

In the absence of new subclause (1A) not covering those offences—and they are quite specific—and the matter not falling within that primary jurisdiction, then it reverts to a secondary jurisdiction; that is, the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts, or the host country in this case.

The difficulty comes—and this is where the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was concerned about the randomness, if there is such a word, of these types of enforcements—if we cannot get agreement at that point as to whether it is the primary jurisdiction that is being exercised; that is, the controlling authority, the controlling State, the controlling country of the forces, or the secondary jurisdiction of the host nation, New Zealand. Well, then it seemed that it was simply a matter of diplomatic chit-chat, and of the two countries getting around a table and saying: “Well, Bob, I suspect that you’d better handle this one. It looks a bit untidy, it falls through the cracks a bit.”

That was the uncertainty, I guess, that members of the select committee were a bit concerned about. I know that my colleague Ron Mark will be anxious to make a contribution on this point, because it seems to me that it is a bit messy when military law and international law in respect of jurisdiction falls back on diplomatic niceties. Because the certainty around drafting law, and having clear and concise language, versus the kind of “diplo - cocktail party speak” that goes on between diplomats, I would have thought, are two worlds apart. So that is a concern where, if we are not able to get a clear response to whether the offence falls within new subclause (1A) or new subclause (1B) of clause 8, that in the end, I guess, is just a matter of those countries negotiating. The Minister may well correct me if I am wrong on that, but that seems to be the position as I understand it.

I am not sure that that is wholly satisfactory. But I am sure that we looked at it carefully enough in the select committee to say that, well, there is probably not much else we can do; that if it is not clearly primary or secondary jurisdiction, there is a bit of a fall-back to that sort of diplomatic chinwag. We do not live in a perfect world—if we did, the Budget would not have passed—so we will keep pressing on with this legislation. I would be interested in the comments of the chairman of the select committee, the Hon Peter Dunne. I would certainly be interested in Ron Mark’s comments, and very interested if the Minister in the chair would be able to clarify for me whether my interpretation of the fall-back position is correct.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): There was rather a tetchy exchange with Mr Mark a little while ago, but there now seems to be a degree of bonhomie between us. I am grateful that he has waved me into the firing line at this stage. I may say, with friends like that, who needs enemies, but that is for another day.

Can I pick up the comments that Mr Power has made—and members will be getting a sense already that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee operated on a multipartisan basis in dealing with what is a complicated issue behind a relatively simple facade. As I said during the debate on the earlier clause, we all know the point that we want to end up at. It is a matter of how we get there.

If I go to clause 8, which Mr Power has covered—and I should just advise members that there is no collusion between any of us speaking here, in terms of who is covering what; it just happens to be the point of the argument—what we wanted to be clear on was that the procedures that were in place for dealing with offences committed by visiting forces in New Zealand were quite well spelt out in terms of where the authority lay, and those cases where the authority would lie off shore were also spelt out.

Mr Power raised, I think, what is one of the grey areas. I cannot remember his precise language, but it was about “diplomatic-speak” and the niceties of quiet conversations about how one deals with particular problems. While the legislation, to a large extent, tries to delineate the categories, there will always be those cases at the margins where a quiet word in someone’s ear and a rushed trip home at night are going to occur. I think we just have to be mindful of that in the whole process. This legislation seeks to, I guess, corral those opportunities to the maximum extent possible by being quite specific.

I look particularly at new subclause (1A) that has been inserted into clause 8. But then one also has to look at subclause (1B) alongside that, which states: “In the absence of an applicable agreement covering the matter, New Zealand courts have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any act or omission that—(a) is alleged to have been committed by a member of the visiting force, a member of its civilian component, or a dependant; and …”. That is an attempt to catch those difficult situations in a way that, I think, Mr Power was referring to.

I want to move on from clause 8, and look, if I can, at some of the clauses that I alluded to a little earlier on, particularly clauses 12, 13, and 14. Clause 12 relates to the provisions of the Armed Forces Discipline Act, and makes it clear that in respect of the Visiting Forces Act, as it will be, certain sections of the armed forces discipline legislation, and presumably the accompanying regulations, apply with respect to the activities of a service tribunal operating within New Zealand.

One needs to look at that alongside the provisions of clause 14, which have the potential to be the most difficult. Clause 14, “Manner in which sentence of imprisonment or detention may be served”, states: “(1) If a member of a visiting force, a member of its civilian component, or a dependant has been sentenced by a service tribunal of the visiting force to imprisonment or detention, the sentence may be served in accordance with Part IX of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971.” One of the difficulties that we will have to address, potentially, in respect of that, is the type of situation that we might encounter where actions take place that are extremely marginal, to say the least, and whether we have the capacity in terms of longer-term detention to hold people here for significant periods of time. We have always seen these offences, I suspect, as relatively short term in nature. The question will arise, inevitably, if the sentence is to be of some duration. How will that fit alongside the provisions of clause 14(1)? Let me give members a parallel, but in some sense, a totally unrelated example.

Simon Power: Ha, ha!

Hon PETER DUNNE: No, this is not as silly as it sounds. It is parallel in the sense of the dilemma; it is unrelated in the sense of the particular circumstance. I am thinking of the French terrorists. When we got these people we tried them according to New Zealand law. We then sentenced them—I think, from memory—to 10 years’ imprisonment in New Zealand, leaving aside the diplomatic flow that followed that sent them off to a tropical island for the balance of their sentence. The problem we actually faced was how, in the civil prison system, we coped with having to detain people convicted of an offence that was quite out of line with anything we had experienced here before. They were not murderers and thugs and everything else in the classic sense—they were terrorists.

The point I am raising—and why I say it is similar but unrelated—is that potentially the same sort of thing can arise here. I am not saying that visiting forces will be terrorists—they certainly will not be covered by this legislation if they are—but people who have committed minor disciplinary breaches, or minor offences, who end up under military detention in New Zealand, coming alongside people who may be caught for more severe situations. I do not think that is quite what we have been accustomed to dealing with, but it is an issue that arises here in relation to clauses 12 and 14.

I am conscious that the Committee has indulged me a little bit, so I will not go on to comment on clause 13 at this stage. I may come back to that at a later point.

RON MARK (NZ First): I have to admit that when I was looking at this bill and considering what to say—because I think members are pretty much in agreement with it—it occurred to me, quite mischievously, that when we consider the implications of visiting forces committing crimes in New Zealand, or of New Zealand troops committing crimes in a nation they are visiting, given the frequency of such occurrences, given the distinct lack of such instances—I can recall only a couple of them over the last 30 years—we could be forgiven for considering that maybe the biggest problem visiting forces face is the types of offences that might be committed against them, given our rather pathetic policing situation in this country.

The fact is we are short of police from one end of the country to the other, and a visiting soldier who called for assistance from the New Zealand Police simply may not be able to get the control centre to act on his call, because 60 percent of the units on the controller’s screen are dedicated to traffic policing. Because those units are highway patrol or commercial vehicle investigating units, they refuse to respond to other incidents. Despite the fact they wear a police patch on their shoulders, they are saying: “No, give that traffic accident that that visiting soldier has been involved in to an incident car or to a general duties officer who is investigating a burglary.”

So whilst this part redresses the 1939 Visiting Forces Act, the greatest threat we in this country need to think about is not acts of criminality committed by visiting forces in our nation; it is acts of criminality committed against visiting forces by our own people, because of our own appallingly pathetic and totally unacceptable rising rates of crime, and our inability to deal with that.

There are some issues in this bill that give me cause to wonder. We have had incidents in the past where New Zealand soldiers in Singapore have committed crimes. I recall that when I was in the military a group of soldiers who were caught smoking marijuana fell subject to Singaporean law. It is interesting to note that those soldiers, who were threatened with the rotan, all said in time, as they matured, that that was the one punishment that scared the living bejesus out of them, and they had never considered doing such a thing in Singapore ever again. One might ponder why we have not thought of allowing our troops who break the law in other countries to be subjected to the laws of those other countries, because then they might think twice about breaking the same laws when they come back here.

Hon Peter Dunne: They might not get the chance to break them again.

RON MARK: They might not get the chance to commit that crime again, particularly if it is dealing in drugs in Thailand, for argument’s sake.

The point is that we have, as a result of the agreements and alliances we have, an obligation to look after visiting forces. There are some rather interesting clauses in this bill. Simon Power said it was a rather simple bill, but let us think of the simple little laws we have in New Zealand that do impact on visiting forces, like the right to bear arms. I guess that currently, if we did not have agreements or laws such as this, a soldier who came in from Australia on exercise could be promptly arrested for carrying a rifle. That would not do, because he would look rather silly on exercise without a rifle of his own. The New Zealand soldier who loaned him one from the quartermaster’s store or the armoury might then be charged with improperly, illegally, handing a firearm over to an Australian soldier. All these issues sit behind the scenes and are quite carefully dealt with in this legislation.

The issue that I would like to focus on, and, more so, to ask people to exercise their minds on, is clause 12, which deals with, for example, provisions for compelling the attendance of witnesses, and provisions for protecting judge advocates, counsel, and witnesses. How much easier things might have been today for the New Zealand Police, if they could have placed constraints on visiting students to our shore who were witnesses to a murder. People have subsequently gotten away with a murder, because the visiting witnesses were allowed to go back home to Japan. Despite all the nice “diplomatic-speak” that goes on behind the scenes in respect of the visiting forces, we do not seem to have had any success in getting those witnesses currently in Japan—former visiting foreign students—to come back and give evidence, to help our police force prosecute those accused of the murder of the young Japanese student at Columbus Academy, the English-speaking school in Auckland. It is timely, when we look at the provisions of this bill—at clauses 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16—that we stretch our minds a little bit and ask the Government to start considering the type of legislation that should be coming in for those who do actually commit crimes in this country.

When I was in the military we would have exercises such as Tropic Dawn, when we would go to Fiji, or Captive Lightning, when the Americans came here as part of the ANZUS agreement.

Simon Power: Those were the days.

RON MARK: Those were the days when they would all come up to Waiōuru and we would perform exercises like the Truppenamt exercise. We would have a large number of foreign defence force personnel visiting our shores. In all those times, in which I estimate we would have seen tens of thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands, of foreign visiting defence force personnel on our shores, the numbers of instances where they had to be charged for breaking New Zealand laws, or even for breaking their own laws—which this bill deals with—were very, very few.

Ironically, I would say it is time for this Government to take a good a look at this legislation and stretch its mind as to how it might deal with visiting foreigners of civilian persuasion who come in and make an absolute mockery of our laws, laugh at us, then get on the next aircraft and shoot off back to their own country, leaving behind them a trail of destruction from the traffic accidents they have caused. Young Asian students have killed in Christchurch’s Port Hills. There have been incidents involving students from Lincoln University, and, most recently, up in Auckland. Those are the issues that I think this Government needs to get its head around when dealing with the Visiting Forces Bill that is before us right now, because I contend that visiting students are a 10-times bigger danger to the New Zealand citizen than any defence force personnel from the United States, Australia, Fiji, or Singapore.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 212 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I will not take a full 5-minute call, the Government senior whip will be relieved to know. I do want to ask the Minister in the chair one question, and given that this is not the Minister’s legislation, I will give him the opportunity to seek some advice. The proposed bill strikes out its applying in Tokelau. The new clause 24 says that this bill is not in force in Tokelau. It states down the bottom in very small print, “Compare: 1939 No 36 s 7”. So I did, and I have it here. The original Visiting Forces Act 1939 did apply in Tokelau. In fact, it applied in the Cook Islands and Tokelau as if those forces were part of home forces. That is the only issue I wish to raise. I wonder whether the Minister would be good enough to reassure the House that that particular clause will not get us into any difficulty in the future.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I can quickly answer that question asked by Simon Power. Tokelau has asked to be outside this measure. As is usual, we have agreed.

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 Consequential amendments to other Acts

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 212 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Voting

Correction

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I adjourn the House, I advise members there is a correction to a vote. The result of the vote on the question that the amendment to the amendment to the amendment be agreed to on the second reading of the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 9, Noes 108.

The House adjourned at 5.54 p.m.