Wednesday, 2 March 2005

Wednesday, 2 March 2005

Wednesday, 2 March 2005

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Given the events that will happen tomorrow, it might be advisable if I give the business statement today. Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, the second reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill, and any first readings that are on the Order Paper.

Visitors

Socialist Republic of Viet Nam—Delegation from the Economic and Budget Committee

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the Economic and Budget Committee of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Child Poverty—Reports

1. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Has he received any reports on child poverty?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have seen a report from the Ministry of Social Development that estimates the impact the Working for Families package will have on child poverty when it is fully implemented. By 2007 we will be putting $1.1 billion a year into the pockets of 61 percent of families with children, through family support, an in-work payment, accommodation supplement, childcare, and out-of-school care. The report estimates that the Working for Families package will reduce child poverty, which is measured at below 50 percent of the median income, by 70 percent. This will take child poverty rates to between 4 and 5 percent, down from 14 percent in 2001. In 3 years’ time we can expect child poverty, measured on an income basis, to be lower than at any time in the previous 20 years.

Moana Mackey: What other reports has the Minister received on child poverty?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen a Unicef report, Child Poverty in Rich Countries 2005. The report compares 24 OECD countries and paints a picture of New Zealand at the end of the 1990s that is shameful. The report, using statistics from 2000, ranks New Zealand as having, at 16.3 percent, the fourth-highest child poverty rate. What is even more shocking is that that child poverty rate actually worsened by 2 percent during the 1990s, in contrast to the UK, the USA, Norway, and Australia—all of whom improved their position slightly. This demonstrates that the policies pursued by the National Government during 9 long dark years were bad for children. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: That remark was quite beyond the pale. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Chris Carter: I apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Now he will leave the Chamber.

Hon Chris Carter withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: I warn members that they cannot expect any generosity on my last day as Speaker.

Judith Collins: What credibility does the Minister give a report that lists the United States of America at the bottom of the child poverty league, that measures poverty as being a household income of less than half the median wage, that makes the official poverty threshold in the US the equivalent of NZ$28,000 a year and the New Zealand official poverty threshold NZ$17,000 a year, and does the report not really show that fewer working families are having children?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Fewer working families may be having children. The Unicef report, for the member’s information, is one of the reports that people around the world regard as credible. It is done by credible researchers using the usual techniques of measuring data. I know the member is embarrassed—as she should be—about the 1990s. If I had that record, I would be ashamed too.

Bill Gudgeon: Could the Minister identify which areas of the country these families reside in?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Unicef report is aggregate data—in other words it takes country by country, so the information about this country is for children right across New Zealand.

Sue Bradford: How can the Minister dismiss the latest Unicef report as having relevance now, given a report just hours ago from Unicef that in 2005 our child poverty rate is only 1.5 percent better than it was when Labour took office 5 years ago?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have not dismissed the relevance of this report. For example, one of the recommendations in the report is that all nations should aim to get below 10 percent in the poverty stakes.

Opposition Members: Answer the question.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Working for Families package will take the figure below, to 5 percent. I know the National Party members are embarrassed—I would be with their track record. Their policies were a disaster for children.

Moana Mackey: Is Working for Families the only contribution the Government is making towards reducing child poverty?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, for example, for every year that this Government has been in power the minimum wage has been increased, the income-related rents policy has meant New Zealanders now have lower rents and stable housing, and the public health organisations policy means that there are lower costs for health care to families. But the surest cure for child poverty is sustainable employment, and that is why I am very pleased that 264,000 more New Zealanders are in paid work since the Labour-led Government took office—a 3.6 percent unemployment rate is a fantastic achievement.

Sue Kedgley: Why, 5 years after a Labour Government inherited the fourth-worst child poverty rate in the developed world, is its own Ministry of Health saying in this just-released report on childhood diabetes that the cost of a basic nutritious diet remains unaffordable for many New Zealand families?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The New Zealand National Children’s Nutrition Survey, to which I think the member is referring, found that 80 percent of New Zealand households could always afford to eat properly.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If the member is not referring to it, I will accept that she is not. But just to give the member back what I think is the situation: around 80 percent of New Zealand households could always afford to eat properly; around a third of the poorest families reported that sometimes they ran out of food. That is exactly why we have a Working for Families package, that is exactly why we have lifted the minimum wage, and that is exactly why we have income-related rents. If I had longer, I would go on with a long list of other things that we have done.

Sue Bradford: Why is it current Government policy to persist through things like the Working for Families package and the bill that increases penalties against some solo parents to deliberately exclude some of our poorest children, who happen to live in beneficiary families, from the benefits of Working for Families and other assistance that is targeted to working parents only?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member will be aware that a great deal of the targeting that takes place in Working for Families is for beneficiaries. The lowest amount that a person who has children receives through Working for Families is $17, and the average is around $100. Yes, we do want to see people make the move into work, and by doing so they will increase their income more. That is the best cure for poverty—getting a paid job with a career and a real future.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table the document by the Ministry of Health Influences in Childhood on the Development of Cardiovascular Disease and Type 2 Diabetes in Adulthood.

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

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I seek leave to table Working for Families: The Impact on Child Poverty—a report by Bryan Perry of the Ministry of Social Policy.

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

Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—Work and Income Referrals

2. Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does Te Wānanga o Aotearoa’s Mahi Ora course have a large number of referrals from Work and Income, as claimed by former Associate Māori Affairs Minister John Tamihere, and what is the total number of referrals Work and Income has made to courses run by Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in each of the last 3 years?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I do not have the information about individual courses or providers, as this information is held on individual job seeker agreements and would take more time than has been available to aggregate. The general process is that a case manager agrees with the client whether a proposed course would assist that client into work as part of consideration of his or her job seeker agreement, and that means that he or she moves into a wide range of educational opportunities.

Hon Ken Shirley: Does he agree with John Tamihere’s description of August 2003: “There is a massive traffic cop directing traffic to the wānanga.”, and was he alerted by Ministry of Education officials of their quality concerns back in 2001?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Going back through the question from the end of it, 2001 was about the time, if my memory serves me well, that the settlement for wānanga was made, so that was the beginning of the process. Right from the beginning there was a discussion about issues of quality. In answer to the question about the quote from John Tamihere, I am not aware of what John Tamihere thinks about the Work and Income process, but I repeat that Work and Income goes through a process of a job seeker agreement, and allows a person to enrol in a course if it is appropriate for that person getting a job opportunity.

Jill Pettis: Can the Minister advise the House how employment and educational outcomes for Māori have changed in the last 5 years?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The annual average unemployment rate for Māori over the year to December 2004 was 8.9 percent—the lowest since the household labour force survey began—and compares with 16.6 in 1999, and the all-time peak of 26 percent in 1992. The proportion of the Māori population aged 25 to 64 with a tertiary qualification has increased from 35 to 44 percent in 2003, around the same level as non-Māori. Six percent of Māori now have a degree—up from 3 percent in 1998. The average income for Māori with a degree is now similar to non-Māori.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Education, who says that the wānanga is in serious financial trouble, or does he agree with the Tertiary Education Commission, which told a select committee this morning that it has no concerns about the financial viability of the wānanga, and that it will continue to advance it tens of millions of dollars to pay for its courses?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am afraid I cannot take that member’s quote from the Tertiary Education Commission this morning, because I have usually had to basically check on every statement he has made. I will have to check on what he said about the Tertiary Education Commission, but I share the view of the Minister of Education that it is certainly time for us to be, once again, looking at the financial circumstances of the wānanga.

Hon Brian Donnelly: How do programmes such as Mahi Ora, Kiwi Ora aimed at new immigrants, and Greenlight—all packaged distance programmes—assist “the application of knowledge regarding āhuatanga Māori, Māori tradition, according to tikanga Māori, Māori custom”, application of which is a defining characteristic of wānanga under the Education Act 1989?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member is right. Wānanga are supposed to be organisations that teach within tikanga Māori, and their programmes are supposed to reflect that. That tikanga is part of the programme is something that is taken for granted on the basis that they are supposed to advance those values. If those programmes do not reflect that, of course, that is one of the reasons why they are being examined.

Hon Ken Shirley: As the Minister responsible for a department that does a large number of referrals to the wānanga courses, how does he reconcile the Tertiary Education Commission’s comments to the select committee this morning that it was unaware of any funding or financial concerns confronting the wānanga, with the Minister of Education’s comments that it had about 3 weeks to go?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: On the first matter, I say to Mr Shirley that his repeated refrain of large numbers of referrals is something we will need to check. They are in job-seeker agreements that will take time to aggregate, so he should not repeat something he has no evidence for. On the second matter, as I said—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice we have witnessed this Minister challenging the word of members of Parliament asking questions. The rule of this House is that the word of members is to be accepted. The Minister is suggesting that, somehow, what the Hon Bill English and the Hon Ken Shirley are saying from the select committee this morning is incorrect. He is also suggesting that newspaper reports of what John Tamihere said in August 2003 are incorrect. In that way the Minister is dodging answering the questions. The rule is that a member’s word is to be accepted. Certainly, a Minister cannot dodge a question by questioning the word of a member.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister, however, is quite entitled to refute the word of the member and to refute the argument. That is what question time is all about, and that is what he did.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He is not refuting the word. If he were refuting the word he would be producing evidence that they were wrong. All he is doing is questioning the word of a member. That is my point. I would be quite happy for Steve Maharey to address the question in the House by saying: “Here are the facts. That assertion is wrong.” That would be refuting the word of a member. But he has not. He is just saying “I don’t know. The member could be wrong.”, and considering that an answer. That is not refuting the word. That is questioning the word of a member.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: There is nothing in the Standing Orders or Speakers’ Rulings that states that the word of a member, claiming what somebody else said or what the facts are, has to be accepted. Otherwise, I could say anything about Mr Hide, and while much of it might be true, he would have to accept my word on that matter.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that members do not have to accept arguments put by other members. They do not have to put rebutting evidence forward. If a member says something personal to a member, then, of course, his word must be accepted. I listened very carefully to what was said to Mr English. That is why I told the Minister to come to the question. But as far as statements are concerned, they can most certainly be refuted. That is the whole point of question time.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that the situation is more serious in that the Minister was challenging my claim that many thousands of students are referred from Work and Income New Zealand to the wānanga’s courses, when the primary question, which he received early this morning, actually asked him how many students had been referred in each of the last 3 years. He made no attempt whatsoever to answer the primary question and then relied on that to try to knock out one of the supplementary questions.

Mr SPEAKER: If members put statements into their questions, Ministers are entitled to address those statements and challenge them. That is a rule that members run by, including statements in addition to the question. I just say—[Interruption] No, I do not need any comment. I am ruling on the point of order now. I do not need any further assistance.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister advised his department that refers beneficiaries to the wānanga that the Government cannot get financial control of the wānanga unless it needs to borrow, and according to the Tertiary Education Commission this morning, the wānanga has very substantial assets and therefore may not need to borrow at all?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: My only interaction with the Ministry of Social Development around these issues, of course, is to ensure, when job seeker agreements are put together and when people are referred to courses, that those courses are ones that lead to a job.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just answer the question.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The question that the member asked is, of course, appropriately one that he would refer to the Minister of Education. My interest is in whether courses lead to a job.

Rodney Hide: Could the Minister explain how it was that he was alerted by Ministry of Education officials back in September 2001 over concerns about the quality of the programmes at the wananga, yet—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You indicated earlier that this line of questioning is outside the responsibility of this Minister. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: My goodness, I am very generous to Mr Brownlee, but generosity goes only so far. I will now have Mr Mallard’s point of order heard in silence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The quality of tertiary education courses is not the responsibility of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, and never has been.

Mr SPEAKER: “Could he confirm he had been advised …” was OK as far as he had gone, but I do say that as far as actual administration of the department is concerned, that is not the responsibility of Mr Maharey. Perhaps the member could ask the question again.

Rodney Hide: I am not sure whether you are ruling what I said in or out.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled so far that provided the member is saying “Can he confirm …”.

Rodney Hide: He already had in his earlier question. He said he had advice.

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot see the point in the supplementary question if he has already said he could confirm it. However, the member can—

Rodney Hide: If I was allowed to say it, I hope that on your last day you would see—

Mr SPEAKER: We will see how the member goes.

Rodney Hide: How could it be that the Minister was alerted by Ministry of Education officials back in September 2001—[Interruption] There he goes interrupting me. If Trevor Mallard wants to have another go he can stand up and take a point of order, or are you going to allow him to chip?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not, and I tell Mr Mallard to keep quiet. I want to hear the supplementary question and I will see how it goes.

Rodney Hide: How could it be that the Minister, as he said in his answer, was alerted by officials back in September 2001 over the quality of the courses at the wananga, yet—and that was when the wananga was getting $34 million a year—John Tamihere could say in August 2003 that Work and Income was “a massive traffic cop directing traffic to the wananga”; how could it be that he allowed Work and Income to do that?

Mr SPEAKER: The last part of the question is in order. If the Minister was alerted as Minister for Social Development and Employment, that is fine; if not, then the question is out of order, but the last part of the question is in order.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Can I repeat for the member that the way the case manager operates in Work and Income is to send a person to a course where he or she can enrol if that fits with the aims of the job seeker agreement resulting in a job. That is how it works. On the first issue, I was not alerted as the Minister for Social Development and Employment to these issues, but can I say, in terms of the timeline, that 2001 was when the deed of settlement took place and I am aware that within that deed of settlement were performance measures around quality.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that the true state of affairs is that in 1999 the National Party declined to take the advice of New Zealand First, and first funded this operation the way it is being funded now, and that for the last 5½ years he and his colleagues have been guilty for what has developed—in short, Tweedledum has done no better than Tweedledee?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am glad, at least, that we are Tweedledee and not the previous term! In terms of correcting the member, I point out that, yes, the previous National Government was responsible for the original arrangements around wānanga and the tribunal settlement. Since then, of course, as I mentioned before, in 2001 a deed of settlement was struck and since then there has been an ongoing battle with this organisation to make sure it lives up to quality measures.

Dr Muriel Newman: Why did he say, as reported in the Sunday Star-Timesin August 2003, that he did not believe that the wānanga’s funding formulas need to be rejigged in a big way, that a good correspondence course can be just as expensive as face-to-face learning because of the cost of producing good course material, and that he is comfortable with the level of funding the wānanga is receiving?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As someone who has taught extramurally for many years—about 12 years, in fact—I can confirm that the cost of teaching at a distance can be as much if not more than the cost of teaching face to face within the context of an institution. That is why I believe that those kinds of courses can—not necessarily, but they can—attract the same level of funding as internal courses.

Hon Ken Shirley: As the Minister responsible for a department referring students to the wānanga, did he know that the wānanga staff members Jay Bocock, Dennis Gray, and Peter Ward, who were working in and running the information technology section, formed a private company and that all supply of information technology software and hardware was channelled through their company without any contract being let; and if he did know that, is he concerned about it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am not aware of the specifics of that, but I am sure that the member has made that information available to the office of the Auditor-General, and I am sure that that is part of the investigation—because he did so.

Hon Ken Shirley: As the Minister responsible for a department that refers a large number of students to the wānanga, did he know of the situation with the security services for the wānanga whereby, again, a staff member with responsibility for security formed a private company and supplied all security equipment and services through that company without any contract being let for tender?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am not aware of the particulars of that particular case, but I am sure that Mr Shirley has referred that matter to the office of the Auditor-General, and I am sure, therefore, that that matter is being investigated as we speak.

Rodney Hide: Was the Minister alerted to the problems back in 2001, and in light of his saying that they had had an ongoing battle with the wānanga ever since over quality and funding, why did he tell the Sunday Star-Times that he was “comfortable with the level of funding that the wānanga is receiving in 2003.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Probably because that was the advice I was receiving from officials.

Rodney Hide: Is the Minister telling the House that in 2003 officials were advising him that the level of funding of the wānanga was OK and that quality at the wānanga for that spending was OK?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I mentioned before, these questions are probably better put to the Minister of Education, but this sequence of events—2001, deed of settlement performance measures; 2002, appointment of a development adviser; 2003, special quality audit; 2004, request by the Auditor-General to go in to investigate conflicts of interest—sounds like an issue to me.

Hon Bill English: I seek leave to table the NewsRoom report of the select committee procedures this morning where the Tertiary Education Commission said it does not believe that the organisation is in sufficient trouble to question whether it—

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

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you on your last day, Mr Speaker, to be particularly generous to Opposition members with their questioning of this Minister, and to think about this issue. The Minister said he was comfortable with the level of funding back in 2003, and I used up a question in asking him why he said that. He said that that was what officials had said. We heard earlier from him saying that he had been alerted to problems back in 2001 over the quality of the courses, so I had to use up another question to ask whether he was saying then that officials were telling him in 2003 that he could be comfortable with the funding. What we then got was a long list of some sequence of events, because he said we had to get the sequence right. He never once addressed the question of whether he was standing by his answer that that was what officials had advised him. I ask you to ensure that he has to address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is just relitigating. As far as I am concerned, I heard the member have his questions. He has done so, and no generosity needs to be exercised on that behalf.

Hon Ken Shirley: I seek leave to table documents. The first documents relate to the arrangements and company records of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa staff who run a private company that provides software and hardware.

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

Hon Ken Shirley: I also seek leave to table documents relating to the security arrangements at the wānanga, and again to staff members forming private companies and supplying all equipment, without competition or tender, to the wānanga.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I put the leave, a member has asked the date of the documents.

Hon Ken Shirley: Yes, I have documents from today and from over recent weeks.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He hasn’t got a date.

Mr SPEAKER: There has to be objection. The member could have expressed objection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I object.

Mr SPEAKER: Right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am entirely happy to see the disclosure of those documents, if the member will but tell us the dates on them—because they cannot have today’s date. If he is talking about a security document, it will not have today’s date, but that is what he said. So I say again that we will grant him leave, but he had better tell us the dates of those documents.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can ask for leave. We have already had the first leave granted. In relation to the second request for leave, I say that if the member wants to seek leave and give a date, then we will put it to the House again.

Hon Ken Shirley: Certainly. I seek leave to table documents of correspondence from recent weeks, including company records sourced today, relating to the matter I raised earlier in my second request for leave.

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the Minister for Social Development and Employment, in working with his agency as far as referrals are concerned, take into account the fact that this afternoon Te Wānanga o Aotearoa has agreed to a Crown manager?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I certainly will.

Seed Sterilisation—Government Position

3. IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Did the New Zealand Government support or oppose the reported Canadian Government initiative to allow the commercial use of genetic seed sterilisation technology (so-called “terminator” technology) at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Bangkok from 7 to 11 February 2005?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): The member has misunderstood what happened at the Bangkok meeting. A report of the ad hoc technical experts group was submitted to the subsidiary body on scientific, technical, and technological advice, which is one of the key advisory bodies to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The report of the experts group contained a recommendation for countries to not approve this technology for field testing and commercial use, but the experts involved did not agree on that recommendation, and the co-chairs of the group prepared the report without review by the group’s actual members. Given the lack of consensus around the report and its recommendations, and given the subsidiary nature of the body considering the report, Canada moved and New Zealand supported, along with a number of other countries from all over the world, a resolution that the issue not be considered at the Bangkok meeting but be deferred to a full conference of parties to be held in May 2006.

Ian Ewen-Street: I ask the Minister whether it is not true that under the Convention on Biological Diversity, there has been a de facto international moratorium on the use of “terminator technology” since 2000; why, then, did the New Zealand Government instruct its officials to block the consensus on maintaining that moratorium?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: There are two points. First, there was no moratorium. There was a recommendation of advice to Governments in 2000, in the end-of-conference statement, that until there was enough scientific data, countries should be encouraged not to approve this technology. That is not a moratorium, and it is not a ban. Second, there was no way that New Zealand gave any advice on the matter the member stated.

David Parker: What reports has the Minister seen about the New Zealand position at the Bangkok meeting?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I saw a press release from Jeanette Fitzsimons of the Green Party, which contains a raft of factual inaccuracies and wild assertions. I think that highlights the importance of political parties doing their own research, rather than simply believing the lines they are fed from well-known anti-GM activists who operate around the edges of international conferences.

Larry Baldock: Is it true that the Canadian initiative at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Bangkok was really intended to allow additional scientific research to be conducted regarding genetic seed sterilisation technology; if so, does the Minister see any advantage in gathering scientific data before reaching conclusions on the merits of scientific procedures, or is it better to make policy decisions solely on the basis of knee-jerk reactions, as appears to be advocated by the Greens?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I totally agree with the member’s advice that we should collect scientific data. In fact, that is what was stated by the Convention on Biological Diversity in its recommendation in 2000.

Ian Ewen-Street: I appreciate it is normal practice that documents are tabled at the end of a question, but I seek your indulgence to table a document that indicates there is a de facto moratorium on this issue, even though the Minister denied it in her answer to my last question.

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

Ian Ewen-Street: Can the Minister say, in the specific case of “terminator” seed technology, whether she supports its commercialisation, given that the original patent application for “terminator technology” clearly reveals that it is intended, first and foremost, to prevent growers from saving their own seed and using it again, therefore making them dependent on seed companies?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Any risks about farmers being able to use their seed again would form part of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s decision and consideration, if there were any application to use such technology in New Zealand. But farmers and home gardeners are used to dealing with sterile technologies. They routinely use hybrid seeds because of their increased yield, vigour, and quality, yet seeds from those hybrid plants will not breed true in subsequent generations.

Ian Ewen-Street: In deciding to support the Canadian initiative at the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting, how much consultation did the Government do with farmers and home gardeners to establish the level of public support for “terminator technology”; if no consultation was done, why is the Government supporting this technology?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I repeat again, New Zealand did not support any Canadian proposition to ban or discontinue the use of those seeds. Instead, we supported the resolution to move the decision to May 2006.

Ian Ewen-Street: Why is the Government taking such internationally extreme pro - genetic engineering positions, instead of leading our country down the economically and environmentally better road of smart breeding, especially given the huge consumer resistance to genetic engineering?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The Government has set up a policy under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that neither supports nor bans genetic modification technology on a broad band. It takes everything case by case. There was no international support for a remit that did not exist, except in the minds of certain non-governmental organisations, on which you seem to rely so much.

Mr SPEAKER: Fortunately I do not think I have ever relied on a non-governmental organisation.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scope of Inquiry

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Associate Minister of Education: Why has he widened the State Services Commission inquiry into scholarship exams to include NCEA levels 2 and 3, when he told the House on 15 February that “the results for NCEA are within expected parameters.”?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education), on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education: The Associate Minister needs some assurance that those results lie within acceptable parameters. When the review was set up it was wide enough to include matters other than scholarship. That is why he has asked the Martin review to look at that matter—so as to give him and the wider public that assurance.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister now confirm that despite his rubbishing suggestions of problems with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), and labelling them publicly as nonsensical, he has now started an inquiry into the results of NCEA 2004; he has asked a person with no expertise in teaching, assessment, or exams to carry out that inquiry; and there has been no public release of the terms of reference so that students, parents, and teachers can know what the inquiry is meant to achieve?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: One thing we can say about Mr Martin is that he is competent. As competent people do when they do not have expert knowledge—which he did not have when he was put on the Fire Service inquiry by the former National Government—he has engaged expertise in order to assist him. He has engaged Dr Alan Barker, an international consultant resident in Hong Kong, to assist him. Dr Barker is an expert in education—in particular, I am advised, assessment—and he has recently been engaged in a review of the examination system in public universities in Hong Kong. We are competent. Opposition members should not assume that we do things the way they do.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister find it acceptable that, over 1 month on from potentially embarrassing information on scholarship results not being given a red alert, the chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is still unable to explain why such an oversight occurred within her department; if he does not think it is acceptable, what has he done about the matter?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: David Benson-Pope has worked with the State Services Commissioner to set up an inquiry.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that he now regards at least some NCEA results from 2004 as inappropriate or unacceptable; and when will he tell the students, the parents, and the teachers just which NCEA results he believes may not be valid, and what he will do about it?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The Associate Minister’s view is that these things are worth looking at, and that is why he has referred them to the inquiry. He has also noted that, for example, in 1997 School Certificate human biology had a 58.4 percent failure rate but the next year it had a 37.5 percent failure rate—quite a variation. In 2000 School Certificate had a 13.9 percent failure rate, and in 2001 the failure rate was 35.9 percent. There has been variation, and it will continue. The inquiry will give us advice as to whether this situation is different from the past.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister seen a statement from the Hawke’s Bay science and technology teachers’ association that states that, in the case of Havelock North High School, students who placed first and third in the secondary schools national architectural design competition failed level 3 graphics; is he surprised that the Western Bay of Plenty Science Teachers Association has stated: “Dedicated and experienced teachers in this group have expressed a strong sense of disillusionment and frustration, to the point that some have expressed that they may give this all away.”; and how does his sneaking out an announcement about an inquiry into NCEA build any confidence that he has any goodwill towards the students and teachers of New Zealand?

Mr SPEAKER: There were three questions there. Two may be addressed.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is my understanding that David Benson-Pope has not seen that, but he has seen a suggestion that NCEA is ultimately the best tool for improving the high school system, and that the Cambridge exam is a dead-end—and that advice comes from Allan Peachey.

Cannabis—Legal Status

5. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) to the Associate Minister of Health: Is he satisfied with the current legal status of cannabis; if so, why?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health): The Labour-Progressive Government is satisfied with the current illegal status of cannabis. It is illegal because of the empirical evidence that cannabis use is particularly harmful to young people, those with mental health disorders, and their families and their communities.

Judy Turner: Has the Minister seen new research released yesterday from the Christchurch school of medicine confirming a clear link between cannabis use and an increased risk of psychosis; if so, is this not even more compelling evidence that the current legal status of cannabis should not change?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes, I have seen that, and I believe that all members of Parliament should take the opportunity to read it. It is instructive not only for those who use cannabis on a heavy-dose basis but even for those who are casual users.

Hon Matt Robson: What advice has the Minister received in relation to the legal status of cannabis?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am chairing public meetings around New Zealand on the misuse of methamphetamine, alcohol, and other drugs. The strong feedback that I am getting from those communities, from parents, and from people who work with young New Zealanders is that cannabis should remain illegal. Many note that the biggest substance abuse problem in New Zealand by a country mile—the one that leads to most of our problems of violence and abuse—comes from a legal drug, alcohol. The second-biggest problem is caused by cannabis, and communities tell me that if we decriminalised it, then cannabis would cease to be our second-biggest drug problem and might, instead, escalate to compete with alcohol.

Rod Donald: Does the Minister agree with his colleague Damien O’Connor, who said on Monday: “Take marijuana; it’s illegal, so there are no outlets, there’s no advertising, there’s no legal purchase age, and there’s no taxation. Do these controls stop people smoking cannabis? No. Do they reduce the harm? No. Do they eliminate the wider problems of cannabis in our society? No.”; if so, does he agree that prohibition is an ineffective way to tackle the health problems of cannabis use?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: What I do know is that legal smoking of tobacco kills 4,700 New Zealanders a year. If tobacco were illegal, I have no guarantee that it would kill any fewer; it might do still more damage. So I do not believe that legalising marijuana is a good move, and a direction for New Zealand to take, and therefore I do not agree with my colleague from the West Coast.

Hon Damien O'Connor: I seek leave to table my complete speech so that all the members of the Green Party can read the whole speech.

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

Judy Turner: Has the Minister seen research from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and the Australian National Drug Research Institute that shows that prohibition of cannabis does limit the amount consumed by heavy users, and does he agree that that justifies retaining its current legal status in New Zealand?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes, I have seen that evidence and much other evidence that lead me to believe that the present prohibition on cannabis in this country is the correct prohibition for us to have.

Steve Chadwick: Has the Minister seen studies or reports that link cannabis use with psychotic symptoms or mental health disorders?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes. I think that was the report referred to in the original question. As I say, I think it would be instructive for members of Parliament to read that report. Other empirical work is also being done in New Zealand, however. Late last year the National Drug Policy’s discretionary fund allocated funding to a number of projects. Three projects deal with research into the health effects of cannabis. These studies aim to gather information on the effects of cannabis on users’ lungs, how it compares with the use of tobacco, and the impact on New Zealand households of expenditure on cannabis.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister accept that his proposed drug classification system, which will establish a new class, class D, will open the door wide for any future Labour-Green Government to decriminalise cannabis without the need for legislation; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I do not. The classification I am seeking is for legal substances. Cannabis is an illegal substance.

Mark Peck: Has the Minister seen the book written by Trevor Grice and Tom Scott, The Great Brain Robbery; if so, would he recommend that members of Parliament have a look at this document before they advocate any further liberalisation in the area of substance abuse?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes and yes.

Judy Turner: Has the Minister seen the latest magazine from NORML—an ideological cousin of the Green Party—which celebrates the fact that the new class D could “open the way for cannabis to be reclassified downwards”; if so, will he give a guarantee that this will not happen on his watch?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I cannot say that I have studied that document.

Hon Paul Swain: Why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Well, I have other things to do. I do not agree with it, in any case.

Benefits—Single Benefit

6. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Why was the plan to introduce a single benefit in 2002, which was announced by him in 2000, not carried out?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In 2001 when the Government set out its agenda for change in the Pathways to Opportunities document, we identified the reforms that would lead to a simpler system, focused on moving people into work. The single core benefit system was identified as something that would be implemented in our second term of Government. We recently announced a decision to implement the simplified system. The roll-out of the new service model will begin in May this year, with legislation introduced, hopefully, by the end of the year.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister made no attempt to answer the question as to why it was not introduced in 2002, as he had promised in 2000.

Mr SPEAKER: The member said that he was not going to. I heard him deny that.

Judith Collins: Will any beneficiaries receive the single benefit as part of the pilot of the Government’s new scheme in May; if not, why has he yet again trumpeted his single benefit proposal when nothing is planned to change for at least another 2 years?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: People cannot receive a single core benefit, of course, until it is legal; therefore we have to pass legislation through the House. The reason that we announce things well ahead is so the officials can now go ahead with drafting the legislation and implementing the policy.

Russell Fairbrother: What steps has the Government already taken to help more New Zealanders into work?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Since 2001, the Government has been working on an ambitious programme to reform the system. Significant milestones are the abolition of the Work for the Dole scheme and the focus on real jobs, employment plans for those on the domestic purposes benefit, intensive case management for the long-term unemployed, hugely successful partnerships with industry, the Working for Families package announced last year, and the new service for sickness and invalid beneficiaries. We have seen the results of that with 100,000 fewer people being on benefits, with 264,000 more New Zealanders being in work, and with New Zealand having the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD. It is tiring but worthwhile work.

Sue Bradford: When can members of Parliament and the public expect to see sufficient detail about the new single benefit to understand how it will work; and can the Minister assure invalids beneficiaries that their core benefit will not be reduced under the new system?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We have already made it clear that beneficiaries know there will be no financial losers in the changes, at all. The programme for change was set out when we released the policy. During this year we will be starting on the new service model legislation to be introduced later this year, all going very well. I am happy to give the details of that to the member in a private seminar, some time around this building, if, as usual, she wants to be given one.

Judith Collins: Can the Minister make clear to the House how a single benefit with multiple add-ons will be any less complicated to administer than a defined number of benefits; if so, why does he think that every major newspaper in this country has described his scheme variously as “a lemon”, “Maharey’s mystery”, or “heartless disaster-in-waiting”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: By my count we won on the editorials, I have to say. But of course all the experts who write editorials are often applying for social policy jobs, and they may well get one. This is how it simplifies matters—if I could just explain this to the member, because I know she needs to understand. There are currently seven major benefits and three smaller ones. For those seven benefits, there are five sets of eligibility criteria. There are seven sets of rules as to how one gets add-ons within those benefits. There are four sets of eligibility criteria for whether one is a job seeker or not. There are something like 30 additional benefits a person can get from those seven benefits, five sets of eligibility criteria, and so on. The single core benefit will provide one benefit with one set of criteria, and will be very simple to operate.

Judy Turner: Can the Minister confirm that if the move towards a single benefit is successful in reducing the amount of time spent on administering benefits, then the role of Work and Income case managers will have to change dramatically; if so, will he consider allowing non-governmental organisations to assume that role by paying them for placing people into sustainable employment who otherwise would find it difficult to get a job?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, one of the aims of the changes is to reduce the around 70 percent of time spent by front-line case managers on administering the system, so that they can spend that sort of time on assisting a person to go and get a job. At the moment, no, we have not considered taking those case management obligations out into the community. It is something we have done in partnership with some organisations around the community, but right now my view is that it is a statutory right to access income support, and it therefore should be administered by the State.

Judith Collins: Why has the Minister disregarded the view expressed by the Dominion Post on 24 February 2005 that: “There is little about human behaviour that the Government can influence without employing a financial carrot and stick approach.”, or does he expect that just reducing the number of types of benefits will, by itself, get beneficiaries into work?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is an extraordinary question. Since 2000 this Government has been implementing a whole range of highly successful policies that have helped to reduce unemployment to 3.6 percent—100,000 beneficiaries off the benefit in 5 years. The National Party says it will do that in 10 years. If I was a voter I would stick with the party that has made that success.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister really did not address the question, at all. We just got a tirade about something.

Mr SPEAKER: Perhaps the Minister could very briefly get to the point of the first question asked by the member.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer is that we do not expect the single benefit, on its own, to gain those results. We have already gained extraordinary results from the range of policies I have just outlined. What we hope to gain from simplifying the benefit system is that we will do even better.

Judith Collins: I seek leave of the House to table a report from the Dominion of 18 July 2000, in which the Minister is quoted as saying that he hoped to have the universal benefit finalised by 2002, and that it would be the final stage of the Government’s welfare reforms.

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

Methamphetamine—Police Resources

7. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Police: What dedicated personnel and resources has he employed for the specific purpose of confronting the illegal P drug problem in the Western Bay of Plenty?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I have been advised by police that they have five staff in the Western Bay of Plenty targeting methamphetamine. In 2003 Western Bay of Plenty police caught 21 methamphetamine criminals, and last year they caught 79. I congratulate the police on their good work.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Minister making that audacious claim when he has no specialist police drug team at all in the Bay of Plenty, from Tūrangi to Rotorua, to Tauranga and across to the eastern seaboard, and how many young lives have to be ruined in this area before he provides the specific resources that the police particularly need to attend to this burgeoning epidemic?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I can tell the member that while the police do not have a specific drug team, they have a team targeting drugs and organised crime, and they are having huge success.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it not the truth here that if one does not have a drug squad one does not find as many drugs, and that means the crime stats look better, and does not that explain why drug offences are up in every part of the Bay of Plenty, except the Western Bay of Plenty?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police are catching more and more people using drugs throughout the country, and I have to say that the police do a very good job. I congratulate them on their good work—I do not bad-mouth them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he expect anybody to believe him, when in a meeting with the Tauranga police, and in a briefing paper, there was no mention of a dedicated team at all for the purpose he just mentioned, there is no specialist drug team in the whole region at all, it is one of the busiest ports in the country that is now known to be a centre of import of P, and when will he get serious about this problem rather than bluffing his way through his portfolio?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I tell the member for Tauranga that there is a targeting squad focused on organised criminal activity as a part of targeting the drug deals. That is what is happening, and it is having huge success.

Wage Claims—Labour Party President's Comments

8. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Labour: Has he been briefed by Andrew Little, Secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, on the union’s push for 5 percent across-the-board wage rises; if so, does he agree with the statement by Mr Mike Williams, President of the New Zealand Labour Party, that the 5 percent claim against all companies was “pretty modest” given the economy?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour): No. However, last Friday afternoon Mr Little rang my office to say that the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union would be launching a campaign to increase the wage rates for its membership.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Who then should the unions believe: the Prime Minister when she says that a 5 percent across-the-board wage claim is unrealistic, and should be tempered by the Working for Families package, or the Labour Party President, Mike Williams, when he says that 5 percent across the board is perfectly reasonable?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The Prime Minister has made it clear that the policy of the Government is that the wage rates that are struck are the responsibility of employers, unions, or employees. The President of the Labour Party, Mike Williams, has been made aware of Government policy.

Lianne Dalziel: What role, in the context of this question, does workplace productivity play in ensuring that economic growth is sustainable?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Heaps! Improving workplace productivity helps ensure that wage growth does not put undue pressure on inflation targets. The release of the workplace productivity working group’s report late last year identified a number of key factors that help drive productivity in all workplaces. Examples include investing in people in skills, encouraging innovation, and use of technology. The Government, in partnership with business, industry, and unions, is now working on turning these drivers into practical action that all employers and employees can use to improve productivity at the workplace level.

Peter Brown: Is it not true that the Government is totally opposed to the 5 percent general wage rise for a number of reasons, principally because it would be more embarrassed when handling organisations that depend on it, such as rest homes that have not yet been reimbursed for inflation costs, the Holidays Act, and superannuitants who are being short-changed weekly by this Government, and is that not the real reason the Government is opposed to this wage rise?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No. The point is that the Government does not set wage rates. That is between employers, employees, and unions.

Dr Wayne Mapp: How does the Minister reconcile the Prime Minister’s claim that the Working for Families package will help workers, when on 1 April every worker and citizen in New Zealand will be hit by a 5c per litre increase in petrol tax that will decrease workers’ take-home pay?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Because what she said is true.

Hon Damien O'Connor: I sought leave previously to table my speech. I seek leave to table another article “Smoking Cannabis Virtually Doubles the Risk of Developing Mental Illnesses such as Schizophrenia”, again for the Green Party to read.

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

Immigration—Non-genuine Refugees

9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: What has happened to the 400 non-genuine refugees I referred to in question for oral answer No. 10 yesterday who were not approved for residency, and what explanation has he got for any of them still being in New Zealand?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration): I have not been able to obtain the exact information the member has asked for in the time available, but I will provide that information as soon as it becomes available. However, based on previous data, officials estimate that around 32 percent will have left New Zealand; around 53 percent would have appealed, or withdrawn their applications and applied under another category; and around 15 percent may be unlawfully in New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister fully expect that in a First World democracy, in a country that claims to be the world’s oldest democracy, we should put up with a shilly-shallying, vague, obtuse answer like that, saying: “We’ve got percentage estimates.”? How many of the 400 whom he itemised in a question on 1 February, and who were told they were not successful refugee applicants, have gone?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: If the member is frustrated, it does not match the level of my own frustration. What I can say to the member is that the information will be made available to him as soon as possible. It is likely to be tomorrow afternoon.

Hon Matt Robson: Is the Minister aware that in the two-step process to determine whether somebody is a genuine refugee, many applicants are found, on the first step, to have a genuine fear of persecution, but are found, on the objective step as to whether there is a situation of persecution in their country, not to have proved their case; and that, in that situation, the many applicants who are found to be genuine in their belief that they would be persecuted are not classed as non-genuine refugees?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, that is well summarised.

Hon Tony Ryall: How is it that since Labour came to office recent refugees to this country have sponsored an extra 1,588 family members into the country, with no obligation to support those people once they are here?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The first and obvious point to say is that since Labour has been in office the number of refugee claims has gone down. It is true that refugees coming in can then sponsor family members. By and large those family members come out of the quota, which is around 750. However, the ability for people to sponsor, and the criteria and conditions for that, are part of the review we are doing of the Act. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I heard it once, but I will not hear it again. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Tony Ryall: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister also provide tomorrow information on how much the 400 non-genuine refugees he referred to in his 1 February answer, who arrived here in the last 3 years on false or missing documentation, have already cost the taxpayer, including the cost of their emergency benefits, Housing New Zealand Corporation homes, and legal aid; and does he not recall what happened to his predecessor when she proved to be incompetent in handling the job?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The information the member has asked for today will be provided. If it is information that requires other Ministers’ input, then, obviously, the member should go to those Ministers. For example, we do not collect information on welfare benefits. That is the responsibility of the Minister for Social Development and Employment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Out of interest—I know that it is your last day, and you will probably find this question fascinating, as well—how will I get an answer from the social welfare department if nobody knows where the person who is here illegally is, or who he is?

Mr SPEAKER: As usual, the member has raised a very interesting debating point, and has added to the contribution, but that is not in order.

Crime—Incidence Reduction

10. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Police: What measures have been adopted by the police to reduce the incidence of crime?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I am advised that police have adopted a wide range of measures targeted at reducing the incidence of crime. They have focused on reducing violence, burglary, vehicle crime, and organised crime. The statistics released today show police are doing a very good job, with crime dropping by more than 8 percent.

Georgina Beyer: What indicators are available to show that the police are having an impact on crime?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The Commissioner of Police has released the 2004 police crime statistics that show total number of recorded crimes is down 8.2 percent since the previous year—that is a drop of 36,000 crimes. That means nearly 700 fewer crimes are recorded each week—nearly 100 fewer each day—which results in fewer victims. I congratulate the police.

Hon Tony Ryall: If this is having an impact, why can people not get a response when they dial 111?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Nearly 500,000 111 calls each year are answered very satisfactorily.

Marc Alexander: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to prevent crime is to increase the police presence on our streets; if so, will he commit to increasing the number of sworn police from one officer for every 525 people to one for every 450, similar to the ratio in Australia; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Since becoming the Government we have added over 1,000 extra staff. When we look at the Australian states we see that they all have their own bureaucracies built into their own administrations, and we are not comparing apples with apples.

Ron Mark: If a burglary occurs and a set of keys to a vehicle is stolen from inside the house, and the offender then goes to the garage, steals the car, finds a wallet in the car, steals the cash, uses the ATM card at 10 different ATM machines, withdrawing money from the victim’s account on each occasion—a crime that happens on a daily basis in New Zealand—why is it that rather than reporting 13 different offences the police policies running at the moment that produce these wonderful statistics record only one or two offences; is that all part of the good news electioneering statistics?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The way the crime statistics are gathered has not changed for years.

Child Pornography—Prosecutions

11. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does the Department of Internal Affairs inform the New Zealand Police of pending prosecutions of any individual facing child pornography offences;if so, do they do so in every case?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes, they do so in every case with the exception of a small number of cases involving minor offending by children or young people. The police take an active part in the execution of search warrants and are informed as part of this process.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can vulnerable kids in schools be protected if the police are not made aware of these deviants, particularly if they admit the offence a year before their name is published in a newspaper and the public finds out?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The Department of Internal Affairs works with the police on these matters, but I will ask the Secretary for Internal Affairs to see whether the department can get around all those problems that pop up from time to time. I want them working much closer, and they are having a great deal of success.

Hon Tony Ryall: Which of the Minister’s departments will take responsibility for fixing the situation that his office is aware of, where a school bus driver admitted offences a year before his name was published in the newspaper and the police apparently were not informed of that admission or of the charges?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: At the time of the warrant being executed that person was unemployed, and, of course, things may have happened since then. That is why I am getting the Secretary for Internal Affairs to talk with his staff and the police.

Nuclear Disarmament—New Zealand's International Role

12. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What role is New Zealand playing internationally to advance the Government’s policy for nuclear disarmament?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): Members may not realise that it was 20 years ago today, New Zealand time, when former Prime Minister David Lange won the 1985 Oxford Union debate. New Zealanders watched with pride as David articulated our nation’s attitude to nuclear weapons, arguing: “Rejecting nuclear weapons is to assert what is human over the evil nature of the weapon; it is to restore to humanity the power of the decision; it is to allow a moral force to reign supreme.” Since then, New Zealand has played a leading role to advance the notion of a world without nuclear weapons.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: What has been achieved in recent progress towards nuclear disarmament?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: For the first time, last year in the United Nations General Assembly the new agenda resolution on nuclear disarmament was supported not only by the majority of non-aligned member States, but also, for the first time, by five NATO States, as well as by Japan and Korea. New Zealand’s work alongside our friends on the new agenda contributed to this notable change of position. In the last 6 months New Zealand has contributed strongly to the preparation for a successful review conference in May of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Mr SPEAKER: Final supplementary question, and I might say the 26,281st that I have heard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wanted to ask the last formal one, sir. If David Lange has done such a marvellous job, and if he is probably the last orator of the left the Labour Party ever had, why has the Labour Party treated him so miserably and abysmally in terms of appointments in other things, or did he just plain fall out with the sisterhood?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: The future of David Lange is really nothing to do with New Zealand’s disarmament, but we honour him today with the memory of that magnificent debate.

Questions to Members

Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Bill—Report-back Date

1. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Social Sevices Committee: Was the committee granted a 3-month extension of the report-back date for the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill, following calls for wider consultation with families and workers associated with sheltered workshops?

GEORGINA BEYER (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee): I am pleased to inform the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee that the House by leave agreed on 18 November 2004 that the time by which the committee must finally report the bill be extended from 25 November 2004 to 31 March 2005. The reasons for the committee requesting the Leader of the House to seek that leave remain strictly confidential to the committee.

Sandra Goudie: Was a newspaper advertisement the only form of consultation with the families of people who attend sheltered workshops; if not, what other process was used for consultation with individuals and their families?

GEORGINA BEYER: Newspapers were one method of communicating with the public.

Mr SPEAKER: There will be no further supplementary questions.

Sandra Goudie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member did not answer the question fully. She answered only the first part, in saying that the newspaper advertisement was one process that was used. She did not stipulate what other process was used for consultation, which was the question I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: She addressed the question.

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the Budget Policy Statement 2005 and the report on it of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The debate on the Budget Policy Statement today is an important debate—even more so because this year is an election year. This debate will centre on leadership: economic leadership, social leadership, community leadership, and ultimately, of course, the most important thing the New Zealand people look to in this election, and that is political leadership.

The Budget Policy Statement sets out the overarching fiscal parameters that will guide Budget 2005. As a Government, our fiscal strategy is unchanged from last year. That strategy is to enable the Government to continue long-term fiscal objectives of maintaining prudent debt levels, tapering down, by 2015, to 20 percent of GDP. Also, our objective centres on maintaining operating surpluses sufficient to both satisfy our capital pressures and priorities and maintain the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. This Budget Policy Statement debate is also about a review of the Government’s achievements and the critical state of our economy, and our nation, as compared with a different state—that of the Opposition.

I want to start by looking at the economic facts as we see them today. Economic growth is strong and is being maintained at 4.6 percent in the 2003-04 year. The rate of unemployment is the lowest in the OECD, at 3.8 percent. In fact, if we look at the 5-plus years of achievements of this Government, we see that over 264,000 jobs have been created by this Government since it took office. If we look at the cash surplus we see that, for the first 6 months of the financial year to December, it stands at $100 million. We have an operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes of in excess of $4 billion for the same period. Once we take into account capital investments, which are essential for economic and future growth, and investments in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which are all essential for fiscal stability, the cash surplus is a more realistic interpretation of the current fiscal state of this Government.

Of course, National claims that a $5.8 billion tax cut can be afforded by this country, but we know that to do that—if we want to keep the Superannuation Fund; and Dr Brash says he does—we would have to increase overseas borrowings, and it is likely that under National we would face the same sorts of deep, dividing, and horrendous cuts in expenditure that we had in the 1990s. National wants to cut public expenditure. Labour, of course, wants to boost savings rates, build infrastructure, and build investment in our economy.

I say to the people of New Zealand that we should look at what independent people say about the state of our economy. From my own area of Christchurch, the Press of 11 January notes, under the heading “Economy humming”, that: “South Island regions are proving their worth to the national economy, securing four of the top five places in a regional growth report.” If we look at the Waikato Times of 30 October, we see a headline: “Businesses predict good yields”. The article quotes the ANZ National Bank chief economist, John McDermott: “It’s been a fantastic business cycle, business has been expanding for five years, …”. They are facts; they are facts that are undisputed; they are facts that independent commentators of course have endorsed.

Let us now look at the areas of achievement in health and at the health dollars. We have a health spokesperson over there on the Opposition benches. I think it is Judith Collins, who of course crows about what National will do. The problem is that she provides no detail. Let us look at health. Health spending has gone up by 40 percent in the past 5 years. That is a fact; that is undisputed. Around 3.7 million people now belong to primary health organisations, and 2 million of them already get cheaper doctors’ visits and subsidised prescriptions. I will stack that fact up against Judith Collins and her health policy any day—because she does not have one. Already, under-18s and over-65s enrolled in our primary health organisations are benefiting. This year, 18 to 24-year-olds come into the scheme and next year 45 to 64-year-olds. In 2007, 25 to 44-year-olds will enter the scheme so, by 2007, people enrolled in primary health organisations will get cheaper care across the board. There has been $200 million invested in fighting meningococcal meningitis. That is a fact, and that is happening. Over 1.15 million young New Zealanders in this country will be immunised. We have doubled the public funding for knee and hip replacement operations. Every member of Parliament knows the number of constituents who have knocked on our doors with knee and hip problems, and now they are being helped. We are investing in mental health.

I want also to focus for a moment on law and order. There was $39 million put in, in the 2004 Budget, to fight the P problem. There are more New Zealand police on the streets than at any other time, but the last National contribution to New Zealand’s police force was a Bill English proposal to gut the New Zealand Police.

Those are achievements, and this is about economic, social, community, and political leadership as exhibited by this Government and this Prime Minister, compared with a lacklustre crew over there with no performance, no policy, and a leader, I have to say, who has lost the plot. Members should not believe me for saying that. The reference point I take for the Leader of the Opposition losing the plot is an authorised biography—for those who do not know, “authorised” means the author reads it, ticks it off, checks it for factual accuracy, and approves it before it hits the presses—written by his mate, a National candidate, which gives the reader a wonderful insight into the character and nature of that Leader of the Opposition.

I say that I will be amongst the people who buy the most copies of that book. I will distribute it in my electorate, and I encourage every Kiwi to read it—it is a cracker! I say that it is a thrilling read, a gripping read. I thought Evil Knievel was an adventurer; but he is nothing on Don Brash—not a thing. The biography is a gripping read, and I say that people should read it. In fact, I say that we should go to Peter Jackson after reading it and tell him to forget King Kong, because we want a movie on Dr Brash. I refer to political leadership, when our record on the Budget Policy Statement is compared with that of National’s. I read the review of the biography, which talked about Dr Brash getting so stressed working on the 1998 Budget that he went to work with mismatched shoes. I want to know whether he tied the shoelaces of both shoes together. If he got so stressed out by helping with the 1998 Budget, I have no idea how he would cope as Prime Minister. We have a word for somebody who would go to work in Waimakariri in mismatched shoes: it begins with “p” and it is a plonker.

There is another anecdote that gives a very interesting insight into the leadership capabilities of “the man who would be king”. As chief executive officer of the Kiwifruit Authority, he would go through the drive-through at KFC and live off KFC food. As Mr Brash is a decisive fellow, of course, he would look at the menu and think: original, or hot and spicy? He might have taken hot and spicy but, as we know, he would have tended to feel slightly uncomfortable about that choice the next morning.

This book gives a great insight, and I would welcome Dr Brash to get up in this Budget Policy Statement debate and talk about the achievements over the last 5 years of a National Party that he has failed. The biography gives a wonderful insight. This Budget Policy Statement gives an insight into our Prime Minister and into the achievements of this Government. But the only counter to this Budget Policy Statement and the Budgets of 2004, 2005, 2006—and on they will go—is an authorised biography that shows the make-up of the man. I recall one quote in the biography that puts Dr Brash in touch with the real world. In fact, the author said that after a good feed of frozen corned beef and peas, “in a sense, Dr Brash entered the real world.”

Well, I say that this Budget Policy Statement is the real world, and along with the Budget it delivers to every New Zealander through health, law and order, employment—right across the board. What is the manifesto released by the National Party? It is the Brash biography. I have never seen Gerry Brownlee and the National Party look so depressed—but particularly Gerry Brownlee, apart from the time he arrived 5 minutes late at Pizza Hut to get the “all you can eat” pizza deal. I challenge National Party members to get up and tell us what they are going to put in front of the people of New Zealand to counter the Budget and to counter the Budget Policy Statement. Let us have a fight over that!

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): It is not really worth responding to that extraordinary diatribe. Let me just say that page 1 of the Budget Policy Statement states: “The Government’s objective is to increase New Zealand’s long-term sustainable rate of economic growth and to ensure—”

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to congratulate—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, no.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Not only was that interjection by Mr Mallard not a point of order but it was deliberately designed to interrupt the speech being given by the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister should either be made to withdraw and apologise or be asked to leave the Chamber.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The Minister knows that that was not a point of order, and it should not have been raised. I will not require him to withdraw it, but I am aware that he was trying to break up Dr Brash’s speech. There will be no repeat.

Dr DON BRASH: On page 1 of the Budget Policy Statement, the Government states that its objective is to: “increase New Zealand’s long-term sustainable rate of economic growth and to ensure the benefits of growth are spread across society.” Well, how has the Government been doing? Despite the strongest commodity prices in a generation, despite good seasons for the farming sector, despite easy monetary conditions around the world, and despite a strong inflow of people following September 11, the Budget Policy Statement notes that over the last 5 years growth averaged 3.7 percent per annum, which is exactly the same growth rate as the average growth rate since 1993—and that was despite the adverse effects of drought and the Asian crisis in the second part of the 1990s. There has been no increase in the average growth rate in the last 5 years as compared with that rate in the 1990s.

The Budget Policy Statement makes it clear that there has been no improvement in the trend growth rate since this Government came to office, and that is not surprising. The Budget Policy Statement acknowledges explicitly that: “New Zealand’s recent growth performance can be attributed to past structural reforms that began in the mid-1980s, which have resulted in a trend increase in New Zealand’s growth rate since the early 1990s . . ”. What has this Government done to improve the situation? Absolutely nothing—in fact, worse than nothing! This Government has sharply increased the total tax burden. The real tax burden per capita has gone up from just over $9,000 in 1999 to almost $11,000 currently, in real terms.

Secondly, this Government has extended the range of incomes over which low-income people experience very high effective marginal tax rates—80c to 90c in the dollar. Is it any wonder that Treasury stated, in relation to Working for Families, that only 2 percent of sole parents might be encouraged off a benefit because of that package? The Government has increased business compliance costs. It has not reduced them; it has increased them. It has threatened future productivity growth by making the labour market less flexible than it was.

What is the result of all this? First of all, it is clear that the after-tax, real income of the average household in New Zealand has not increased over the last 5 years. It is also clear that the gap between New Zealand and Australia in terms of average after-tax wages is widening. In 1999 it was just over $5,000. Today it is almost $9,000 a year. Last month the OECD put out a report that looked at the living standards in developed countries. Countries were grouped into four income groups: high, high-middle, low-middle, and low. The high-middle income countries included Australia, Canada, the UK, Italy, France, Germany—the countries with which we are normally associated. But we find that in that report we are in the low-middle income countries, along with Hungary, the Czech Republic, Malta, Korea, and Spain. That is where we are, after 5 years of this Government’s operation.

When we look ahead we find that growth is projected by the Budget Policy Statement—not by the National Party but by the Budget Policy Statement itself—to be slower over the next few years. It has been 3.7 percent on average over the last 5 and the last 10 years, but it is predicted to be 2.5 to 3 percent over the next 3 or 4 years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Let Gerry Brownlee speak!

Dr DON BRASH: That is markedly slower than projections for Australian GDP growth, I say to Mr Mallard.

Perhaps aggregate GDP growth is not the best way of measuring growth. Let us look at per capita GDP. What we find is that for the last decade, per capita GDP growth has been 2.5 percent per annum. The Budget Policy Statement states that it will slow down to only 1.9 percent per annum over the next few years. There will be slower growth over the next few years, after nearly 6 years of this Government, than there has been over the last 10 years. In other words, the Government has failed miserably to increase New Zealand’s sustainable rate of growth, which the Budget Policy Statement notes as a key objective.

Nowhere in the Budget Policy Statement is there any indication that the Government intends to change its fiscal policy to improve the long-term growth rate. The Government seems intent on spending all the extra tax revenue it gets from growth and tax increases as fast as it gets it, and a massive expansion of Government spending is projected over the next few years. We know—because Treasury has calculated it—that the extra tax and extra spending is costly in growth terms. A Treasury paper written last November, and quoted in the Finance and Expenditure Committee report on the Budget Policy Statement, estimated that a lower and flatter tax scale could add between 0.5 and 1 percent to our per capita growth rate, a phenomenally large gain that would see us make rapid progress relative to other developed countries.

Tragically, the Minister of Finance disagrees with his own Treasury advisers and prefers to go on taxing and spending. Perhaps there would be some justification for that if there were any evidence at all that the additional spending would actually produce some social dividend. But we know that the Government has been wasting taxpayers’ money on a prodigious scale. Waste in the area of tertiary education appears to be absolutely enormous. We have been talking about Te Wānanga o Aotearoa. We also know—because my colleague Bill English pointed it out the other day—that in the last 4 years the Government has spent $1.5 billion on sub-degree courses that students have not even completed.

We know that there has been waste in the area of social welfare. Since 1999 there has been a 40 percent increase in the numbers of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit. That is an incredible waste. There has been waste and bureaucracy in the health sector. Mr Cosgrove referred to the huge increase in Government spending on Vote Health in the last few years, but where is the significant improvement in the number of operations conducted, and where is the improvement in the health of New Zealanders? There has not been a measurable improvement in their health. The Budget Policy Statement is silent about this waste. It does not even attempt to question the huge surge in Government spending or the waste involved in that spending. This Budget Policy Statement is a testament to the failure of the Government’s fiscal policy.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development): It is no wonder that Gerry Brownlee left before he had to listen to that speech. The country is in such a bad state that that socialist bastion, the World Bank—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know that it is not appropriate for the member to refer to the absence of other members, particularly as he is a member who managed to have half a party leave on him before he managed to hold on to his ministerial warrant.

Darren Hughes: What!

Gerry Brownlee: I will explain. The Hon Jim Anderton, a member who is one of the least successful members of Parliament ever and the man who lost an entire party, was talking about someone being late to the Chamber—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member will please be seated.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It is no wonder that the people of New Zealand will never elect a party that has that man one step away—a corned beef sandwich away—from leadership. This country is in such good shape that the World Bank states that we are the best place in the world in which to do business. Also, we have the lowest level of unemployment in the OECD. I would like to know when National, in its 9 long years in Government, could claim anything resembling that kind of success. The answer is that it could not.

The fact is that this Government inherited a terrible economic and social legacy in 1999 from the National-led Government. But the good news in Michael Cullen’s Budget Policy Statement is that we are rapidly reversing the damage. The Opposition will be very lucky one day—many years from now, no doubt—if it becomes the Government, because it will inherit an astonishingly positive social and economic legacy from this Government, unlike the legacy we inherited and had to overturn.

It is a real privilege, therefore, to speak in support of the 2005 Budget Policy Statement. This is Michael Cullen’s sixth Budget Policy Statement, and the great news about the financial position of the Government of New Zealand, like the great news about the success of our economy, is that it just keeps getting better each year under his stewardship. The Labour-Progressive coalition Government’s Budget Policy Statement of 2005 confirms the quality of this coalition Government’s management of the public’s finances, and shows it to be among the most progressive in half a century of government in this country. The statement indicates that there is scope for additional investment in improving the quality of life for all New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who wrote this?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am quite proud to say that I wrote it. The statement indicates—[Interruption] Well, I recall times in this House when I watched some parties oversee the dislocation, dysfunction, and abandonment of a whole generation of New Zealanders. This Government is reversing that trend and upholding the well-being of so many New Zealanders now who under previous Governments, including 9 years of National-led Governments, had their quality of life simply destroyed.

The Budget Policy Statement indicates that we will be able to increase our already extensive infrastructure investment programme over the next few years, as well as our achievements to date. It also foreshadows a reduction in the central government’s domestic borrowing programme for the current financial year and scope to partially pre-fund some of the Government’s previously forecast borrowing requirements over the following 2 years. If that does not indicate wise and sensible stewardship, I do not know what does. Forecast accrual accounting surpluses are committed to known future capital investments, and in investing in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, a policy that was put in place to protect the financial security of future superannuitants against the indignity of poverty in old age, this Government is making careful plans for the future. Most of what I hear from National Party Opposition members are their plans either to cut essential service commitment and investment or to reduce taxes, and they never say what on earth they will do about mobilising the economy in the direction we are heading at the present time.

The economy is in such good shape that the downcast members of the ACT party, some of whom are in the Chamber at the moment, who have sat on the Opposition benches since the day they entered this Parliament—it is quite instructive, really—will not be here any more after the next election. They will have succeeded in doing nothing in terms of Government in the whole time of their existence. Although they may be feeling downcast about that, I can say that the provision the Government has made for superannuation will enable them to retire in some dignity that they may not otherwise have had.

As I said, the Labour-Progressive coalition Government inherited an incredibly negative and gloomy economic outlook. We inherited a legacy whereby the Government’s net debt was equal to 21 percent of GDP in 1999. This Budget Policy Statement shows that now, in contrast, we are on track to being in a position where the Government’s net financial asset position is positive, not negative like it was in the 1990s.

We also inherited a terrible social legacy from National. That is now being turned round, and we can see that in so many areas of our social service investment. When National came into Government in 1990, nearly 150,000 New Zealanders were unemployed. Despite promising to halve unemployment levels, National managed to increase the level of unemployment. In fact, by the time it was thrown out in 1999, the number of unemployed was 4.4 percent higher than when it came into Government. That meant that 155,594 Kiwis were unemployed when this Government was elected. In just 5 years we have started a dramatic reversal in that trend and that damage. In the last 5 years the number of unemployed has dropped from 155,594 to 83,415. That is a drop of 46 percent in unemployment in 5 years. We have, in fact, achieved the promise that National failed to achieve in the 9 years that it led the Government in the 1990s. Of course, that unemployment rate is too high, but it happens to be the lowest rate in the entire OECD. With programmes to get every young person who leaves school into jobs, training, or workplace training, we will have a future that is entirely positive in comparison with the one we inherited from National.

Our regional economies have just recorded their 23rd consecutive quarter of annual economic growth—all 23 regions, all at the same time, all for 23 consecutive quarters. It is some kind of economic miracle. The regions are in such good heart that it is a pleasure, rather than the kind of austere ordeal I imagine it once was, for a politician to go to the regions of New Zealand and be warmly welcomed by local communities for the work being done from one region of the country to another.

Crime statistics released recently show that the huge upward spiral in the 1990s has been turned round, and crime rates are now falling. Social problems like alcohol and drug abuse are, of course, lagged indicators. In my considered view, the country is now inheriting the legacy of the years of neglecting in the 1980s and 1990s to invest in the future of our country. We have now had to pick up the tab for that—that is true. I know, as the Minister for Economic Development and the Minister for Industry and Regional Development, as well from heading the Government’s drug and suicide programmes, and so on, that that legacy is pretty onerous and has a huge human cost. I can say in all honesty that I look forward—not that I will be here—to future Governments looking back and seeing that the inheritance they received from this period of Government was much, much more positive than anything this Government inherited from the past.

Those unemployment figures that have come down, and the crime figures that have come down with them, are no accident. They are, in fact, closely linked. Dr Michael Cullen was well regarded as an economic historian before he entered politics, but one day the economic historians of the future will look back on his stewardship and say that this was a time when a very positive economic and social tradition was built up by this Labour-Progressive coalition Government. I think all parties in this House can celebrate the fact that the New Zealand economy is now on a path to positive development, with a momentum it has not had for very many years. We should all be very pleased with that, and I expect to hear many positive statements in support of it from Opposition members as they speak in this debate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First—Tauranga): It just shows us how one can change one’s tune when one has the baubles of office, as Mr Anderton does these days. The amazing thing is that we have in this country a current account deficit that is worsening every month; a balance of payments crisis, as well; a massively overvalued dollar—it is about 20 percent overvalued—the highest interest rates in the OECD; banking now to be controlled by Australia; and a GDP per capita ranked at No. 25 in the world, but when it comes to income per capita, it is ranked at No. 37. Right there we see that New Zealand is a country that has so much overseas ownership that we do not even earn as people, in terms of profit, that which the stats say we as a country should enjoy. That is why we look at Australia. It is doing so much better than New Zealand.

For Dr Brash to rise in this House and give Australian, Canadian, and First World comparisons is to engage in a very serious exercise in deception. It was Dr Brash and his ilk who in the 1980s and 1990s went down the path that no other First World country would go down. Hence New Zealand’s demise in 2005. With all our pain and effort, we are still on a slide, and no one can deny it.

The last speaker talked about crime. If one does not intend to investigate crime and will not answer a 111 call, one will never know how serious the situation is in New Zealand. We in Tauranga have a P crisis. That is known to the police. One shady individual in the Bay of Plenty is supplying P to teenage girls in return for sex. It gets them all duped up and hooked up, and away it goes. I want to know whether we in New Zealand First have to name this man in Parliament before the police will do their job. For name him we will. The resources are not going there. The Minister of Police today proved categorically that he has no idea about what resources are going to Tūrangi, up to the Coromandel, to Whakatāne, across to Rotorua, and to Tauranga. We know that there are none. We know, for example, that Port Nelson has just had its resources closed down. In short, the Minister got up and gave assurances when, in fact, the situation on the ground is so much more serious.

What a week we are having. We have the Hui Taumata, where no young person is invited. Young people are out. It is a repeat of the failed “hui nō mata” of October 1984. I remember the “hui nō mata”. This Government has spent all that money; it has spent $1 million—and more—on the Hui Taumata this weekend. Can members imagine the audacity of spending that on a public relations stunt? The invites were all personal—one could not get in if one tried, unless one had an invite and was from the Labour Party. What a week we have had. There has been the Hui Taumata and Don Brash’s pyjamas. We have to realise that this is election year. The mandatory book about that great new leader has been released, and we found out that the meal of the day is corned beef and peas.Because his mum gave him a pair of pyjamas, despite the fact that they were pretty emaciated and holey, he decided to keep on wearing them, regardless.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am speaking on the Budget Policy Statement—make no bones about it, Mr Speaker. I have to deal with this. We have a Minister— [Interruption] Yes, the Budget Policy Statement covers things like the police. We have a Minister of Police who, for example, in one breath says he gives the police all the resources they want, and in the next breath says he never gives them all they ask for—and that was on the same day, in the same question time!

Rodney Hide: He sees no problem with that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He sees no problem with that. Anyone who believes the Minister of Police must be as thick as a whale omelette—and that is saying something.

I want to deal with other serious matters and touch quickly on Hui Taumata 2005, because a million dollars was dedicated to it. Members will recall that that funding was assigned last year. Why was it that the only way one could get involved in the Hui Taumata was to be a Labour Party candidate or supporter? What sort of conference is this? Over a million dollars is being spent on trying to placate the Labour Party membership at that hui. How can they claim to be representing Māoridom when they are so selective? What will be achieved from this week’s conference? Nothing will be achieved, actually, exactly as nothing was achieved at the Hui Taumata in 1984—and within 9 years of that the Labour Party was losing Māori seats right, left, and centre.

Rodney Hide: Whom to?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They were losing to the very insightful, brilliant party called New Zealand First. Everybody knows which party it was. Every day, as Māoridom looks around the political scene at what is available, we see New Zealand First members coming back to the enlightenment of knowing that only one party represents all New Zealanders. Whether they be European or Māori, whether they be blue-collar workers or hard-working mothers, only one party stands up for them. That party is New Zealand First. It is not the ACT party. The ACT party’s latest line is to attack its coalition partner.

What did Rodney Hide say when he was first elected as leader of the ACT party? He said that his job was to make Don Brash Prime Minister. He is doing a fine job, is he not? I tell the New Zealand media that the polls prove that one cannot breathe life into a corpse. They tried it last year, in 2004, at Ōrewa. They could not move the polls on days 1, 2, and 3, but they kept on going, day in and day out, month in and month out, until they drove up the polls—but by the end of the year they were down again. It was the same story this year with Ōrewa II, with almost 200 news items on Don Brash’s Ōrewa speech before he had even opened his mouth. How shabby is that? They are trying to breathe life into a corpse, but it will not work, and the polls are starting to reel in double-quick time in 2005.

I say to the ACT party that it is sad that it is trying to copy the strategy of New Zealand First. That is what it is trying to do. Even John Armstrong mentioned that in today’s New Zealand Herald. ACT members went out there and sold themselves, sold their souls, and said that Don Brash was the ninth ACT MP—

Hon Richard Prebble: No, the 10th.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, he was the ninth, because ACT did not have Donna Awatere Huata. Sorry—Donna Awatere Huata was out of the fold, and ACT washed her down the drain as well. [Interruption] Oh, yes it did. Then ACT decided just last week that it had better get out of the cancerous-like arrangement with National—it would cut loose and be independent. But it is too late. Everybody out there who wants a change of Government and has been a financial backer of the ACT party knows full well that only one party can do that now, and that is New Zealand First. They are ringing us, asking for New Zealand First’s bank account number so that they can send us some money. They spent millions on ACT—and what happened? ACT blew the whole lot.

Ron Mark: Bad return on investment!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, it was a bad return on investment. They got a lot of pre-sales talk, no after-sales service, and no delivery at all in terms of policy. Time and time again ACT would say: “Back us, finance us, vote for us, and we will be in Government.”—and it never will. In contrast, it is a certainty—as no other political party leader can state in the way I can on behalf of my party—that when the dust settles in 2005, New Zealand First, unlike any other party, will be in Government.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the Budget Policy Statement—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Leadership bid!

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I say to the member who just interjected that, no, I do not intend to follow his lead in this matter. I think this is an important debate in which we ought to debate the budgetary policies of the Government. Whether the right honourable gentleman wears pyjamas, or some other MP wears pyjamas, is really totally irrelevant, and I do not want to go there.

Just before I do start speaking about the economy, let me, with the indulgence of the House, make one comment. I think it is appropriate, as this is the Speaker’s last day—I understand he will resign at midnight—to record that fact in the House, and to record that he has been a generally popular Speaker and we wish him well. No doubt—at a later stage, I understand, because he is moving to another, higher position—we will give him a warm tribute. But I think we should record in Hansard today the fact that this is the last day as Speaker of the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt.

I turn to the Budget Policy Statement. Mr Anderton gave a typical Government speech when—if I am paraphrasing it correctly—he basically claimed that the Government had found a terrible economic situation on coming to office, and had produced some sort of economic miracle and greatly improved growth. Indeed, we hear that speech time and time again from Government members. They have the view that if they repeat a statement often enough it must be true. If only that were so. Of course, our Prime Minister always talks about the wonderful growth this Government has achieved, in contrast to—as she phrases it—“the failed policies of the past”.

Well, I draw members’ attention to the fact that on page 12 of the Budget Policy Statement the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, the Minister of Finance, states: “I accept overall responsibility for the integrity of the disclosures ...”. He is saying that what is written there is true. I ask members opposite whether they know what the growth rate per annum has been in the last 5 years. That is interesting; none of them seem to be offering an answer. The answer is actually contained in the first paragraph on page 13, which says that in the last 5 years, the 5 years during which Labour has been in office, we have had—and I quote exactly—“annual growth averaging 3.7% per annum…”.

Rodney Hide: That’s not bad.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Well, it is not bad, but that is the economic miracle—that is the extra growth that the Government says it should be re-elected on. We then have to ask what the terrible growth referred to by Mr Anderton was.

Rodney Hide: It must have been bad.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: It must have been bad. And what was the growth rate under the “failed policies of the past”? What was it in the previous 5 years? We only have to go to page 18 to see—and I repeat that Dr Cullen has signed a statement saying that these figures are correct—that average growth has been 3.7 percent per annum since 1993. In other words—

Rodney Hide: It’s the same number.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I thank Mr Hide; that is why he is the ACT leader. Growth has actually not increased—not even by a fraction—under the Labour Government.

Dr Brash, in what I thought was an appropriate speech on the Budget Policy Statement, also pointed this out. He went further and made some other comparisons. In the last 5 years we have had the most favourable terms of trade in my lifetime—and I understand that by the end of the month I will be father of the House. There have never been more favourable terms of trade. The Minister of Finance told the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the House that the Government thought that the terms of trade may have undergone a structural change. What he is referring to is that for 100 years successive New Zealand Governments have had to face the fact that the terms of trade for an agricultural exporting nation got worse, on average, year after year. In the last 5 years, for the first time in 100 years, the terms of trade got better. Yet, despite that fact, when we read this document we see that Labour could not improve the growth rate by one iota. Given the fact the circumstances have improved, in relative terms things have actually got worse.

Members might say that that is a party political statement, so I will go back to the Budget Policy Statement to see what the Minister of Finance has signed off as his view of what the outlook for the economy really is. No doubt this is why he has not participated, so far, in this debate—because it would pour a bit of cold water on the Government’s party line. I will quote from page 24 of this document: “This slowdown results in almost a halving of the growth rate to 2.4% for the year to March 2006.” So the Government is saying that as a result of the policies contained in the Budget Policy Statement, the growth that has been going on for 10 years will now come to a halt. I would be interested to hear from Government members whom they intend to blame for that.

I will try to give the Government an indication of how badly it has performed—and the Rt Hon Winston Peters can feel good about this if he likes. The period in which there was 3.7 percent growth covered not only the National Government but also the time that Mr Peters was Treasurer. It even covered the Asian financial meltdown and the period when many parts of New Zealand had the worst drought for 20 years. Yet this Government, with favourable climatic conditions and favourable terms of trade, has not increased growth at all.

But it is worse than that, because the Government told us that its objective was to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD. Dr Cullen told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that there was a problem with that. He has just discovered that the country ahead of us in the OECD, Italy, is quite a lot wealthier, and that our progression might take a while. Well, of course it will take an enormous length of time, because it has been accepted that if we want to rise up the ranks over time, we need a growth rate that is better than 3.7 percent.

This is the position that the ACT party puts to the Government: things are getting worse, and I invite Government members to say why. I will give them what I think are two reasons why that is happening. One reason is tax. Yes, the tax in New Zealand has gone up. On the same day that we had the Budget Policy Statement debated in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, a Treasury document was tabled, which stated that if we continued with a 15c tax rate for income up to $9,500, then lowered all income tax to 21 percent, it would cost $5 billion. The document then stated that that would improve growth by between 1 and 1.5 percent. To give members an idea of the impact that would have, the Business Roundtable made the interesting statement that if the United States had grown at 1 percent less than it did from 1870 to 1980, then it would be no wealthier than Mexico. A 1 percent improvement in growth is huge. Treasury basically said that if the Government adopted ACT party policy, it would be fair, it would be progressive, and we could afford it.

The second matter I will draw to the attention of the Government is the sheer number of regulations and laws that this Government keeps on passing and imposing upon business. If it wants to know the reason why it has not been able to increase the growth rate that was achieved by Winston Peters, it should realise that it is because of a combination of things: too much red tape, too many regulations, too many laws, and taxes that are too high.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green): Child poverty was today’s No. 1 issue at question time, and so it should be—and not just because our children are our future, I say for the benefit of Mr Prebble and Mr Hide. I will refer to Mr Prebble’s rudeness to submitters at the hearings on the Budget Policy Statement, although I was not going to do so. I was quite embarrassed by the way he treated genuine submitters from organisations like the Public Health Association, the Sustainable Energy Forum, Unicef, and the Council for International Development who were there to participate in the democratic process and who were genuinely trying to contribute to the Government’s Budget preparation process. Mr Prebble accused those worthy submitters of being lobby groups, and complained that his mates in the Business Roundtable and Federated Farmers were not getting more time to make their submissions. Well, I am grateful that all the submitters who asked to be heard did get equal time, because that is exactly what they deserved.

There is a fundamental flaw with the Budget Policy Statement process—and I hope Mr Prebble is listening to this, because he might even agree with this concern. It is a good thing that the Government produces its Budget Policy Statement each December. It is a very comprehensive document that enables the whole country to see what direction the Government is intending to take with the next Budget. It also provides as a bonus a December Economic and Fiscal Update, which is always revealing. I will come to that shortly. Submitters have the opportunity to make a submission on that statement. We were blessed with a wide range of submissions and some were very constructive. There were only 11 submissions, but it was very much a case of quality rather than quantity.

But the problem we have is that the Minister of Finance does not have to listen to those submissions. In fact, he can literally ignore them. They fall on deaf ears. He is not required to be there when the submitters make their submissions and he is not required to respond in writing to those submissions. Neither, I am afraid, is the Finance and Expenditure Committee. What happens is that, despite submitters going to a lot of trouble to put in their thoughts on the Budget Policy Statement, and despite the fact that we give those submitters a small amount of time to say what they have to say, when we produce a report on the process it by and large covers only the issues that MPs raise with the Minister. I for one know that I ran out of time in my 5 minutes to raise all the issues that I would have liked to cover with the Minister.

So it means that the Minister is not obliged to respond to all the issues that we raise, and neither is our report obliged to cover all the issues that we raise. For example, despite a very comprehensive submission from the Council for International Development on New Zealand’s appalling level of overseas development assistance, there is not a single mention of that in the report. More to the point, the Government has not had to respond to the call by the council to stop shirking its responsibilities as an international citizen and increase our level of overseas development assistance to the 0.7 percent that the New Zealand Government has committed to, over and over again. This commitment goes back at least as far as the conference in Johannesburg when Rob Storey, on behalf of the National Party, committed to that figure. So that is a real problem. I think the solution is that the Minister of Finance should be required to respond to the issues raised in the submissions.

One issue he certainly should be required to respond to was the submissions that we had on child poverty, because, despite the Government’s sterling defence today of its actions, it is not doing enough to reduce child poverty. Child poverty is a crucial issue not just because our children are our future. Obviously, if we do not set them on the right path in life our own security is under threat. But let us be civilised rather than selfish in our attitude towards our young people; after all, the mark of a civilised society is how we treat our most vulnerable—and our most vulnerable citizens are the children who are growing up in poverty in New Zealand.

Let us face it: this Parliament and successive Governments do not have a good track record when it comes to tackling child poverty. Labour and National—and I should say ACT as well—prefer to squabble about getting New Zealand’s conventional economic performance into the top half of the OECD. I do not see anywhere near as much heat, let alone light, shed on the fundamental issue of the upbringing of our children.

Today, National’s Judith Collins tried to undermine the recent Unicef report, which reveals that New Zealand’s level of child poverty is actually the fourth-worst of the 26 countries in the OECD. We are ahead of only Italy, the United States, and Mexico, and that is because the report covered the period to the year 2000—in other words, when National was in power. National’s performance was appalling. Children growing up in poverty actually increased by 2 percent during those failed years of a National-led Government.

But it is not just National that should be indicted for allowing the number of children growing up poor to increase. From 1990 to 1993 the National Government was on its own, but from 1993 to 1996 it had an arrangement with Peter Dunne and his former United New Zealand Party of that time. Despite everything that United Future says about being family-friendly, child poverty got worse in New Zealand. Then, of course, it was the turn of Winston Peters and his wide boys from 1996 onwards, and again child poverty continued to deteriorate. When that party fell apart, it was ACT that National relied on until it was tipped out in 1999.

All those parties—National, ACT, New Zealand First, and United Future—are culpable for what happened. Labour is right to crow that it is doing something about child poverty, but it is only half right. For a start, it spent 5 years focused on economic performance, instead of on our young citizens in need. During that time, the Government literally built its surplus on the back of those poor kids. During that time child poverty did not get any worse, but neither did it get much better.

Only now is the Government finally implementing its Working for Families package, but in the process Labour is deliberately discriminating against children who are growing up in beneficiary families. How will those children feel when the kids next door get new shoes and a bike to go to school, when their parents cannot afford to provide them with a basic nutritious diet?

Let us face it, a basic nutritious diet is one of the building blocks for our young people. Today everyone is talking about the need to increase productivity, but how will we increase productivity when kids are still going to school without a full stomach from a decent breakfast, and at lunchtime kids are not provided with a decent lunch? At the same time we expect them to learn and we expect them to be able to have a command of reading, writing, and arithmetic, let alone a whole range of social skills. That is simply not possible and not fair, and this Government is not doing enough about it with its Working for Families package, both in terms of its extent and its scope.

We are left with a situation right now of employers—and I met a few last week—saying to me that they are having to run adult literacy classes for their staff, because children are leaving schools without those basic skills. The Government has the responsibility to make sure that no child leaves school in this country without those basic skills.

The Government also has some other responsibilities to ensure that we do have an educated, productive, civilised workforce in the future, and a key area is the whole area of energy sustainability. Unfortunately, unless I get an extension, I will not have enough time to cover that issue, but suffice to say the Budget Policy Statement does not do enough to face up to that reality.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): The Budget Policy Statement for 2005, although it has a few positive points, is generally seen in a negative light by United Future. The first point I want to make is that the statement forecasts additional revenue from higher-than-expected tax receipts and other sources of more than $5,676,000 million for the period 2005 to 2008, in comparison with the May 2004 Budget, which was completed just 6 months earlier. Let us be clear about the matter. That is $5.68 billion over and above the amount that Treasury, and therefore the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Revenue, had expected to be collected just in May of last year. So between May and December the Government forecast an additional increase in revenue of $5.68 billion. Put another way, when compared with the last Budget, the Budget Policy Statement represents a $5.68 billion windfall to the Government—money it did not expect to receive.

Given those realities, I find Dr Cullen’s response to the new forecasts quite extraordinary. The Budget Policy Statement was released on 14 December 2004 and was accompanied by a press release from the Minister, which stated in reference to that windfall that his intention was to bank some of it and to spend the rest on new initiatives. There is no evidence at all that the Minister gave even one second’s consideration to the possibility that the windfall, which must have been in excess of his spending needs—even in excess of his wish list; those initiatives that he had foreseen at the time of the Budget—should therefore really be left in the pockets and purses of New Zealand taxpayers. It would have then been the hard-working Kiwi battlers, rather than the Minister, who were empowered to make the decision to bank some of it and to spend the rest. That is exactly what the Minister of Finance should have done with regard to the windfall.

The Minister is, after all—as I have consistently pointed out—collecting a great deal more tax than he was in 1999. His failure to index the taxation brackets for the 13 percent inflation that has occurred since 1999 means that, in real terms, he is now collecting around $900 million per year by way of an increase in the rate of taxation itself. That is hardly the kind of outcome that the people who had read in Helen Clark’s credit card commitments in 1999 that Labour was not going to increase the taxation rates would have expected. A further $900 million as a result of an increase in the rate of taxation was not in any way foreshadowed by the credit card. My interpretation is that it is actually a broken promise.

I do not believe for one moment, given the overall strength of this Budget, that New Zealand should accept the Budget Policy Statement. When Dr Cullen presented evidence to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I asked him directly whether he gave any consideration at all to the possibility of tax cuts. His answer was no. Why not? Surely any Minister, having set a Budget that covered both income and expenditure, on receiving a $5.68 billion forecast windfall over the next 4 years would, and indeed should, have given detailed consideration to the possibility of a tax cut. But let us wait; it gets worse. I then asked Dr Cullen, if he were to continue as Minister of Revenue beyond this coming election, when New Zealanders may expect to see a tax reduction, even to offset the effects of inflation—in other words, to return taxation levels in real terms to where they were when he assumed office in 1999. The Minister essentially dodged the question, and he refused to set any kind of date. Instead, he just said that it would depend upon his judgment around fiscal circumstances and priorities in 2006 and beyond.

We are left in the unenviable position, as a nation, of wondering whether, if Dr Cullen continues as the Minister of Revenue after this year’s election, we will ever see a tax cut. Are we to wait until inflation hits 20 percent more than the 1999 level? Are we to wait until it hits 30 percent? When it has moved by 30 percent since 1999 will we still see people paying 33c in the dollar at $38,000 a year, and 39c in the dollar at $65,000 a year? At that point in time the average wage in this country will probably be $65,000 a year, and those earning it will be paying tax at 39c in the dollar, because that is the inevitable outcome of the Minister’s attitude towards these matters. I guess, to give Dr Cullen credit, he is at least being honest. He is clearly signalling to the people of this country that he does not have tax cuts on his horizon, does not think about them, and does not give them a moment’s consideration. I hope that at some point the media will pick up on that reality and will begin to fulfil their responsibility to ensure that the voters of New Zealand are fully informed in relation to Dr Cullen’s attitude.

Also, at a macroeconomic level the monetary policy effects as between banking and spending by the Government, and banking and spending of an equivalent amount by the long-suffering taxpayers, are neutral. We on the Finance and Expenditure Committee have asked detailed questions of Dr Bollard, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, in that regard. It is possible for tax cuts to be made at this point in time without putting pressure on inflation, and hence interest rates, provided that they are accompanied by a strong message to New Zealanders to use the extra money to pay down their debt—something that households at this point are, in fact, very keen to do. People have very high levels of mortgages, hire purchase payments, credit card payments, and debts of all kinds. Many households are really now stretched almost beyond breaking point. It does not help, incidentally, that from 1 April people will have to fork out another 5c a litre for gasoline. I think that if we were to cut taxes at this point in time, households would therefore reduce their debt levels, and that that would be very, very positive for the New Zealand economy in every way. I see no negatives whatsoever flowing from that. But no, the Government does not intend to do that. It has decided that it knows best, and it will therefore bank and spend the $5.68 billion windfall. Accordingly, in regard to the big-ticket items of tax cuts, United Future finds itself in fundamental disagreement with the Government.

There is another reality that I need to draw to the attention of the House. Let us suppose for a moment that, in addition to the Minister refusing to actually cut tax, there is also a fundamental unfairness in the existing taxation system. Should not the Minister in those circumstances ensure, first, that the taxation system is fair? After all, for Kiwis fairness is a fundamental value. Let us take a sole-income family on $60,000 a year as an example. Under the current system that family pays tax of $14,670 per annum. But under income splitting, which is United Future’s policy, that would be reduced to $11,700—a saving of $2,970 per annum, or $57 a week. Such an option is not presently available to couples under the New Zealand taxation system, but it should be.

The status quo is grossly unfair, for a number of reasons. Firstly, a family with dependent children on a single income of $60,000 is, as illustrated in the figures above, paying almost $3,000 a year more than an equivalent family where each partner earns $30,000 per annum. That is unfair, because those families’ needs are essentially the same. Secondly, the present taxation system means that people who have no dependants pay exactly the same amount of tax as people with dependants. Obviously the sole breadwinner in, say, a family of four—2 adults and 2 children—has an income need that is greater than that of a single individual. In addition couples who are self-employed, in farming or in business, and retired couples are already able to split their income for taxation purposes. So it is fundamentally unfair, therefore, that the only people who are not able to do that are working families with children whose income is derived from salary or wages. They are the only ones who are unable to split their income, and that is fundamentally unfair.

Income splitting for couples with dependent children would rectify and correct a fundamental anomaly in the present taxation system. Income splitting should permit a couple with dependent children to allocate their income for taxation purposes on a fifty-fifty basis. Each partner would then be taxed as if he or she had personally earned a 50 percent share, with a significant reduction in income tax. That would be fair.

DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Budget Policy Statement 2005. The published document records that the country’s finances are in very, very good shape. This Labour-led Government has overseen the wise stewardship of the economy under the wise leadership of the Rt Hon Helen Clark and her very able Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen. The finances of the New Zealand Government are in the best shape they have been in for decades.

The amount of gross Crown debt owed by the Government equalled 35 percent of GDP when this Government came to power in 1999. That was down from a terrible 70 percent of GDP left by the National Government under Mr Muldoon in the 1980s, when $1 in $5 of tax was being spent on interest payments. This Government has reduced it further, from 35 percent of GDP to 24 percent of GDP this year, so that we are in the good position where only $1 in $20 of tax is being spent on interest payments, rather than $1 in $5. The position for net debt, which is net of assets that the Crown holds, is even better, especially when the Superannuation Fund is taken into account. As Mr Anderton mentioned earlier, it is projected in this Budget Policy Statement that within about 5 years net Crown debt will be obliterated and the Crown net position will be positive—which will be for the first time in decades.

Alongside that very wise stewardship of gross Crown debt, the economy has prospered. Unemployment is now down to 3.8 percent—something we should be saying “Hooray!” about in the streets. New Zealand now has the lowest rate of unemployment in the OECD.

Helen Duncan: A good Government.

DAVID PARKER: A very good Government. That means we have more than 250,000 more people in jobs, compared with 1999, and 100,000 fewer beneficiaries. In turn, this has contributed to New Zealand’s growth rate in recent years being amongst the highest in the OECD. Not only is New Zealand’s performance better relative to earlier decades but it is also better relative to OECD averages. Indeed, the performance of New Zealand compared with OECD averages is even more impressive than the comparison with New Zealand alone. The rest of the world has had declining growth rates while New Zealand’s growth has stayed amongst the highest in the OECD.

Against that background of strong finances, the Government in last year’s Budget announced that most of the additional money that was available to be spent by the Government would be directed to families with children. The Labour Government believes that that is the right thing to do, and I most certainly support it. One of the reasons why it is important to do so is that in the prior two decades, between 1986 and 2001, there was a lamentable concentration of wealth amongst the top 10 percent of New Zealand families. The top 10 percent of households garnered an increase in disposable income, in real terms, of around 30 percent. The next 70 percent of the population stayed relatively static, and the bottom 20 percent of households went backwards. During that period the income inequality in New Zealand increased most markedly, and amongst those who suffered most were families with children. FO That is why the Government is quite firm in its viewpoint that the tax concessions that are able to be made ought to be directed to families with children.

As we heard from the Hon Steve Maharey today during question time, the effect of that on child poverty is most dramatic. It has been studied, and it was announced today during question time, that the effect will be that New Zealand’s rate of child poverty will halve—in fact, it will more than halve—so that rather than a greater proportion of families being below the poverty line, as measured by their being on half of the median income, that proportion will markedly improve. The report referred to was a 2005 Unicef report called Child Poverty in Rich Nations. It showed that in New Zealand in 2000, 16.3 percent of children were living in households below the poverty line. That figure had worsened by 2 percentage points during the 1990s. By contrast, New Zealand is absolutely charging forward so that, after the Working for Families package comes into effect, a very low percentage of children will be living below the poverty line.

We have heard some inaccurate statements in this House about crocodile tears being shed over the average wage rate, and it has been asserted that the average wage has not moved up enough between 1990 and 2004. The reality is that the quarterly employment survey shows that between 1999 and 2004 average household incomes increased from $663 per week to $770 per week. That is a very significant increase in itself, but that average in itself underestimates the true increases in income. The reality is that when 200,000 people are put back into work, generally they are the 200,000 people who are less employable than the people who were already in the workforce. Therefore, on average, they are lower skilled and lower paid. So the extra 200,000 people who are in work actually suppress the average wage, because those 200,000 people earn less than the average wage. So the reality is, in fact, much better than is shown by the quarterly employment survey figure, which, in itself, shows significant improvement from 1999 to 2004. A better measure is the total amount that is paid in salaries and wages to employees—to people working in New Zealand. That number increased from $45 billion in 1999 to $59 billion in 2004. There was a 31 percent increase in the total compensation or earnings being paid to employees over that period. That is a much more meaningful statistic, and it shows that the earnings of workers during that period have increased most substantially.

One of the other catchcries we hear from the National Party—we heard it again from Dr Brash today—is that crocodile tears are being shed over an alleged lack of performance compared with Australia. It is worth recording once again that the statistics do not bear out Dr Brash’s comments. In 1980 Australia was positioned at No. 10 on the GDP per capita rankings in OECD countries. New Zealand was positioned at No. 18. By the end of that decade, Australia had gone back six places from position 10 to position 16, while New Zealand went back only one place, from 18 to 19. In the 1980s, New Zealand’s performance, relative to Australia’s, was better. That was a decade of primarily Labour Government—and Mr Prebble and others played an important role in that, which I acknowledge.

But the 1990s saw an austerity visited upon New Zealand that was not visited upon Australia. The 1990s, the decade of National Government—andthe decade when Dr Brash was in charge of the Reserve Bank—saw Australia go forward four places in the GDP per capita rankings, from position 16 to position 12, while New Zealand went back by one place from position 19 to 20. So the big gaps arose during the 1990s when the National Party and Dr Brash were in control. In the most recent years, of course, the rate of growth in New Zealand has exceeded that of Australia, so that gap is, once again, being narrowed.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville): That was the Labour member for Otago, Mr Parker—who is otherwise known as quite an intelligent member, I think—reading out the speech prepared for him by the Labour research unit. Mr Parker did not believe that speech. He was shaking his head when he was reading much of it out, and he will be shaking his head later on when he reads his Hansard record.

But I want to correct one small thing for Mr Parker, which he raises sometimes at the Finance and Expenditure Committee—that is, the issue around New Zealand’s going further back in the OECD and Australia’s moving ahead. He talks quite a lot about that period as being in the early part of the 1990s, when Don Brash was Governor of the Reserve Bank. In one sense he is factually correct: Don Brash was Governor of the Reserve Bank, and it is true that New Zealand slipped further down the OECD ladder. Of course, what Mr Parker conveniently forgets is that all economies have lags and leads. There is quite a long lag effect when an economy the size of New Zealand’s is being restructured. We were one of the most closed economies in the world prior to 1984. Then the Roger Douglas - David Lange Labour Government of 1984 and the subsequent Jim Bolger Government of 1990 did an awful lot of reform work, but that took some time to flow through. Mr Parker, who as I say is a very intelligent member, knows full well that it would take some time for that to flow through to the economy.

I turn now to the Budget Policy Statement, and I will make a few statements on that. The first is that the Government has been having a fine old time in the latter period of this debate, talking about how it should be taking credit for the strong economy we are going through at the moment. Of course, the economy has not been any stronger in the last 5 years than it was in the 5 years prior to that. It has been growing at around 3.7 percent for the last decade. That is nothing new, actually. [Interruption] Basically, it has been exactly the same.

What has been changing, though—and I think this is a point that Labour would be well advised to have a bit of a look at—is what is causing the growth in our economy, which is that the growth is consumption-led. New Zealanders owe a lot of money. They are up to their necks in debt now. That is what is happening. They have remortgaged their houses. They do not have any money because Dr Cullen spends it for them, so they have had to get out there, remortgage their houses, and draw down on their credit cards.

We will be producing some quite interesting information for the House in the next few weeks that I predict will show the level of indebtedness this country has. [Interruption] Absolutely. That has led off the higher house prices that people have been able to draw down their mortgages on, but it has very little to do with anything the Government has actually done.

The message we should be getting from the Budget Policy Statement is quite clear: Michael Cullen is going to do a “Rob Muldoon”. He will come before this House on Budget day and say that he has spent the lot. There will be no room for tax cuts because he will have spent the lot. That will be the message from Dr Cullen. He will spend every dollar available to him, and any New Zealander who thinks that he or she may be getting a tax cut when Budget day comes around is sadly misguided, I am afraid. Despite all the attempts that Helen Clark tried to make through spin doctors when she gave her Prime Minister’s statement earlier in the year, despite putting up former Cabinet Minister John Tamihere to tell the public that, yes, there really would be a corporate tax cut, and despite Michael Cullen telling the media on several occasions that he would not be ruling anything in or ruling anything out, Michael Cullen came with his tail between his legs to the select committee and told us that it was one thing or the other: either he would spend the money, or he would give the corporates of New Zealand a tax cut and spend the money.

There will be no tax cuts on Budget day. The message from Dr Cullen will be that he has spent the lot. He will say that he has spent it better than we could spend it because he knows what is right, and this Budget will be the corporate equivalent of what the last Budget was, when Labour said: “We’ll tell you how to spend money. We’ll tell you what’s right for you.” But in terms of New Zealanders making choices for themselves, that will not be happening under this Budget.

Another thing that will happen on Budget day is that the Minister of Finance will come to Parliament and say to the people of New Zealand that he is the only New Zealander who understands the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes—the only New Zealander intelligent enough to understand the term he created—which, he told the public, would be the right way to measure the economy. We are running the largest surplus on an operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes in New Zealand’s history—$7.4 billion, and it is going up.

Dr Cullen knows exactly what that means. It means that he is overtaxing the people of New Zealand, and because he is now unable to get his message through—that somehow his spending is not enough and that there really is room for tax cuts—he is trying to recreate the wheel and invent a new title. Last week we saw a sort of thinly veiled attempt at that when he released some data on the available cash position, and that will be what he will argue for in the coming weeks—that somehow New Zealanders are not bright enough to understand that an operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes of $7.4 billion means there is room for tax cuts.

Peter Brown: How much?

JOHN KEY: A $7.4 billion surplus is what the Government is running, and yesterday it announced an increase in petrol tax of another $200 million a year. The message from Dr Cullen is that the Government does not have enough money. There is a $7.4 billion surplus, but we are all thought to be so stupid that the only person who can understand it, apparently, is Michael Cullen.

When one funds one’s capital programme it is a very interesting strategy. I suppose that Michael Cullen will tell New Zealanders that they should be looking at their household budget on an available cash basis, as well—in which case very few of them will be buying houses, or doing any repairs on them of any sort whatsoever. It is to do with intergenerational fairness, which is an issue when a road is built that might last 50 years but it then has to be paid for by one generation in 1 year. I find it quite astounding.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It’s naive.

JOHN KEY: That is exactly right; it is naive.

I want to turn to Dr Cullen’s spending history, because it makes quite interesting reading for someone who tells us he is a fiscal conservative. He came to Parliament with a $6 billion spending cap in the 1999-2002 period, and he could not keep to that cap. He broke it and spent a touch more than that—about $6.1 billion. He said he would get rid of the cap, because it was a rather annoying thing to have some sort of control on his spending. And away he went; the horse was well and truly out of the barn at that point.

So over the last 3 years Dr Cullen will have spent an additional $12.7 billion—a hundred and something percent increase on the term earlier—and all projections show that spending will increase by dramatically more than that going forward into the next term. If Labour gets another term it will be spending something like $14 billion, $15 billion, or $16 billion in additional spending.

New Zealanders probably would not mind that additional spending if they could sit down and watch their TV sets at night and see evidence of how good a quality that spending was. But every night when they turn on the television they are faced with yet more horror stories of where their hard-earned taxpayer dollars have gone. They have seen spending in community education, in wānangas, and in some tertiary education areas where the quality has been so poor that the completion rates have been 30 percent. Yes, we have to invest massively in upskilling New Zealanders—and a future National Government will absolutely be doing that—but that is not a licence for some individuals in New Zealand just to go out, waste money, and not deliver performance for the taxpayer.

We are not seeing a Government that is building on the strong economic conditions of the last decade in order to future-proof New Zealand for future economic growth. We are not seeing investment made in infrastructure in any meaningful way, at all. We are not seeing solutions to the energy crisis that New Zealand is going to suffer. We are not seeing New Zealanders able to keep a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We are not getting people to see the benefits of rising wages, because that benefit is stolen from them through inflation and fiscal drag, and through being dragged up into higher tax brackets. We all know the stories that one in four secondary school teachers in New Zealand now pay the top rate of taxation, and that the number of policemen paying the top rate has gone from 13 percent 3 years ago to 39 percent now.

I predict the next Budget in large part will be very much what we have seen in the past—tax and spend from a Labour Government, a Labour Government that will have spent the lot. There will be no tax cuts; it will be another very disappointing Budget. The only people cheering on Budget day will be Labour Party caucus members who will be told by their senior whip that if they do not cheer, their future careers will be limited.

LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana): Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. It is almost a pleasure to follow the honourable member John Key, and to dispel the myth of depression that he is trying to exude all over our country.

I stand with pride and with joy to participate in this very important debate on our 2005 Budget Policy Statement, because I am a very proud member of this Labour Government. As a woman, a Kiwi, and a New Zealand - born Pacific Islander, I stand with pride when I see the diverse faces of our Government, and when I see the many communities that can participate and live a life of dignity.

I thank our Minister the Hon Dr Michael Cullen for managing our economy well. It is all very well being conservative and fiscally responsible, but it is important that we have the big picture and that our economy is sustainable. I also thank all those people who participated in the submission process for the Budget Policy Statement of 2005. Some of those were the Public Health Association, the University Students Association, the National Council of Women, Federated Farmers, and the Business Roundtable.

The Budget Policy Statement of 2005 was published on 14 December 2004. In Dr Cullen’s remarks to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 16 February 2005, he noted that things had moved on, and that whilst the Budget Policy Statement forecasts were then some months old the strength of the economy had remained greater for longer than most forecasters had predicted.

The Budget Policy Statement has three main policy goals: the first is to maintain fiscal and economic responsibility; the second is to build capacity to cope with future shocks and pressures; and the third is to ensure a fair society and to improve New Zealand’s economic performance. Our Government’s progress paints a very positive picture in relation to those three main policy goals and to our Budget Policy Statement. It shows us—and the facts speak for themselves—that our economy is in good heart and our businesses are doing well. The Hon Richard Prebble remarked on the fact that our trade figures are looking good and that our exporters are doing well.

There is also tremendous business growth locally. Firms are employing more people, and our unemployment statistics show that the unemployment rate is down to 3.8 percent. That is really, really great news. Our Government is overseeing one of the strongest economies for years. Economic growth is still very strong at 4.6 percent, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD.

This afternoon I want to reflect on the impact upon the people of our Wellington region, and also of my Mana electorate, of this Labour-led Government, its sound Budget policies, and its responsible economic management. Many of our households have every reason to celebrate. Local figures from Statistics New Zealand have revealed that the average gross weekly household income in the Wellington region has risen by 16.1 percent. It is up from $1,128 a week in 1999 to $1,310 a week now. The lowest paid workers—30,000 people across the country; many of whom also live in my electorate—have seen their hourly rate increase by 29 percent to $9 for adults, and by over 28 percent to $7.20 for youth.

Good management through the Budget also means that we have more for education. In Porirua and Mana we now have extra secondary school teachers from the latest Government staffing boost, and we are also answering a demand for more teachers in areas like maths and science. We have thousands of new bonded scholarships for student teachers, worth up to $20,000 each. We have put lots of money into early childhood participation, and throughout my electorate, where I visit a lot of our pre-school centres, I can see the increased participation that has huge spin-offs in the long run.

Our young people of our four colleges in Porirua participate in the Gateway programme. That means that many students can do placements with local businesses and trade places, so that they can actually carve out their careers and look forward to jobs at the end of their study. That Gateway programme has been absolutely wonderful for our area.

In the tertiary area debt is a big issue for students and families, but under this Government the cost of average tuition fees has fallen. The student loan debt between 2000 and 2004 has gone up by just over 15 percent, but the student loan write-off policy allows for no interest to accrue while students are studying.

Prudent fiscal management is releasing funds for improving the safety of our roads and reducing congestion. The residents of Kapiti and Mana—people from Darren Hughes’ electorate and my electorate—benefit enormously from the $225 million boost for transport. It means that a lot of that funding will go into existing passenger transport, and into rail in particular, and a further $160 million will go to projects to ease congestion and improve access. A lot of that funding will also go towards increasing our rail funding, which is needed to upgrade services on the line to Paraparaumu. Of course, $15 million has already been allocated for the construction of a median barrier on Centennial Highway. I want to thank the many people, but especially the communities, who have advocated strongly to their MPs and all key stakeholders—for example, Ministers and Transit New Zealand—to ensure that their priorities are being met. We know there is still more to do.

More important, though, is the fact that families are better off. Many families in Porirua and Mana are taking advantage of the Working for Families package. I am absolutely thrilled about that assistance for our local families. Many, many people in the area have made use of the free phone, in terms of ringing up and claiming eligibility for the financial assistance that supports them to participate more in the life of the community, and especially in the school life of their children.

During the last 5 years Dr Cullen has buried the myth that a Labour Minister of Finance and a Labour Government could not manage the economy responsibly. One year’s good management could be just good luck, but 5 years of prudent, responsible fiscal management is a record that any Minister of Finance can be proud of, and it reflects much more than just good luck. The famous golfer Gary Player once said: “The more I practise, the luckier I get.” Well, Dr Cullen has shown, through his Budget Policy Statement, that practice and responsible fiscal management have made the difference with New Zealand’s economy. I hope Dr Cullen’s golf scores are improving at the same rate!

Under Labour, New Zealand is moving ahead. Our Budget Policy Statement will continue to demonstrate our continuing commitment to an economy and a society that are fair and innovative, inclusive and creative, with a capable Government that is proud of Kiwis. Under the leadership of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, we will continue to provide those policies and projects, and work towards long-term goals of fiscal stability and financial security for all New Zealanders.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): When we hear a politician starting to believe his or her party’s own spin, we know that the party is in some trouble. That is what we have just heard. We have just heard the honourable member Winnie Laban talk about how families in New Zealand are better off.

Lindsay Tisch: She’s got a lovely smile, though.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: She has—she is a good person. But, as I said, it is so sad when Government members start to believe their own spin; it is the beginning of the end.

Winnie Laban said that families in New Zealand are better off. What are the facts? The facts are that under this Labour Government the average after-tax household income in New Zealand has not improved at all. The average household in New Zealand—after tax, in real dollar terms—is no better off today, despite the best economic environment in my 20-year political career. The average household’s after-tax real-dollar income is no better than when Labour came into office. That is an indictment on the Government. To make it worse, the difference between the average worker in New Zealand and the average worker in Australia has increased by $4,000 a year. New Zealanders are now $4,000 a year worse off. We were already behind Australia, but the gap has increased from $5,000 a year when Labour came into office to $9,000 a year now—and Labour says that has been good for New Zealand! Our average household, in real dollar terms, is no better off, despite a tremendous economic tailwind, and we are further behind Australia than ever before.

Looking at this Budget Policy Statement, what is so sad about it is that during these good economic times New Zealanders are no better off. And they are good economic times. I cannot remember primary product commodity prices being as high for 20 years. I know this because I am involved in farming myself. Beef prices have not been as high for 20 years. I used to be involved in marketing dairy products before coming to this place. Dairy prices have not been as high for 20 years.

Hon Richard Prebble: And, of course, Helen Clark was responsible for that!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Of course, Labour claims credit for that. But the tragedy is that, despite this situation, this Government has squandered a once-in-a-generation opportunity to lock in a tremendous programme for the future to enable future generations in this country to benefit from these good economic times. Yet what does the Budget Policy Statement tell us? It tells us that through to 2009 the per capita growth that Treasury projects—and this Government obviously accepts it—will be 1.9 percent per year. That is less than what we achieved during the 1990s. For the last 12 years, from 1993 until now, we achieved 2.5 percent per capita GDP growth, and the projection in this Budget Policy Statement is that that growth will decline significantly through to 2009, down to 1.9 percent.

The figures do not mean a lot to listeners. The tragedy is that this Labour Government had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to really put in place structures to enable this country to blossom, but instead of doing that the Government has tied everyone’s hands with more regulation. There is more regulation around labour markets and more regulation around anything anyone wants to do, and that does not work. Labour tried to put more regulation around tertiary institutions, and they broke out in boils all over the place—as see have seen with Christchurch Polytechnic and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa.

If we look at this Budget Policy Statement we see, quite clearly, that this Government is just a big tax-and-spend Government, and that is one reason why the projections, as we look ahead, are for poorer per capita GDP growth than we have had. We achieved the growth of the last 12 years despite the Asian financial crisis and 2 years of tremendous droughts in this country, yet the Budget Policy Statement, in looking ahead, says that our per capita growth is coming down. One of the reasons is that this Labour Government is simply trying to control too much of the economy. There is more and more tax. I want to remind New Zealanders that if they stay with this Labour Government—heaven forbid—the Budget Policy Statement shows that the average person will pay $4,000 more tax in the next 3 years under this big tax-and-spend Labour Government.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Labour members have been crowing this afternoon. They have been telling us how good things are. Perhaps the most succinct statement we have heard came from Mr Parker. He said that this country’s finances are in very, very good shape—not very good shape, but very, very good shape. Perhaps the last Labour member to take a call this afternoon will tell us why, then, the Government will impose a 5.6c petrol tax on the average New Zealander come 1 April.

Hon Richard Prebble: They just like tax. They get drunk on it.

PETER BROWN: The Government just likes taxes. Perhaps Government members can tell us, so that we can understand, why it is necessary, when the country’s finances are in very, very good shape, to impose a further tax on the average New Zealander.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance, when answering questions on this petrol tax, was asked why he had supported the Winston Peters - sponsored bill that some time ago, in 1995, would have provided for all excise tax collected on petrol to go into a transport and roading fund. In 1995 Labour supported that. In answer to a question from the Hon Maurice Williamson, who asked whether Dr Cullen was the same person who had supported that bill, he said: “No. I am 10 years older and that much wiser.”

Do members know of the last person I am aware of who said something like that to his henchmen? Al Capone! When Al Capone was a young crook he told his people he was a darn good mobster. When he grew a bit older he said he was the perfect mobster. Officials could not touch him and the police could not touch him, but in the end they got him through income tax fraud. I just hope Michael Cullen takes note of that, because with the maturity of age he has lost the plot.

Darren Hughes: Oh, what!

PETER BROWN: Well, let us go back a few years. Let us just suppose that in 1995 the Winston Peters - sponsored bill had been put through. By this time there would have been something close to $5 billion invested in roading or transport-related matters. That is the difference in monetary terms that the bill would have made. What would it have done for the country? We would not have the problems we have, many hundreds of people would not have died on our roads, and our economic well-being would be that much better.

If members do not believe that money invested in roading is just that, then they should read the Allen report. I have a copy here. They should read it. The Allen report, produced by the Automobile Association and various business people in this country, suggests that $2.4 billion invested now will, in a relatively short time, produce economic gains of $1.6 billion per year.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Who commissioned that? The road transport federation.

PETER BROWN: The Minister might think that is funny, but there are huge gains to be made by investment in roading in this country—huge gains. I say to the member, and I say it sincerely, that had he stuck to his word and had he convinced a few people in the National Party to support that bill of Winston Peters in 1995, this country would be a lot better off. It is no good now crowing that the country’s finances are in very, very good shape, when we will go to the working people come 1 April and put some more tax on petrol. The price has gone up since that bill was passed. I believe that the Minister of Finance had the bill amended in order to give him a bit of flexibility to introduce the increase when prices were going down. But prices have actually gone up, and I would not mind betting that they will have gone up even more by 1 April, when the Minister is going to impose another 5.6c per litre of tax on petrol.

On top of that, the Minister is going to index to inflation the excise tax collected on fuel. Let me ask the honourable Minister, if he thinks that is fair, why he does not index to inflation the money he pays out to rest home care. Rest homes are way behind the eight ball. Late last year, I think, the Government agreed to a 3 percent increase, which I understand has not been implemented. The Government passed holidays legislation and gave nothing—nothing at all—to rest homes in order to pay their staff, who care for New Zealanders.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Thank you for the call, Mr Speaker, and I say that soon you will be able to call me the father of the House. [Interruption] It is based on continuity, I am afraid. I want to come to the interesting aspect of this debate. We have listened to—[Interruption] Well, Mr Prebble can call me “Dad” if he likes—one continuous song from the Opposition throughout this debate. Opposition members have said that the economy is doing too well under this Labour-led Government, that the Government finances are too good under this Labour-led Government, that there are too many people in employment under this Labour-led Government—and that we are going to hell in a handcart, as a consequence of all that. That has been the line taken by Opposition speaker after Opposition speaker.

I want to point out, firstly, that the Budget Policy Statement re-emphasises the long-term agenda this Government has. Unlike previous Governments in recent times, we are not governing just for the next 3 months or the next 3 years; we are governing for the long-term benefit of the vast majority of New Zealanders. We do not believe in having a big booze-up one night and a big hangover the next morning, in terms of governing this country. Yet almost every Opposition party believes in some variety of a booze-up, but does not want to face the reality of some variety of hangover as a consequence the next day—or, in the case of some members who start the booze-up rather late, the hangover probably comes in the evening. We are providing therefore, within the context of the Budget Policy Statement, fiscal stability and certainty. The markets, international observers, and businesses in New Zealand know how this Government is governing in fiscal terms. They know that there is a strong fiscal path forward, and that there will not be major lurches in policy from one extreme to another.

Secondly, we are providing for the future superannuation needs of New Zealanders. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund is building up assets rapidly—so well, indeed, that the National Party has done the flip-flop of all time, and has decided it will support the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. To be fair, ACT has remained staunch. ACT has stood by its belief that many people should be poor in their old age, and therefore it opposes the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. We have to give the ACT party marks for consistency. It has low marks for intelligence and low marks for humanity, but has high marks for consistency.

Thirdly, we are investing further and further in health and education. In this year’s Budget, health spending will see the largest increase that it has ever seen, in terms of the increased dollars going into Vote Health. That vote will deliver to us a massive improvement in primary health care throughout New Zealand. Indeed, one of the fiscal problems I face is that the primary health organisation policy has been more successful than the Government had forecast. More people have come into the primary health organisations than was forecast, and we are having, therefore, to front up with money earlier than we had originally anticipated, in terms of the primary health organisations. The result of that is that many more people are getting cheap visits to the doctor, and many more people are getting low-cost prescription charges. Therefore, low to middle income New Zealanders are able to afford to access proper primary health care, which is crucial to their long-term health status.

Then, we are providing money for infrastructure and business development. What every party in the Opposition wants to do is to provide the infrastructure, but those parties do not want to pay for that infrastructure. To be fair, the Green Party would not have the infrastructure at all in the first place, and therefore sees no reason to pay for it. But at least it is clear what the other parties want to do. They want to build roads out of nothing, they want to build bridges out of nothing and, presumably, they would have roads and bridges that went nowhere, as a consequence.

In this year’s Budget we will have some new priorities. We will have policies around savings and how we can assist people to lift the level of savings in New Zealand, particularly work-based savings. We will have policies around how we assist middle-income families into first home ownership, because that is a great difficulty and we are seeing declining homeownership levels amongst too many people. We could have argued 5 or 10 years ago that that was due to social choice, but the rate of decline in homeownership is clearly not socially or economically desirable, and is not being driven purely by choice.

What we have in the Opposition, some 6 or 7 months out from an election, is a party that aims to become the Government—the National Party—and one can see its members here. Mr Tisch has shrunk down behind his seat, and the only other member who is supporting him in the House is Mrs te Heuheu. National is a party in a state of ongoing crisis—a party whose own caucus members now refer to themselves as being like the cast from the television series, Six Feet Under. I will not go through the cast of Six Feet Under and say which particular member of the National Party front bench resembles which particular member of the cast, because I would very quickly get myself into serious trouble in terms of withdrawals and apologies, I tend to suspect.

Jill Pettis: Yes, yes—resist, resist!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: So I will resist—for once, I will resist that temptation.

Certainly, the National members are also becoming more widely known these days not as the National Party but the “Pyjama Party”. All I can say is that it is a bit like having a parachute on. I think the best thing that Dr Brash can do is to pull the cord and see whether he gets to a position of safety as a consequence of doing that. National’s view of life for average Kiwis is that we should have a diet of heated-up peas and frozen corned beef, and that is the future for the average Kiwi. Dr Brash is a lonely, out-of-touch, autocratic leader, who gives strange speeches without consulting with his caucus and his spokespeople, and then it all unravels as a consequence thereafter. He is a leader who barely participates in Parliament, and who has sat here for day after day, not asking a single question as Leader of the Opposition.

Darren Hughes: What did he say today?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that he said “Uh” today. I think that was his major contribution, in terms of understanding. During the year so far Dr Brash has managed to ask two main questions and seven supplementary questions—the Leader of the Opposition! When Helen Clark was Leader of the Opposition, she asked questions day after day after day. When Bill English was Leader of the Opposition, he asked questions every day in the House, but Dr Brash apparently does not need to ask any questions. Perhaps he thinks he has all the answers already. That may be the reason why he does not ask any questions.

And Dr Brash’s self-proclaimed chief strategist, Mr Murray McCully, has disappeared.

Jill Pettis: Missing in action.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: He is missing completely in action. Nobody knows where he has gone to. If Mr McCully were Tarzan, Jane would be going through the forest and trying to find him, but he is not Tarzan at the present time, so we do not know what has happened to him. Maybe he is working on a grand strategy that will be pulled out some time a month before the election, to a reaction of shock, awe, and horror from the rest of the political scene within New Zealand.

We have heard only one song from the Opposition: that the Government has a huge surplus, which means we can have tax cuts—bigger and bigger and bigger, depending on which party one is in—that will have no effect at all on the economy or on our ability to spend money in health, education, etc. Firstly, I say that is macroeconomic nonsense. In an economy where the manufacturing sector is running at 93 percent capacity, where the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar is already high, and where unemployment is low and employment very high, to feed extra billions of dollars into consumption would be pure macroeconomic madness at the present time. Any Government that would think about doing that in this position should be taken out and quietly shot. Secondly, I say that is fiscal nonsense. It confuses an operating surplus with a cash surplus.

Let us take what ACT said. ACT said that we could afford $5.8 billion of tax cuts without affecting current spending, because the operating surplus is about $6 billion. The cuts would pay for themselves, those members said, because we would have increased growth. Well, even if we accept the somewhat weird argument from certain Treasury officials that we could get 0.5 percent a year of extra growth in GDP—0.5 percent a year was what they were thinking was more possible—that is $800 million of extra GDP and $230 million of extra revenue, which does not go far towards meeting $5.8 billion dollars of reduced revenue. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, and that has been proved over and over again. Who does pay for tax cuts? Those who want to see a decent health system, those who need a decent pension system, those who actually want decent roads, those people who need assistance for educating their kids, and those people who cannot afford to pay the full cost of going to a doctor or the full cost of getting their prescriptions. That sounds remarkably like the kind of person who is a stalwart in the ACT party. It sounds remarkably unlike the vast majority of New Zealanders. Tax cuts do not heal, and they never will.

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

Ayes 69

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

Noes 50

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Māori Party 1.

Motion agreed to.

Voting

Correction

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call on private and local orders of the day Nos 1 and 2, I wish to inform the House that yesterday, when the House was considering the motion referring the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill to a select committee, the result of the vote on the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s amendment to the motion was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 45, Noes 74.

Bills

Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill that it take the bill part by part.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill that it take the bill part by part.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill

Procedure

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I almost do not like to do this, but I think that I must. The Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill, which is designed to set up the receiving authority for the Ngāti Awa claim, has a commentary attached to it in both English and Māori. Much like the bill that we dealt with yesterday, the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, there is a little difficulty with the two translations. In fact, we are on the same ground again. It is not a translation. There are 13 paragraphs in the English commentary and 15 in the Māori commentary. Now, the member might say that they are split. We have a right to know that what is in place in one translation fits with the other. My understanding was that the Office of Treaty Settlements had indicated that bills like this would have those translations done appropriately.

I am sure that someone will stand up and say cleverly that this is not actually an Office of Treaty Settlements issue, because it is a private bill brought by an outside organisation appropriately for consideration here. But what we should have, if we are expected to support this legislation, is the same rules applying to the settlement bill—and to any bill, for that matter—and that we are led to believe will now be the convention: that the two translations do fit with each other appropriately. I notice that although this is a private bill, we have officials from the ministry here. Therefore, the Government influence and involvement in the preparation of this bill is pretty obvious, and I think that it would be inappropriate for us to deal with this today while there are these translation difficulties.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the honourable member that it is my understanding that when this was dealt with on a previous occasion, it was decided the issue would be dealt with in a select committee. That is where I believe the matter rests.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We were told that a number of bills currently before select committees are settlement bills. The Office of Treaty Settlements has said that rather than bring Supplementary Order Papers to the House, or even bring them to the House for sending to a select committee, it will attempt to put an amendment through the select committee process. Let me tell members that it is a huge indulgence on the part of the Opposition to allow that to happen, because it is not the appropriate way for these things to be dealt with. Each one of those changes could be subject to quite a considerable amount of debate in the House.

I point out that the last time we got in this bind, the House lost almost 4 hours as we wrestled with what the process would be. This is a different bill. It is a private bill. Clearly, it has been put together by Te Puni Kōkiri. There are differences in the two commentaries, so the questions arise: what are we debating and what are we passing?

I make the point again that we have had 160 years of grievance, apparently because there are two versions of the Treaty of Waitangi. We are trying to sort those grievances out. We should not have settlement bills, or constructions around organisations receiving settlement, that have two versions, commentaries, or interpretations of what they are about. With all due respect to the position you outlined, Mr Speaker, it is correct as far as future settlement bills are concerned, particularly regarding those that are currently before a select committee, but it has nothing to do with the bill before us today.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find myself in great sympathy with the point raised by Mr Brownlee. It is a matter of regret to me that I am unable myself to translate the Māori language. When we receive a bill of this sort and we discover that half is in Māori and half is in English, and when we look at the texts, then from an intelligent point of view—paragraphing is one example—it does not appear that one text translates the other. We could debate this matter in the select committee—you are quite right in that ruling, Mr Speaker—but it appears to me that it would be helpful if the Speaker were at least to indicate that if the Government is going to bring bills that have translations, those translations must be accurate.

I am not saying that the translator has to certify that; I am just saying that it would be very useful if the Speaker were to make a ruling that there is an obligation on the presenter of a bill who decides to present a bill in more than one language—and, of course, only two are possible—to ensure that the translation is an accurate one. MPs are entitled to rely on that being the case.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there is a little bit of confusion from members opposite. I will just consult. First of all, Te Puni Kōkiri is not involved in this bill—it is a private bill prepared outside. [Interruption] Sorry? To offer advice; they are allowed to offer advice. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): We have a point of order.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If ever the member is in Government, he may find that that is the case. The text of this bill—if the member would care to listen and not give a running commentary from his seat on a point of order—is in English. There is no Māori text in the bill. The only text in Māori is in the schedule, which is a quotation from an existing piece of legislation, and there is an English version in the schedule. The bill is only in English.

The two versions the member referred to relate to the select committee commentary being in English and Māori. The commentary is interesting, but it is not what the House will enact. The House enacts the bill, not the select committee commentary. The select committee has chosen to have a commentary whereby the numbering of the paragraphs is different, but I am informed that it has considered the translation and is satisfied that the actual translations match in terms of meaning. That is what the committee is for. Either way, it is irrelevant to the consideration of the Committee of the whole House. It is not a fault in the text of what will be considered by the Committee. The Committee does not consider at any point the motion that it agree to the text of the commentary from the select committee. All the Committee can be asked to agree to is the preamble, Parts 1, 2, and 3, and back to the commencement and title clauses. They are in one language, English. The member does not have a point, and we do not care to repeat the nonsense we had on the other Ngāti Awa bill.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister’s view of things, it is now well understood that where there is some difficulty in interpreting a law, courts will refer to the commentary on a bill. We are told so repeatedly by the Law Commission and by many others. The commentary is supposed to be the expression of what Parliament intended in passing a law. I am simply saying that when we have two texts that clearly are not literal interpretations of each other, then we have a difficulty—certainly National members, from our perspective, have a difficulty in supporting it.

As to the comments made about the Māori Affairs Committee making a decision to go ahead along those lines, let me be very clear that the select committee is dominated by Government members. Although no one wants to pick an argument and see a bill come back in a split way, there most certainly was an expectation that this issue would be dealt with, subsequent to the difficulties we had with the recital in the main bill.

All I am saying is that if one or two things in this bill are wrong, and if in the future some disgruntled people in Ngāti Awa challenge the right of this organisation to deal with settlement monies, then quite clearly the matter would end up in a court, and a judge would have at least to look at the commentary to see what Parliament intended. If those people were able to argue that there was a difference between the two texts, then we are establishing a real bind for the future.

The real point in this case is that the Government is choosing to pass the settlement, but more than 70 percent of the eligible voters and recipients of the settlement offer did not vote for it.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I first say that I am obliged to Dr Cullen for drawing to my attention—and now that I look at it again, I can see—the fact that the translation is almost certainly of the Māori Affairs Committee’s commentary on the bill rather than of the bill itself. But the point that I think would help Mr Brownlee—and I think it would be a very useful thing for you, Mr Speaker, to make this ruling—is that the custom of the courts to start to refer to what happens in Parliament for statutory interpretation is, in my view, very unsound.

When I was first elected, the courts could not consider anything that was said in the House and they certainly would not consider any select committee commentary. Mr Brownlee is right that some courts, not all, have started to do that. I do not want to be derogatory of this learned select committee, but I think that that shows a fundamental lack of understanding by the courts. What is said in Parliament is very political, and what is said about a bill sometimes bears little resemblance to what is actually in it.

It would be very helpful if the Speaker would take this opportunity to confirm what Dr Cullen said—that is, the select committee looks at the English text of the legislation and that alone. When that legislation comes out of a select committee and is finally passed by the House, that is all the courts should look at. They certainly should not go back to the views of a select committee that, for all I know, has put in all sorts of interesting observations that were not made from the viewpoint that some court would take any notice of them.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have listened with interest to all the points that have been made. To Dr Cullen, I say that the member is correct. The English and the Māori parts of the report are not translations of each other. Both commentaries are part of the report as adopted by the Māori Affairs Committee. If the member has a problem with the text, that is a criticism of the committee. The member is entitled to criticise the committee, but this matter is not a point of order. It is not the same as the point that was raised last week. On that occasion, the bill contained text in two languages. This time, the matter the member is raising concerns a select committee report.

In Committee

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Notwithstanding the fact that the Committee has been given authority to consider this bill part by part, I seek leave to have the Committee consider it as one debate. I do not think that a lot of scrutiny of the member in charge of it is required, given the process that we have been through, and I think that having a single debate may facilitate better contributions from members.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Preamble, clauses 1 to 14, and schedule

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): A few moments ago I raised with the Chair the issue of the use of te reo Māori in bills that come before the House. That issue was the subject of considerable discussion in this Chamber in relation to the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill. I appreciate the fact that the settlement bill itself was written essentially in te reo Māori, and that any translation therefore had to be very, very correct. But I have raised the issue of the commentary on the bill that is before us, because I am concerned that on a number of occasions members of this House have been told that courts will refer to commentaries from select committees, and will want to know, essentially, what a committee was thinking at the time of recommending that the House pass a bill. The Hon Richard Prebble has said that that is an unsatisfactory sort of practice by the courts. It is, but this House is having increasing difficulty with the way in which the courts choose to administer the law in this country. I will go no further than that, because it would be inappropriate for a member to criticise the courts unduly.

This bill sets up a governance entity for Ngāti Awa. It is a bill that has received considerable attention from the office of the Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia. We assume that that attention was focused on assisting Ngāti Awa in getting the best structure for their settlement. Of course, their settlement is relatively modest when measured against, for example, the wasteful funding the Government has sent to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in recent years. This bill will enable Ngāti Awa to collect, as their settlement, about one-eighth of a year’s funding to the wānanga. We need to put things in that perspective.

I have said that I worry that the organisation that, once the bill is passed, will become Te Runanga o Ngāti Awa has, it would seem, authority from very few of the settled parties—in other words, the members of the tribe—to stand in this position. I think it is an indictment on the Office of Treaty Settlements that we have reached this point with 70 percent of Ngāti Awa not having expressed a view about the appropriateness and the acceptability of the settlement. This leaves open the opportunity for future generations to say that their people were not part of the process, that the settlement was forced on them, and that it is not something they are part of. Given that the settlement bill itself will legislate away some rights, I think the office has been far too cavalier in telling the Minister that the mandated process has been satisfactory.

The National Party wishes the Ngāti Awa people all the best with their settlement. We do think that getting these grievances off the table and moving on is appropriate, and we simply have to trust the advice before the Committee that this bill setting up this structure is appropriate, and therefore wish Ngāti Awa all the best with that.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I have a number of matters to raise on which I would like to hear from the sponsor of the bill. A private bill, as opposed to a private member’s bill, is legislation passed by Parliament for the benefit of a private organisation. It follows that that private organisation then has a special law for itself that does not apply to every other New Zealander. In my view, the House should be extremely reluctant to agree to private bills, because to do otherwise would mean, if carried to its logical extreme, that all sorts of organisations could claim that the law of the land should not apply to them.

It may well be in this case that, because of the nature of the settlement, some special statutory structure did in fact have to be set up. But that raises a second question. If that is so, and as the settlement was made with the Crown, why did the Crown not include the new structure in its legislation? I would like to know what the argument was for this structure being set up in a private bill. I certainly hope it is not being set up in a private bill in order to bypass the procedures of the House. As I say, I think private bills generally should be passed only very reluctantly.

My next point—and I hope that a member of the Māori Affairs Committee is here to speak to this bill—is that I am shocked to learn from the Assistant Speaker that what I thought was an English translation of a commentary on the bill in Māori, or maybe the other way round, actually is not the case, and that it is accepted by the Assistant Speaker that what is before the House in Māori is different from what is before it in English. I ask members of the select committee whether that is not treating the House with contempt. If what is said in Māori is legitimate, then it ought also to be said in English. Why did the select committee think it should say something in Māori that it is either ashamed of, or for some other reason does not believe should be translated accurately into English?

From my own point of view, if members of the Māori Affairs Committee want to put commentaries in Māori, I will not object, but I will object if we pass laws—in this case, a special law for one Māori organisation that does not apply to any other New Zealander—then discover that they have a commentary that has not been translated. I would have thought that members of the Māori Affairs Committee could see for themselves that that is an insult to the House. It is not appropriate and I think we should record our grave concern that this has happened.

I understand from Mr Brownlee’s remarks that this will be a practice of the Labour Government, and that there are a number of bills in which the Government intends to have one commentary in Māori that states one thing and one commentary in English that states something different. Of course, it follows—maybe I am just suspicious—that we might find that what is said in English is calming and reassuring, and that most New Zealanders would say the content was fair enough, but that if they read what is written in Māori, they would not have that view. I form that opinion because I cannot see any reason why a Māori text is not accurately translated.

The sponsor of the bill is asking the House for an indulgence, because it is an indulgence to have a private bill passed. On the face of it, if the Assistant Speaker’s comments in the point of order ruling are correct and the Māori text and the English text are not the same, and if the members of the committee knew that the texts were not the same, then I am very critical of those members. I call upon them, in front of the whole House, to explain their actions. I also say that the sponsor of the bill has a duty to the House. I think he should take the time to go through the two texts and explain to us where they differ and what the differences are.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): It may be that the Minister was contemplating replying to the previous speaker’s query. Since he has not, I would like to hear his explanation of whether in the future the Māori Affairs Committee will continue to include commentaries in English and Māori in legislation.

Te Runanga o Ngāti Awa was constituted by the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Act in 1988. That Act declared the rūnanga to be subject to the Maori Trust Boards Act. As we have all learnt since then, the Maori Trust Boards Act, under which a number of tribal authorities are constituted, has proved not to be adequate to receive settlement assets. So it is no surprise that at some stage this Parliament will also be looking at dealing with the governance entity of Ngāti Awa. The legislation that concludes the Ngāti Awa settlement is about to go through the Parliament over the next week or so. Of course, unless the iwi has an entity that satisfies certain requirements of the settlement framework that has been developed, then assets cannot pass. That is why National supports this bill. I take note of what the previous speaker said—that it is a member’s bill and not necessarily something that the Parliament should be entertaining. Be that as it may, Ngāti Awa is entitled to receive its settlement, and to do so this bill needs to pass.

I will comment on a couple of issues. The first is the issue of the low turn-out for ratification of governance entities that has been a feature of recent settlements and on which the Opposition has expressed concern. It will probably continue to be a feature of settlements in the near future. I understand that the Government is looking at a generic format for future governance entities. If that is the case, I hope the Government is doing it in consultation with iwi. We do not want the Government dreaming up a generic framework for future governance entities, into which iwi have had no input. But this is probably a good development because it is of no credit to the Government that the Ngāti Awa settlement has basically been in place for the last 5 years and the iwi has spent much of that time endeavouring to get the entity that it wanted.

My understanding was that originally the Labour Government was opposed to Ngāti Awa having a governance entity that needed to be legislated for. But here we are today and I think it behoves this Parliament, given that the third reading of the settlement bill is nigh, to ensure that this bill gets timely passage.

The other issue I will speak of was brought up by one of the submitters—the issue of asset-holding entities. I guess that that submission arises out of the concern of beneficiaries, whoever they might be, about the security of assets that are held, supposedly, on behalf of the collective and whether they will be held in a way that they can be passed on to future generations. At the Hui Taumata, which has been in progress for the last 2 days, there has been some discussion on the issue of governance and on the appropriate mechanism by which assets should be held. There has also been some discussion about whether it is time for Māori people to consider whether assets should remain inalienable.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I stand briefly to respond to some of the matters that have been raised. Firstly, I will respond to the matter raised by the Hon Richard Prebble in relation to the Māori Affairs Committee and the continued inclusion of bilingual commentaries in legislation. I want the member to know that the Government is a minority on the committee. In this particular case there was considerable discussion and it was agreed by the committee that there would be a bilingual commentary on this bill. Whether that practice continues in the future will be up to the select committee.

In respect of the other matters raised by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, I will say in relation to the low turn-out by Ngāti Awa for ratifying the governance arrangement that this is a problem that we seem to be confronting with a lot of settlement bills, particularly when it comes to the ratification of the governance structures.

Ngāti Awa has a long history of attempting to get its governance structure right. The first discussions about the appropriateness of the Ngāti Awa Trust Board began in 1995 and have continued week after week, month after month, year after year, right up until December of last year to determine whether the proposed rūnanga was the appropriate structure. It is fair to say that, like many claimant groups, by that time Ngāti Awa was suffering from treaty fatigue.

Basically, this double-step ratification process—one step to accept the settlement package, and the second to accept the governance structure—is probably a very difficult process for all claimant groups. That is why we believe we are seeing a low turn-out. This has happened in every case.

I say in response to another of Georgina te Heuheu’s concerns that one of the submitters expressed some concern about the rūnanga’s ability to not only hold assets but to retain them. I advise members to look at the charter that the Ngāti Awa rūnanga has put in place and they will find that there is a very, very rigid process to be undergone before any assets can be alienated from the rūnanga. That would happen if it were Māori land under the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. It is a similar process.

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

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Before I was rudely interrupted by the dinner gong, I was responding to concerns raised by Richard Prebble, Gerry Brownlee, and the honourable member Georgina te Heuheu. I believe I responded sufficiently to Mr Prebble’s concern in terms of the ongoing inclusion of bilingual commentaries in settlement legislation. As I said, that would be a matter for the Māori Affairs Committee, and it is unfair to say that the Government has the numbers, because the Government is in a minority on this select committee. Any decisions in that regard would be required to be supported by more than just Government members.

I also touched on the history of this legislation and the length of time that Ngāti Awa had been involved in determining a suitable governance structure to manage their post-settlement assets.

Lastly, I responded to concern that was expressed at the select committee in terms of the ability of the rūnanga not only to hold assets but to retain them, and to ensure that there was a transparent process in place before any assets could be alienated from the rūnanga. If I had a concern at the select committee, it was not that the transparency was not there, but probably that, if anything, the charter that the rūnanga has agreed to might prevent its ability to grow those assets. But going by the explanation given to the select committee in Whakatāne, that certainly would not be the case. But it was important for the rūnanga to ensure that the assets were protected into the future, and at the same time to ensure the rūnanga could still do business in terms of growing those assets.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I heard what the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, said regarding the translation, and I want to echo the views of Richard Prebble and Gerry Brownlee who said that when we have a document that we want to endorse—and in fact in National’s case we will be supporting this legislation—it is important that we can understand it. I do not understand Māori, I do not speak the language, so I think it is incumbent upon the Māori Affairs Committee, when reporting back, to provide a translation in this bill that accurately reflects the Māori text, for the benefit of those of us who want to support the legislation. That should be done for any legislation containing Māori text.

I say to the Minister that when I look at the bill I do not know whether the English version is the same as the Māori version. Maybe he can take another call and tell me. I heard what he said, but as somebody who does not understand the language I say that we certainly would expect that what has been written in English does translate what is written in Māori. That is our concern. I think the select committee should have done a translation. It would have been a courtesy to do a translation, so we would be able to understand exactly what is meant. All the Minister needs to do is to say yes or no as to whether the English translation reflects what is in Māori. A yes or no would help me quite considerably. I note that there are six and a half pages in Māori, and there are five and a bit pages in English. I do not know whether the translation is accurate, so I would be interested specifically in what the Minister can help me with.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I stand here to give more than just a yes or no response. I can satisfy the member’s concerns, that the Māori version and the English version of the commentary do reflect what the bill is intending. Furthermore, as I said earlier, Government members are in a minority on the Māori Affairs Committee and we did have the committee’s support, which included the support of the National Party representative.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I am pleased to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Committee stage of this bill. Firstly, much of the discussion so far has been about translation and I find it ironic that the people who have expressed concerns about the translation have not told us what is wrong. I suppose I have to bow in deference to the deputy leader of National, who was a teacher of Māori language, as I understand—and I am not a teacher—so perhaps he might want to come back to the Chamber to tell us what is wrong. I take some exception to the comments made by the previous leader of the ACT party, which cast aspersions on the integrity of the Māori members of the Māori Affairs Committee. I find it very ironic that the people who were concerned about the translation of the Māori text, and the quality of it, have admitted that they are not fluent Māori speakers.

Secondly, I felt that some of the aspersions cast by the previous leader of the ACT party on members of the Māori Affairs Committee suggest that the Māori translation of the English was wrong. Perhaps he is presuming that the Māori text is a translation of the English text, but perhaps it could be the other way round. Be that as it may, I stand to support this bill, which sets up a governance entity for Ngāti Awa. One of the reasons why we in New Zealand First support it is that this is a decision by Ngāti Awa. In fact, what it will do is to change its present governing legislation from the Maori Trust Boards Act to its own Act, and from that of a Māori trust board to that of a rūnanga. They considered that to be the best structure for them to administer the resources that they will get as a consequence of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, which was debated in this House yesterday. It provides an opportunity for Ngāti Awa to change from their present situation of being an entity under the Maori Trust Boards Act, to becoming a rūnanga and having their own legislation.

But having said that, although Ngāti Awa are quite happy to transpose, to a certain extent, the references to hapū in the Maori Trust Boards Act, I need to repeat on behalf of New Zealand First our concerns that it has not been a complete transfer. In our view, new hapū have been added, and some of the titles of those hapū, or those divisions that have been listed in the Maori Trust Boards Act, are slightly at variance with those that are listed in the settlement bill. Some of those variances are dialectal variances and do not have too much of a consequence.

However, I need again to express some concern about the fact that in the regulations supporting their entity within the Maori Trust Boards Act, reference is made to one division, or one hapū, as they would like us to believe, known as Taiwhakaea. The settlement bill refers to “Ngai Taiwhakaea II”, and, similarly, to “Ngai Te Rangihouhiri II”. I need to ask what has happened to “Taiwhakaea I”. Perhaps the Minister might be able to enlighten members in that regard. But, given that that is the case in terms of what the new entity will provide, New Zealand First will continue to support this bill.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I am pleased, on behalf of United Future, to take a call on the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill and to express my congratulations again to the rūnanga on it. In particular, I note that this is a watershed bill. Its approach is actually quite distinctively different from the approach we have tended to use towards governance entities in treaty settlements. That is evidenced and crystallised in the report of the Māori Affairs Committee, which states in its commentary on the bill: “Under the bill Te Runanga will become a stand-alone body corporate to be administered under this bill and Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Charter. The accountabilities set out in the Charter will replace the accountabilities to the Crown that are currently specified in the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955.” It is the move towards self-governance by rūnanga of their settlements in a form they adopt rather than in a form imposed upon them—often a model arising from our British heritage rather than being something that identifies with tikanga Māori—that is so noticeable here, and it is something to be commended. I think that it is a watershed—a sign that we are moving to a greater level of maturity in terms of our relationship with iwi, where we entrust to them the ability to govern their assets in a manner more akin to their own understandings of governance entities. I think that is to be applauded.

The key things, of course, that we must protect, in the interests of iwi as much as in the interests of the nation as a whole, are issues such as accountability. Under the structure in this bill, there is a lot more accountability to the members of the rūnanga and iwi than there is to the Crown, and that is fitting because we are passing settlement proceeds to them. We are passing them from the Crown into their hands in recognition that this is some compensation, albeit modest compensation, for wrongs done to them. How that money is used is really a matter for them to control, rather than the Crown being a watchdog. Indeed, I think that we as a nation often have been very patronising towards Māori, when we have said to them that they must follow a Pākehā model and that Pākehā, or the Crown, know best how to manage their assets, rather than Māori managing their assets themselves. I welcome that move, and I welcome that recognition.

The key thing, of course, is that the rūnanga must ensure that that accountability is genuine. Only too recently we have seen the Te Wānanga o Aotearoa fiasco, where the confidence of members of Parliament, in particular—and I guess the media, and through them the public in general—has waned somewhat because of accusations about accountability processes and management, and about other issues such as nepotism, which we in New Zealand tend to regard as unacceptable, that have been seen throughout that institution. I think that is a warning sign of their being quite a lot of scrutiny of Māori organisations. Some would say there is more scrutiny of Māori organisations than there is of Pākehā organisations, and I will not dispute that. Nevertheless, there are people who are watching. The model in this bill is a new way of going forward that gives more independence to iwi, which is welcome, but it comes with those sorts of cautions.

I note that one of the concerns picked up by the select committee related to the dispute resolution process, particularly about whether it preserves the right of an individual to access courts, when appropriate. I note that the select committee said that it had sought clarification and had been advised that, although clause 15 of the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill will remove the jurisdiction of the courts, tribunals, and other judicial bodies in respect of matters regarding the settlement of Ngāti Awa’s historical claims, it does not remove any right a member of Ngāti Awa may have to access the courts in respect of disputes within the rūnanga about settlement assets and other matters. I am sure that is correct, but it would be a pity if, having achieved this, the iwi of Ngāti Awa were then put into a situation where they had to go back, effectively, to the Crown courts in order to resolve disputes within their own iwi.

Once again, from that aspect it is important that the rūnanga act in accordance with the ways that maintain accountability to their own members, which means that neither Parliament nor the members of Ngāti Awa become concerned about the way the assets are being managed. Obviously, the process of democratic elections will provide some degree of oversight, but, as we know, those happen only infrequently. A lot can happen on a fairly rapid basis that makes an iwi lose confidence and that election processes that occur only on an irregular basis cannot fix. Once again, we need only to look at Te Wānanga o Aotearoa to see that the problems that have arisen there are not ones that can wait until an election process can replace the board, if the board has been at fault. These things arise at very short notice and hit the media. For the sake not only of Ngāti Awa but of Māoridom throughout the country, it is important that Ngāti Awa, and the rūnanga in particular, look at this situation and take great care of the new provisions that relate to their self-sufficiency.

So I congratulate them on what they have achieved. I think the future is now looking a lot brighter for them. I trust they will take into account the comments I have made, and that they will also take into account the minority interests, because that is often from where the fuel comes. When I talk about minority interests, it is not only minority interests within Ngāti Awa itself; I know there are Pākehā who are affected by the provisions of this bill. I have discussed at length the interests of one such person who came to me and whose land is being used to provide particular rights under this bill. There are issues still that have to be resolved in terms of the ownership of the land that the rights have been granted over, and there is a lot of concern there that effectively the iwi coming on to that land will misuse the rights they have been given under this bill. This person thinks that those rights affect his land. He feels that the Crown took the land for one purpose, but nevertheless did not hand it back when that purpose was no longer fulfilled, and instead, held on to it and turned it into reserve, wrongly. The good relationships that need to be there among the landowners where they have rights over land is also an important one to protect. I think they need to be cautious about that. However, I am sure that there is considerable wisdom within the rūnanga, and that they will effectively be able to manage this well, and I wish them every success.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I recognise that National is supporting the bill, but I want to raise a question with regard to the definition of “customary rights”. Clause 3(1) states: “customary rights means rights according to tikanga Maori (Maori customary values and practices); including the following: (a) rights to occupy land;”, but I cannot see where it specifies which land. It leaves it somewhat open-ended. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, the Hon Mita Ririnui, could take a call and explain that to me.

I may be overlooking something, but the bill does not actually specify the land in question; it leaves it completely open, in that, according to customary rights, Māori would have the right to occupy land, regardless of ownership. I raise that as a point of concern. I cannot see where the land is clearly identified—where the bill specifies that land. If the Minister could take a call to reassure me on this matter I would be most appreciative.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): A number of points have come up with all speakers, but the most important matter is the one raised by the National Party member in terms of the land in question. The definition of customary rights states: “including the following: (a) rights to occupy land; and (b) rights in relation to the use of: (i) land: (ii) natural or physical resources”. The member’s concern was that the definition does not identify any particular blocks of land. It can apply only to the lands that are part of the cultural redress package, which is part of the settlement. There are no other lands concerned. They are listed in the schedule, and if the member cares to look through the bill she will find them.

Sandra Goudie: That’s not what the definition states.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: It cannot apply to any land other than the land that is subject to the settlement.

Sandra Goudie: That’s not what the definition states.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Are we having an across-the-floor discussion, Madam Chairperson?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No. That was helpful in terms of clarification. I ask the Minister to continue.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can you ask the Minister to put the microphone closer to him. He is one Minister we appreciate listening to over here.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: As I said to Sandra Goudie of the National Party, the land in question is the land that is included as part of the Ngāti Awa settlement. The lands are identified in the schedule of the settlement. It cannot apply to any other lands, because Ngāti Awa does not own them. It only talks about the lands that are part of its settlement.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I say in response to that that the point here, though, is that there is a definition for customary rights, but it does not ring-fence the area in question—it makes no reference to the area in question. It actually leaves it open-ended. If it is a customary right, I would have thought that that meant regardless of ownership. If it is a customary right to occupy land then, because of the tikanga Māori in this regard, the current ownership is overridden by that customary right—because the area of land in question has not been specified.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Maybe I can satisfy the member’s concerns. It does not apply to private property, but to the area where Ngāti Awa have an ancestral connection or their customary lands.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I am pleased on behalf of New Zealand First to rise in support of this bill. It may seem that those who heard New Zealand First in regard to the committee’s discussions, may, in turn, be surprised. But one of the reasons for our support of this bill is that it is a modern bill. It puts the Treaty of Waitangi in its place, exactly, without any reference, so far as I am able to ascertain, to the so-called principles of the treaty. It is for that very interesting reason, plus the fact that there is no mention of separate hapū. That issue was of contention with us in the previous debate. We are very pleased to stand and support this bill, particularly when we acknowledge, as we have done in the past, the longstanding wish of Ngāti Awa to be here at this time and at this place, particularly those negotiators, including Professor Mead, who, in my youth, I realised was an outstanding teacher. I am very pleased that I am able to pass on to him and others our regard for this bill. So, briefly, this is a modern bill. It recognises what New Zealand First has long believed. The treaty has a real place in our history, in practice, but this bill does not embellish it with the unproven, undefined, and therefore unwanted, “principles” in our legislation.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I rise to respond briefly to the points made by the New Zealand First MP, who criticised me for criticising the committee’s report. As far as I could judge, his criticism was that, firstly, I had not said what was wrong with the translations, and secondly, that the committee had not said whether it had translated Māori into English, or English into Māori. The Minister said he was not responsible, because the Government had a minority on the committee. Let me deal with the last bit first. That would sort of imply that Labour members on the committee had voted against having a translation and were somehow overwhelmed by other members on the committee, when of course, it is quite clear that that was not the situation. I think that is not a satisfactory answer from the Minister. The Minister did vote for a Māori version to be there. Just because his party is in a minority it is not an excuse for him to then imply to the Committee that he did not vote for it. As the promoter, he actually has a duty to tell us about it.

The second point is this, and I do not know whether the New Zealand First MP was listening to the Speaker. However, the Speaker made a very interesting point to the House about this bill, which is separate from the one we were dealing with last week. The Speaker ruled that the Māori version and the English version, as far as the House was concerned, are not translations of each other; that the committee was perfectly legally—I do not say in a moral sense in this Parliament—entitled to give a Māori commentary, followed by an English one, which bear no relationship to each other. The criticism I am making is that if each is a translation of the other, we in this Parliament are entitled to know that. The New Zealand First MP boasted about the fact that it might not be. I do not think that is good enough.

Pita Paraone: No, I didn’t say that.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: The member most certainly did. The member does not know whether we were translating English into Māori, or Māori into English. It is absolutely right; I do not know. But I say to the member that I am entitled to know that. Of course I am. I am a member of Parliament; I am asked to vote on this bill. I am entitled to know that. I say to that committee—and in that respect, I am criticising him and every other member of the committee—that if we are to have this as a practice, we are entitled to be able to read in the English translation, and I presume it should also be in the Māori translation, that one is a translation of the other. The member may not know this, but I shall tell him. I do not want to be the person responsible for this happening, but that committee is entitled to come to the House, according to the Speaker, with a Māori text and an English text that have no relationship to each other. There is no Standing Order that requires one to be a translation of the other. There is a convention.

I say to the Minister that I think the Minister was saying to the Parliament, but he did not use the words that make it clear, that in fact in his view he was giving his undertaking to the Parliament that the Māori and English versions are as comparable as any translation can be. If that is what the Minister in charge of the bill is saying, then, of course, all honourable members have to accept his word. I say to him that he is obliged to give that word. I think we are entitled to know that. I then say that if this is to be a practice, and I understand it is, of that committee to start to produce commentaries in both Māori and English, then I say that the text should state somewhere, because it is a commentary advising us all on the bill, that this is a translation of the Māori text; and the Māori text should state that this is a translation of the English text. There is a very good reason why we would want them to do that. If it is not, of course, it would be a very, very serious breach of privilege. But if it is, I perfectly accept that—if the member was fairer to me in his comments—I said that under the Standing Orders the committee is entitled to put forward text in Māori. But if it is going to, let us be told that they are translations and let the Minister give us his undertaking that it is a translation.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Once again, for the member’s benefit I stand to clarify the commentary on the bill. I made an attempt prior to the dinner break, I made a much longer attempt, and I now have to do it again, but I am more than willing to do that. Prior to the dinner break—and I still echo those words—I said that the Government does not have a majority on the select committee. That was in response to a comment made by the National Party member Gerry Brownlee prior to the dinner break, about the numbers in terms of the voting. The point is that, whilst we do not have the numbers, what we required was the full support of the select committee, and that we did get. I did not say at any time that we are not responsible for it. I hope that clarifies the situation.

Secondly, I attempted to satisfy the concerns of the National Party member Lindsay Tisch when he asked for some clarification from me about both versions reflecting the views of the select committee. I gave him that assurance, and I do so once again.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): I want to pick up the points that Richard Prebble made. I say to the Minister in the chair, Mita Ririnui, that he can solve this really, really quickly by standing up, not giving the speech he just made, and just answering the question. The question is quite simple: did the select committee write an English text and send it away to be translated, or did it write a Māori text and send it away to be translated—I suspect it did not do that—or did it, and this where I pick up on Mr Prebble’s comments, write two texts? They might be as close to the same as they could be made to be at that particular time, but did they write two texts? We will get into a great deal of difficulty in the future in this House if one select committee does, as is its right, report back a bill with both a Māori and an English text and the text is not done as a translation but is done as two separate texts, and we have to rely on that. So I ask that question of the Minister, as he was on the select committee. I was hopeful that the chair of the select committee would take a call but she is unable to at present. Could the Minister inform the Committee whether—and I think Mr Paraone is the only other member here who sat on the select committee—it is a translation from English or from Māori, or whether two texts were written.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is—

Hon Roger Sowry: Madam Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am putting the question. There was no further—

Hon Roger Sowry: I will take another call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley):I call the Hon Roger Sowry.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): I now find myself in the situation, having sat down,expecting that the Minister would have answered the question—

Hon Mita Ririnui: You hope!

Hon ROGER SOWRY: He says I am hoping—obviously he is not going to. The issue that I have is whether it is appropriate for this Committee to proceed in this way, or whether it is appropriate for the Speaker to give a ruling as to whether the Committee is entitled to know whether we have two texts written separately or a translation of one to the other, and if we have it from one to the other, which one it is. I again appeal to the Minister. He clearly knows. My appeal to the Minister is to stand and tell the Committee what exactly happened.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): The Minister and the New Zealand First MP may think it is clever to be able to get up, as the New Zealand First MP did, and say that they have not told anyone whether the English text is a translation of the Māori text, but that is exactly the point. The member may be making what he thinks is a clever point—that there are members in this Parliament who were not on the Māori Affairs Committee. He is right; we were not. However, leaving aside the question of whether the text is a Māori translation, I point out that the select committee is a servant of this Parliament and it should report accurately to it.

The question that was asked was a perfectly reasonable one. I say to the Minister that he may think that he answered it, but what he actually said to the Committee was that the texts reflect the views of the committee. Well, of course they do! They had to be passed, but that does not mean to say that the views in the Māori text and the English text are the same. He might think I am splitting hairs, but I am a lawyer and I tell him that what he just said to us could actually mean that the two texts are completely different. Now, he may not have meant to say that to the Committee, but that is an interpretation we could take from his words.

I say to the New Zealand First MP, who I think will now take a call, and who criticised me for asking those questions, that I am perfectly entitled to ask them. In that sense I do criticise the select committee, because I think its commentary is not as clear as it ought to be.

I would like to know exactly, before I vote, the answers to the questions that have now been asked by two parties. Are the two texts a translation of each other? If they are, it would be interesting to know which way around they occurred: did the select committee first agree on an English text and then do a Māori text; was it the other way around; or do we have two separate texts?

If we have two separate texts, then I understand from the Speaker’s ruling that under our Standing Orders it is possible to have that. Yes, we can put in a Māori text that is not translated. We can put into a Māori text statements that are not in the English text. However, when we look at the two texts in their paragraphing we see that that situation seems to be unlikely, so I think I am entitled to have that assurance.

We should really have that assurance from the promoter of the bill, because a private bill is a special privilege: an organisation is given the privilege of having the law written specially for it, and the law does not apply to anyone else. I think a promoter of a bill in that position has an added obligation to the Committee to answer those questions. I would like to know the answers. I make it clear that my party did not intend to vote against this bill, but I will not vote for something that I have not had properly explained.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): First of all, I just want to reassure the last speaker that when I stand I am not standing to be smart.

The issue is that the first speaker in this debate made the allegation that there was something wrong with the translation. From that time subsequent speakers have stood to support that concern, but I have noted that none of them have actually identified just what is wrong with the translation. [Interruption] No, no. The member for National mentioned that there was something wrong with the translation, but no one has told this Committee what exactly is wrong. That is the point that I made.

Hon Richard Prebble: He claimed the paragraphs are equivalent; we don’t know that they are.

PITA PARAONE: If we are talking about paragraphs, I say that that is nothing to do with the translation. But I can assure Mr Sowry that there was the English text, and the Māori is a translation of the English text.

In terms of verifying the translation I support the previous speaker, who said that the person who should give that confirmation is the promoter of this bill, or his or her representative.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In that case, we may have one problem with which we might be able to help the Minister. When he first spoke he had his microphone turned away and, like my colleague from New Zealand First, I might have missed his words, but I want him to understand my position, which is that I think he is not prepared to give the Committee an assurance, now that we know the order of translation, that the Māori is—how will I put it?—a valid translation.

I say to him that I understand that all translations can be a matter of argument—we need only look at the translations that have been made of the Bible. Given that, I do not think it is an unreasonable thing for him as the promoter of the bill to rise and give an undertaking that it is his belief that the Māori text is a valid translation of the English. I think that if he had given that undertaking an hour ago, we would have made a lot more progress.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I stand to say again: yes, it is.

Preamble, clauses 1 to 14, and schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Bills

Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill

In Committee

Preamble

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National):I fear we will be here for some time on this bill. The issue I want to raise in respect of this bill is how the Government is able to treat the Wellington Regional Council quite differently from the way it treats other landowners, including itself, through the Department of Conservation and the land that it owns around New Zealand. The preamble explains quite clearly that the bill gives the regional council some powers to enable it to install, construct, operate, and maintain electrical installation and works on some of its land. The land that the regional council wishes to do this on is land, which it owns, in a windy position—which is relatively unusual for land in Wellington—and it wishes to install large turbines and, obviously, generate electricity through some sort of wind farm. I have to say, I think that is fine.

Hon Richard Prebble: That’ll be noisy.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: Well, they could be noisy ones if they are from the company that the co-leader of the Greens is involved with, or they could be quiet ones if they are someone else’s—like Meridian Energy. That is up to the council.

But the issue really is that the council is being given, for reasons I am pretty keen to hear from the Minister, different powers than, for example, the Department of Conservation. We are not allowed, as of right, to put wind turbines on Department of Conservation land, but it will be allowed on Wellington Regional Council land. Why not on Manawatu regional council land? It does blow in Palmerston North, and a lot of windmills are already there. Why not on Auckland Regional Council land?

Hon Richard Prebble: It doesn’t blow there.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: Well, I have been there on occasions when it has been windy, and the reason I ask the Minister is quite a serious one. Tonight on television we see the Government pursuing major power infrastructure lines through the Waikato. A huge amount of power will be needed to be taken up to Auckland. That could be mitigated to a degree if the Auckland Regional Council were allowed to put wind farms on its land.

Why, I ask the Minister, is it being done only for Wellington and not for anyone else? Well, the bill is a local bill, and the Minister will say it is because Wellington has asked and no one else has. That is fine. I accept that. What I want to know from the Minister and the promoter of the bill is why the Government is not doing this for a wider group of people and whether the Government would support it being done on Department of Conservation land.

If we are going to do this, let us take it one step further. The Department of Conservation owns a substantial amount of land in the Wellington area, so why could we not be allowed to put windmills on that land? Why would we choose to put them only on council-owned land? These are the sorts of issues that we want answers to. They were issues that were raised during the process, and I think the Committee deserves some sort of explanation.

I want to raise one other issue with the Minister. We can waste a huge amount of time—and we probably will tonight—on private bills. We have to ask, at the end of the day, whether it is the best use of Parliament’s time to be putting through, for each of the regional councils, a separate bill to allow them to build windmills on their land. We could have a bill for the Manawatu region soon, and then one for Auckland, etc. going through this process. I do not think that that is proper use of Parliament’s time. It is just like the old rates validation bills that I can remember when I first came into Parliament. We did one for some of the districts about every year or two.

Hon Richard Prebble: Waiheke Island.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: Yes. If the Government is happy for wind generation to be constructed on regional council land, why does it not allow for it nationwide?

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I would like to follow on from my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry and to reiterate the difference between what is allowed here for the Wellington Regional Council and what is allowed on Department of Conservation land. There are some areas of significant conservation value in the land we are talking about here with regard to the Wellington Regional Council, and those significant areas could be at risk depending on the type of activity entered into on that land. I guess one of the saving graces is the fact that there will be some consultation over it. In fact, there will probably be two consultation processes. One process will occur under the Local Government Act, whereby the community will get an opportunity to say what it thinks should happen with regard to the land. The other opportunity for consultation will be under the resource consent process if the council then, after the first process, decides to enter into a business arrangement with someone who wants to establish some form of energy generation.

It is to be hoped the council will be smart about how it does that and will gain more than it loses from that—that it will act with fiscal responsibility in handling ratepayers’ money and getting the ratepayers a return. But the question comes, I guess, about the sort of business the council would enter into, and whether it would be wind-powered or hydro generation. I noticed that in some of the previous speeches bird loss was mentioned. Bird loss is a significant aspect of wind power, as the birds get chopped up in wind-powered generators. Of course, that would not happen whenthe wind does not blow—not that that will be an issue for Wellington!

I am sure, though, that the council will heave a sigh of relief that this process is now coming to a close. The council must have wondered how long it would take, because the matter has languished for quite some time. However, I would suggest that a few more years will pass before the council gets to the point where it actually does something with the land. After all, consultation under the Local Government Act will be neither fast nor cheap, and then there is the whole idea of scoping the activity on the land, which will also be a pretty costly and lengthy process. Certainly, we can add about 10 percent to the costs for those that will arise from the resource consent process—probably more. One of the reasons for that extra cost will be that significant ecological values are associated with the land. They have been recognised by a number of local people who have an interest in it and in what happens to it.

The land is, of course, a water catchment area, with the water there servicing the needs of many of the communities. So it will be interesting to see whether the council actually utilises that water source for any purpose other than direct consumer consumption, as opposed to also having an energy component built into that. I do not think that Green Party members, who are proponents of wind-power generation, would necessarily support any hydro generation. They would use their influence, probably, to stop any of the latter. However, hydro generation would certainly address some of the landscape issues that would arise out of the promotion of wind farms.

The status of the land will also, no doubt, be raised, in order to clarify the existing obligations with regard to it, and to specify whether it comes under the Reserves Act as reserves or has been vested by the Crown in the council. In the latter case that holds certain obligations as well, and vestments usually have conditions applied to them. For example, in my own district of Thames-Coromandel, land that has been vested for airfield purposes can be used only for that purpose. So there are cases where the Crown does specify conditions around vested land. I am unsure of the status of some of the land in this area, because quite a range of land is involved, but I understand that the Reserves Act may come into it. I note that Genesis Power, a State-owned enterprise, has made a submission that has an emphasis on wind farms, which indicates an obvious interest in the land for that purpose. But I would be interested in the future to see whether there is not an interest in what hydro generation may be able to achieve.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): New Zealand First members were not averse to giving the bill further thought with regard to matters that have already been raised. We saw this bill as merely a completion, and other councils have felt the same when past pieces of legislation have needed to be brought to the House to be resolved in their own way.

This bill in particular was about an area of land that was fully documented and, in this case, was vested for the use of water collection and forestry. It made sound sense to us in New Zealand First, and, I believe, to those on the Local Government and Environment Committee, to take this line of approach. But I also raise the point raised by the Hon Roger Sowry—that is, if a council is so easily able to pick up on the relevant sections of the 2002 Local Government Act, and in this case also to look at being a commercial enterprise, which seems to be inherent in the language of the legislation, then why do other Government agencies, such as the Department of Conservation, not do the same?

I think that that is a highly significant point. It also brings us to another issue, which is this: where have we come to in this country regarding energy when any local body or any other group is able suddenly to contemplate going into the provision of energy in a most haphazard and, in this case, individual way? It also begs the question, surely, that if this legislation had been part of a national strategy in respect of energy, then it would have slotted in as a small attempt in Wellington with regard to this newly found wind power, and it would have made good sense.

However, those matters are not really relevant to the bill before us. We are looking here at the preamble. Members of New Zealand First were satisfied, in the course of the select committee work—there were a few reservations at the start; submissions were made by the Wellington Regional Council and by the odd submitter who came—that this is a sound piece of legislation that will allow the Wellington Regional Council to get on with the business of energy procurement in the future.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): The ACT party supports this bill. It is a very simple bill. It is just a clear-cut provision to allow land that was designated for the very specific and confined purpose of providing a water catchment for the Wellington Regional Water Board—my former employer many years ago—to be used for a further purpose. But I believe that the bill raises a rather interesting philosophical issue, which has just been touched on—that is, that we should consider the multiple use of land. We have tended in recent years in this country to compartmentalise things. That has often been driven by mantras and ideological nonsense. We can talk about a few examples of that. We have here a bill that states the land is primarily water catchment land and is designated for that purpose. But that is not inconsistent with it having some windmills on it, perhaps, in order to generate some electricity. That is fine, and we recognise the benefit of that. But then that raises the issue that I think my colleague from New Zealand First was alluding to. We have vast tracts of Department of Conservation land in this country, which perhaps could equally share multiple functions for the benefit of our society at large.

I will give some examples. We have the Resource Management Act, and the whole philosophy of that Act, as the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, will be aware, was for it to be effects-based. Everything was to be judged on its merits, but what we have done over the years is to erode that. One example would be mining in Coromandel. Mining should be weighed up on its merits; it should be effects-based. If the community overwhelmingly says, no, it does not want mining, it can express that in its district plan or set standards for mining that are very high. But what happened was that the Government said it would decree that mining was a banned activity, which was actually in breach of the effects-based philosophy of the Act. We see similar situations all around the country, driven by mantras and dogma rather than by the sensible analysis of accepting that we actually have the effects-based safety net of that Act to judge whether anything should or should not happen, what the consequences would be, and whether one could avoid, mitigate, or remedy some of the adverse impacts that may flow from it. If we really had confidence in the Act, then we would not go in at the front end, as it were, start dictating land uses, and be very prescriptive in the way we do that.

Unfortunately, though, in the Department of Conservation and in relation to many reserve lands around the country, situations are driven by absolute and utter dogma. There is no development whatsoever, and nothing that could possibly conflict with the intrinsic, unspoilt, footsteps-only sort of mantra that that department tends to run. I would say, and I put it to members, that just as the Wellington Regional Council has identified a multiple use of its land, with its proposal for the generation of sustainable energy from wind power, then there are vast tracks of our hinterland, which tend to be in the conservation estate, that could similarly have multiple uses applied to them without in any way detracting from the values we all hold dear that are associated with that land. I raise those points; I just see an inconsistency there.

The other point I would make, though, concerns the restriction we now have in this bill that the Local Government and Environment Committee inserted, which is that any energy proposal be confined to sustainable energy. What on earth does that actually mean? Perhaps the Minister in the chair could help us?

Hon Marian Hobbs: Renewable energy.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: I beg the Minister’s pardon; renewable energy was the term used. That makes it even more problematic. I ask the Minister what on earth renewable energy is, and I would appreciate her taking a call—perhaps as the member in charge of this bill—to explain to us carefully her definition of renewable energy. We know that no matter is created or destroyed; it is just transformed. So I ask who decides what is renewable and what is not renewable. We are right back into the mantras and dogmas I have mentioned, rather than into the evaluation of things according to clear criteria on the basis of their merits.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I am very pleased to stand on behalf of United Future to take a call on the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill, particularly because the land that is predominantly being looked at by the Wellington Regional Council surrounds the Hutt Valley, which is where I reside and where I represent United Future. I am also pleased I was able to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill. My position in terms of my knowledge of the Hutt Valley also enables me to provide some information to the House about the value of this land—some of it in particular—in terms of its use for wind energy, and the fact that it is internationally, comparatively, some of the best land in the world to be used for wind farming.

Renewable energy is something that New Zealanders have long adhered to, and our hydro schemes have been at the forefront in terms of developing renewable energy resources. In recent times the world has been looking at other renewable energy sources, such as wind, sun, and tidal forces. It is important that we as a nation maximise all the assets that we have, and our wind resource is certainly one of those. Over the last century we have seen energy use double, on average, every 22 years. I note that this has also led to cost increases. In the October 2003 issue of New Zealand Energy Outlook to 2025, the Ministry of Economic Development predicted that wholesale electricity prices, which at that time were 6.3c per kilowatt hour, would rise in 2020 to 7.2c per kilowatt hour, and in 2025 to 8.4c per kilowatt hour.

So we are faced with that pressure for a resource that there is more demand for, and we clearly have to fulfil that demand, otherwise we will have skyrocketing prices, but we will still be putting clamps on industrial development in this nation. Wind power, as a consequence of that pressure, is becoming more and more affordable, particularly in situations such as where Project Aqua did not get off the ground. The pressure on New Zealand to develop other energy sources is intense, and New Zealand does provide some of the best wind resources in the world.

The Tararua scheme that has been referred to, Te Apiti, is recognised as one of the best-performing wind farms in the world. It achieves a capacity factor of 50 percent, which is regarded as being at the very top of international scales. The monthly average wind speed it generates is 12 metres per second, which is also considered to be exceptionally good. I mention those figures because of the comparative figures with some of this land, which I will go on to.

In May 2003 the Wellington Regional Council approved funding for a report to look at up to four sites in the Wellington regional area in terms of wind farm development, and three sites were selected: Mount Climie, Belmont, and Puketiro—all of which, as I said before, surround the Hutt Valley. The report that the council officers presented to the council in May 2004, which was the latest report on those areas of land, is interesting. It notes that Mount Climie stood out as an exceptional site for wind farming. At Tararua, there is a 50 percent capacity factor, which is very high by international standards. Mount Climie delivers a 64.6 percent capacity factor. Tararua generates wind speed of 12 metres per second, which is very high by international standards. Mount Climie delivers wind speed of 15.7 metres per second. One can see that the value of Mount Climie, therefore, is at the very top end of international scales and, in fact, it is one of the best sites in the world for generating energy through wind turbines.

It is predicted that on Mount Climie, there would be the capacity for 63 turbines of 1 megawatt size. Allowing not for a 64.6 percent capacity, but for a 55 percent capacity factor, taking a very conservative line, that would generate 300 gigawatt hours of electricity per annum. To put that into language that we might better understand, it might be enough power to service 35,000 homes, or one-third of the Wellington metropolitan area. That is the significance of the Mount Climie site, and this bill facilitates Wellington Regional Council being able to develop that site.

Just by way of interest, of the other two sites, the Belmont site and the Puketiro site, Belmont was shown to be able to service 81 wind turbines of 1 megawatt capacity. If adjoining owners also participated in the development, that would rise to 108 turbines. Puketiro would handle 20 turbines of 1 megawatt capacity, and again, if adjoining owners participated, that could rise up to 62. However, the report showed that those two sites might at this stage just be economic, but I am sure that as the pressure goes on in terms of the provision of energy and as costs rise, those sites will get to a point where they will also be very economic to develop.

So I am delighted to support this bill, because it will enable the development by the Wellington Regional Council of those sites, and, in particular, the Mount Climie site, to benefit not only the Wellington area, but also the nation as a whole, as it helps to supply power that then makes the Wellington region less reliant on grid energy that comes from hydro resources and other resources.

I am pleased that we have been able to approach this on a very positive level, and I note that the select committee was unanimous in its view. Clearly, there are some concerns, which I will address as we look at some of the parts. Those concerns were noted by the Hon Peter Dunne in the first reading of this bill, particularly from his point of view as the member for Ohariu-Belmont, which at least Belmont is in; Mount Climie is in the Rimutaka electorate.

He had two concerns. One was the impact on regional park use and the other was the limited scope that the bill had in its initial stage of the development of those sites for wind turbines and, in particular, that in its initial format, only council-controlled trading organisations were able to develop them. As I will go on to discuss, and as the members may have noted, certainly the second concern has been remedied, and to some extent we addressed the first one in the select committee process and we have put in safeguards to address that concern. But as I noted, I will address those matters later.

So United Future is very pleased to support this bill and to see it going through. I sincerely hope that we see those wind farms developing in the shorter term rather than the longer term. I note that there has been concern, and really the only criticism of wind farms that has been raised—particularly now that the sound problem has been resolved with the improvement of technology—is visual impact. I am a little sad that Mākara, for example, is being hindered in terms of its development of wind energy because residents fear the visual impact. But I note the irony that although there has been talk about that in the Te Apiti farm up near Palmerston North, on the Tararuas, effectively the towns nearby are clamouring to be known as the town that the wind farm operates from, because they see the potential for tourism. All of them want to be labelled as the town nearest to the Te Apiti wind farm, because that will attract tourists to the town and increase its productivity. So from that aspect, I am confident that as these farms develop, they will prove to be welcome not only for their functionality, but also for the positive aspects of the visual amenity that they provide to tourism, and also to the local residents.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central): Many very interesting issues have been raised, and I think that we could prolong this debate for a long time. But we will not, because I want to point out again that the issues about the Department of Conservation, etc. are really outside the immediate scope of this very local bill. That applies to such issues as, if we are doing this for a regional reserve, why we are not doing it for the department, and the issues about multiple land use. Without going into the Department of Conservation side of matters, because it is right outside the scope of this bill, I will just remind members that the reason that this particular bill was brought in was local legislation: the Wellington Regional Water Board Act of 1972, enacted at a time when I think the focus really was on the single use of land. The Act did not authorise any development of wind farms or of any other kind of renewable energy on this land, which was previously owned by the Wellington Regional Water Board. So the council found itself utterly blocked by legislation that had been passed through this Parliament, and the only thing it could do was to ask for another piece of legislation to go through. That raised a point that Jim Peters raised, which I found quite interesting and I could take up, but I will not.

I will just make one point about the haphazard development of wind farms. I totally take the point, and the New Zealand Wind Energy Association has been meeting with the Ministry for the Environment. At the moment we have only guidelines, but it is possible that we will look at a national environment standard that may help regional councils as they start to address issues around noise, visibility, and other issues outside this bill. Regarding the question of renewable energy, I think it was pointed out to Ken Shirley as he sat down that renewable energy is as defined in section 2 of the Resource Management Act. That will make the whole issue easy when dealing with that Act and the Local Government Act.

The point that I think is really interesting—and I say to Mr Sowry that I do not actually know how to deal with it—is the waste of time on repetitive local bills. I really do not have an answer to that. In a sense, we are trying to correct legislation that has been passed in this Parliament before. I have found a couple of times that people from an older city, in particular, have had to correct legislation that was passed in 1890 and that somehow has never been repealed or gathered in. During my career in this Parliament I have had to spend several Wednesday nights in this Chamber, taking Wellington bills through. I certainly will take up that issue and have a look at it.

Preamble agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): I know that with this bill the Minister, Marian Hobbs, is not acting in a ministerial capacity as such, but if she wants to sort out the issue of not having to come back and waste Parliament’s time with this sort of legislation on a regular basis, I suggest that the Government could start by opposing the new clause in Part 1 that effectively states that only renewable energy installations may be built on that land. I do not think that that would do any harm at all, to be honest. Will we find a large coalfield under Wellington Regional Council land? The Minister has the mapping—it has all been done—and the answer is no, so let us not worry about that. Will we find a large gasfield under Wellington Regional Council land? The answer is probably not, as well. But could we find a gasfield out to sea from the Wairarapa coast? The answer is yes, we could. I am sure that the Minister’s colleague the Minister of Energy has fingers, toes, and all sorts of parts of his body crossed, in hoping for a gas find out there.

Why would we not then want to bring that gas on and allow it to be converted into electricity on regional council land? I cannot think of one reason why we would not allow that. The whole station would be about the size of a small Woolworths store—not very big. It would be very unobtrusive.

Of course, by the provisions of this bill the council will not be able to do that on its land, so we will be back in Parliament with another bill that will state that the council can process gas because there has been a big gas find. So why do we not allow that situation to occur now? It is one way in which the Minister could live up to her wish to solve the problem of having those little local bills come through all the time.

The inserted clause, which states the provision applies to renewable energy only, is silly. It reflects the sort of path that the Greens forced the Government down with regard to lines companies and their power generation. That clause does not make sense in this day and age, at all, and I appeal to the Minister to remove it. In fact, the clause was not in the original bill; it has been inserted by the Local Government and Environment Committee and I think that the select committee has made a mistake. I encourage the Minister to take some time, maybe seek a bit of advice, and then say that we should pass the bill without that clause. The bill would still meet the Wellington Regional Council’s requirements, and it would give the council an option of doing that generation on Wellington Regional Council land.

I say to the Minister that there is a rig drilling in the sea off the Wairarapa coast at the moment, and there would not be a member in the Chamber who hoped that that drilling was not successful. So it would just make it a lot easier for everybody and, quite frankly, I am sure that Wellington regional ratepayers would welcome a cut of the slice, if energy were able to be generated on their land.

It would also make sense in relation to other land owned by the council. A lot of that land is old water board land. We would find that there were bits and pieces of that land by the port and God knows where—throughout the Hutt Valley, and all around the place. It makes sense that we should be able to put cogeneration plants and all sorts of things on that land.

The regional council did not ask for the renewable energy clause. I know that the select committee inserted it unanimously. In my view that is a mistake, and National supports the removal of that clause.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I can understand that at this point members may believe that the insertion of the term “renewable energy”—which was unanimously agreed to by the Local Government and Environment Committee, as stated in the commentary on the bill—should be seen as, and perhaps is, restrictive. But I bring to the minds of members here who were members of that select committee that the chairperson of the Wellington Regional Council and the other member from the council expressly said in the course of discussion with them that that was the use they wished to have confined in the change of designation, as it were, that this bill will bring into being, allowing them to proceed. That was made very clear to members of the select committee.

The insertion is, therefore, in line with the meaning and amendments of the Resource Management Act. The committee concurred with that. Although it may seem at this stage that it is a confinement or limitation, in fact it is the wish of the Wellington Regional Council, the initiator of the bill.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I would like to follow on from my learned colleague the Hon Roger Sowry, because I think he is right. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I take up the point raised by Jim Peters. If the Wellington Regional Council expressly wants to ring-fence what it will do on that land, as it has done in this bill, then essentially it is pre-empting the public’s right to determine for themselves what they want to do on that land, as per the Local Government Act of 2002 consultation process. We have taken away the public’s ability to work outside the scope of this legislation. We have denied them the opportunity to think of alternative uses for that land. That is where I think Roger Sowry has it absolutely right.

I think that the Wellington Regional Council has erred in its fiduciary duty by specifying and confining activity on the land, instead of leaving it open-ended so that the community as a whole could partake in a consultative process to clarify what it needs and wants. The council should have allowed that to take place. This process now means that that option is not there. If the community wants to use that land, it will be able to do so only for the purpose of renewable energy and no other purpose. That raises a very interesting question about continuing to allow these sorts of bills to go through in relation to local authorities. In particular, now that the Local Government Act of 2002 supposedly provides councils with the power of general competence—if one thinks that that is definitely the case—then there is not the need to have a bill that puts constraints in place, as this bill does.

We are supposed to be focusing on the preliminary provisions, which include the definitions, so I will reiterate the definition of “renewable energy” that I pointed out to Ken Shirley before. It means energy produced from solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, tidal, wave, and ocean current sources. When it comes to energy generation, I would think that given that definition of renewable energy, at least we will not be limiting ourselves just to the consideration of wind generation. Other options within the definition of renewable energy can be considered. Geothermal generation is one of them, and hydro is another. We can even look at tidal and wave power. So there is a far greater range than wind power. But I would like to reiterate that even though I was on the select committee, in hindsight I think we have erred in ring-fencing what can happen on the land in question. The area is vast, and a lot of underlying provisions apply to various parts of it.

Going further to the definitions, it is good to see that there are some definitions here and that they are quite clear, because often that is not the case. In the Resource Management Act, the term “sustainable” does not have a definition of its own; it is coupled with “sustainable management” and is included in the purpose clause. Another interesting thing is that in the definitions in the new Resource Management Act amendments an “iwi authority” will be accorded the same definition as a “public authority”, so to all intents and purposes a renewable energy project could be under the control of an iwi authority as a public authority. A regional council could actually hand over that function to an iwi authority, under that premise.

Also, it is interesting to note that in this bill the Wellington Regional Council has specified a condition. If only local authorities could do the same when, under the amendments, they have to give effect to regional council instructions in their rules and plans. In this bill, if we excluded subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 4, the rest could stand alone. The land provision in clause 4(2) may still have to be specified—fine—but the rest could stand alone. If we excluded clause 4(1), the provision would still work.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I must admit that I have been a little disappointed with the contributions made by the National Party to the debate on this part. I was going to suggest that when Mr Sowry spoke he clearly had not talked to his party’s member on the select committee about these issues; otherwise he probably would not have made the speech he did. But then I heard the National member of the select committee talking, and he had seemingly forgotten what I understand was the select committee’s discussion on the issue of renewable energy. It is my recollection that when the Wellington Regional Council came to the select committee, it indicated that the only purpose for which it wanted this bill was wind farming. Despite the wording of clause 4(1), which is more general, nevertheless that is really all the council wanted the bill for. It was actually through the committee’s discussion with the council, in which I took part, that we suggested that it might want a broader purpose in terms of renewable energy.

The problem that arises if we start extending this beyond renewable energy is that non-renewable energy almost inevitably means some intrusive use of the land, and at the end of the day this is Wellington Regional Water Board land. It is a water catchment area for collecting drinking water for the use of Wellingtonians. Introducing intrusive things—coalmining, say, or something of that nature—will inevitably interfere with the primary purpose of the land, whereas the use of the land for renewable energy does not involve the same sorts of problems. Use of the land for solar or wind energy, or things of that nature—certainly this land will not be used for tidal and wave energy—is non-intrusive.

The second thing Mr Sowry seems to be oblivious to is that the land we are talking of is some way from the sea. We are talking about the Belmont Hills and the Tararua Ranges. Even if we did discover some oil or gas offshore, the chances that we would want to use the Belmont Hills or the Tararua Ranges for the purpose of collecting and transmitting some of that gas and energy are, I think, beyond even the realms of remoteness.

I think that when the Wellington Regional Water Board said that it was more than happy to have this bill extended from wind to renewable energy, and when the select committee unanimously decided that that was as far as we needed to go and was an adequate and good way to go without running into problems of interfering with the water catchment area, we had it exactly right. We provided a liberality that the Wellington Regional Council had not initially expected and that it was grateful for, without getting into some of the very clear conservation and environmental issues that would arise if we started to interfere with the collection of water for the Wellington region.

So I think that the effectively straw argument that the National Party has advanced in questioning whether the scope of the bill is too narrow in covering only renewable energy can really be seen as something of a nonsense and, in fact, certainly without substance.

The other point that I wanted to talk to—and that I was initially going to speak on—in Part 1 is the omission of the words “council-controlled organisation” and “council-controlled trading organisation”. I alluded to that in my previous speech when I talked about one of the concerns of the Hon Peter Dunne in respect of this bill and its limited scope. Members will know that our agreement with the Labour Party for confidence and supply includes the freeing-up of legislation to enable public-private partnerships in the area of land transport. The Government has been very faithful in meeting that condition, and we have passed legislation in this place that has enabled public-private partnerships to be developed with regard to our roading structure.

We faced exactly the same issue here. United Future was keen to see this bill modified so that the development of wind farms is not simply something for the Wellington Regional Council to try to do off its own bat, with the myriad problems that that may create in terms of local government organisations getting into business—and particularly into areas where cost efficiency is absolutely critical—and speculating to some extent with ratepayers’ money in order to do so. We wanted to see this bill broadened to facilitate the use of outside organisations, including major energy companies. These, after all, are the ones that have the expertise in this area to enable them to carry out the work with the assistance of, if appropriate, and in partnership with, local government—Wellington Regional Council in particular—rather than the Wellington Regional Council doing the work itself. That is the reason why clause 5 has been replaced with a provision that enables far broader use.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): The United Future member who has just resumed his seat, who says he comes from the Hutt Valley, seems to be somewhat misinformed. He made the point that all those lands vested in the Wellington Regional Water Board cannot be used for any other purpose, because they are confined specifically for the harvesting of water for the urban needs of Wellington. Earlier in this debate we heard him waxing lyrical about Mount Climie. Well, as one who was born under the shadow of Mount Climie, I can tell him that it is not part of the water-harvesting area. The water-harvesting area is in the catchments of the Tararuas and the Ōrongorongas, which, combined with the aquifers of the lower Hutt Valley, with the recharge area in the Taita Gorge, are the sources of the water. Mount Climie is not used for water-harvesting catchments, so the member’s logic has gone right out of the window.

His logic is faulty in another respect. I made the point earlier in this debate that if we do not want coalmines, nuclear power-stations, or whatever, and if we really had confidence in the Resource Management Act operating as an effects-based gatekeeper, then we would not need this sort of prescriptive process. As the Minister would appreciate, this approach is against the philosophy of the Resource Management Act. This approach is prescriptive; it is picking uses rather than relying on the effects-based process whereby we can avoid, mitigate, and remedy, the effects of certain actions—and if we cannot do that, then we cannot allow the actions. This bill is totally contrary to the whole philosophy of the Resource Management Act, and it disturbs me that we are going down this track. We did it with mining on the Coromandel, and here we are doing it in specifying renewable energy and confining ourselves to that.

Again, what is renewable energy? I ask that seriously, because the definition in the legislation does not make a lot of sense, I believe. We have always thought that oil was a fossil fuel. There is growing evidence that, in fact, oil could well be derived from deep biosphere chemical seep, because people are finding that old oil wells that have become depleted are miraculously renewing themselves. There are a lot of very interesting scientific papers around at the moment that suggest that, contrary to the common belief whereby we just assumed that oil was a fossil fuel, oil may well be chemically derived from deep biosphere chemical reactions.

Equally, the same can be said of solar energy. Solar energy was said to be wonderful. Solar energy is nuclear energy. The sun is one big nuclear reactor—radiation is what solar energy is. So declaring ourselves nuclear-free is a nonsense. It is virtually saying that we do not want any sunlight. Logically, saying that we are nuclear-free is saying that we do not want any sunlight, because sunlight is radiation from a very big nuclear reactor that just happens to be a long way away. That is the nonsense of the terms defined in this legislation.

I ask the Minister why she does not rely on the effects-based principle of the Resource Management Act rather than allow Government departments and Governments of the day to preclude activities like mining in the Coromandel and, in this instance, to say that we can have only one definition of renewable energy. There is not a lot of sense behind it.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): I was not going to take another call, but one of the worst speeches I have heard in the Chamber—it was made by the United Future member Murray Smith—makes me do so. I know that United Future is not noted for doing its work on an issue, but I would have thought that Mr Smith, who claims to live in the Wellington region, would not get up and give a speech in which he says that there is no flat land involved in this that could be built on. Well, actually, yes there is. Any tour of Wellington Regional Water Board land would show that there is quite a lot of flat land.

Secondly, Mr Smith said that we do not want to mine coal on the land because the water supply would become contaminated and the land is in the water catchment area. I say to Mr Smith that of course we will not be mining coal on the land, because there is no coal in the Wellington region. It is a small detail, I know, but I am sure that even he—no, I am not sure that even he could understand that. What we could do is build a combined-cycle gas-to-electricity plant on that land, particularly in the Wairarapa if gas is found offshore, and, on the level of probability, there is a fifty-fifty chance of that happening. Offshore Wairarapa is one of three areas in New Zealand, where people are currently actively exploring for gas, the other two being Taranaki and Canterbury.

I would have thought that, if United Future wants to stay in Parliament and stay representing some Wellington area people, it would say: “That’s good. We hope we find some gas in our region.” I would have thought United Future would say that that would be tremendous. If we do find gas we would pipe it ashore and at some stage it would have to be processed. The gas can be processed in a building about half the size of a Woolworths store. About 1,500 square metres of flat land would be sufficient to do that, including space for all the necessary carparking. With trees around such a site, people would not even know that it was there.

In fact, such sites are in Taranaki now, and Mr Smith has probably driven past and not even noticed. He has probably not noticed the Taranaki combined-cycle plant. We could duplicate it in Wellington if this silly clause were not in the bill. It was not in the bill that Marian Hobbs was asked to sponsor. I blame Marian Hobbs for a lot of things but I will not blame her for this. She was asked by the Wellington Regional Council to sponsor the bill, and she is dutifully doing that. I say to Marian Hobbs that this bill could be one of the last that she puts through the House—let us get it right.

Jill Pettis: Oh, Roger!

Hon ROGER SOWRY: It is nice to see the senior Government whip back from dinner. It would be good if Marian Hobbs got it right. We should remove this clause.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I was not going to take another call either, but I must respond to the provocation from National and ACT. I will not, however, stoop to the personal insults that are coming from the National member, because I do not think that it is very constructive. The comment I will make is that this is not coastal land. If Mr Sowry wants to debate with me exactly what the water board land does comprise in the Wellington Regional Council area, then I guess we could debate that all night. But we are not talking about coastal land and we are therefore not talking about land that would be suitable for offshore functions.

In terms of the comment made by ACT in terms of Mt Climie, the situation is that we are allowing all water board land to be used for these purposes. We are not saying that Mt Climie is or is not singled out. The fact is that if we give permission to use water board land generally for non-renewable matters, then we include catchment areas—even if Mt Climie is not one. It is interesting to hear that the member was born under Mt Climie. That is news I did not know. But even if Mt Climie itself is not part of the water catchment area directly, it is certainly within the water catchment area. Either we allow all the water catchment area to be used for non-renewable energy or we allow none of it to be used.

Again, I state that the balance is right, and that in terms of these particular areas of land, if there is no coal there, then there is no issue regarding the use of non-sustainable energy, anyway. This is an issue in terms of the Wellington Regional Council that is really irrelevant to what it wants to do, and beyond what it wants to do. I will not spend any more time talking about it.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Electrical installations and works

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): I was not going to speak on this part at all, but the fact that the Minister refused to speak on the last part has persuaded me to speak on this part. In the debate on this bill people have raised legitimate questions, and the Minister has stood up and said that she agrees with the concerns and will put her mind to how the problems could be fixed. When people then gave Marian Hobbs a whole lot of solutions and she chose, basically, to do nothing, she invited members to seek calls in the debate on other parts of the bill, to ask why the previous part has not been fixed and what can be done in the current part to make sure that we fix the problems. I would like to know from the Minister whether she would be prepared in this part to make it clear that, for example, gas conversion into electricity would be something that would be enabled to be done. It would not be allowed as of right, because we want it to go through the long and tortuous process of the Resource Management Act, but at least it should be allowed to be done under this part.

The other issue that I wish to raise here is that this part states the Wellington Regional Council is allowed to construct, operate, and maintain electrical installation works for renewable energy on the land. That means the regional council can own the windmills on the land. I say to Marian Hobbs and to other members of the Committee that as a ratepayer of the regional council, I do not want Parliament to give the council the power to build and operate wind turbines. There are enough people who are prepared to invest their money in that. There are private companies out there, doing that right now. I believe they should have the responsibility of carrying the risk of that, not people who are ratepayers. I ask Marian Hobbs whether she is happy that elderly people on the Kapiti coast—and, indeed, elderly people in Wellington—on fixed incomes will be faced with a rates increase in order to carry the risk of this wind generation. I ask Mrs Laban whether she is happy for the people in Porirua to pay more rates so that the council can enter into a new business venture that private enterprise would be quite happy to do.

There are plenty of people who are willing to invest in wind farms. We know there are members of this Parliament who own shares in wind farms. Jeanette Fitzsimons is one of them. So we know—

Rod Donald: The Green super fund.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: The member rightly interjects. The Greens have put some of their superannuation fund into a wind farm. That is fine. I do not begrudge them doing that, at all. The Greens have made a decision. I would suggest that the Greens would not want to put their super fund into a brewery, but they have chosen to put it into wind farms. This is a serious point. The point I make to the Greens is that they have legitimately made a choice, and I think that is fine. But why would they make ratepayers, particularly those with a fixed income, carry the risk of the council investing in something like a wind farm? I say to the Greens that the council does not have a flash record on investment in business ventures. Many of us remember the “sesqui” debacle; I think we are probably still paying for it in our rates. This is a council that is not flash with regard to investing public money.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to answer two points that have been made in the debate. The first is the renewable energy question. I want to remind Mr Sowry that when Wellington Regional Council representatives came to me they said they were prohibited from using their land—prohibited from altering the intention of the Wellington Regional Water Board Act—because the land was primarily used for water catchment purposes. There are a number of issues that they did not want to have: large buildings, large roads, moving of trucks over land, extensive farming, or any of those other things. They wanted to use the land largely for forestry and for renewable resources, so they were quite happy with the definition that had been put in this bill by the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was not contrary to their immediate intention as they expressed it to me.

Roger Sowry raised the second issue when he said that clause 4 in Part 2, “Electrical installations and works”, states that the Wellington Regional Council must own this energy action. I say that it does not. Subclause (1) states: “The Wellington Regional Council may construct, operate, and maintain electrical installations”. I take the point that Murray Smith, my Wellington colleague from the United Future party, raised. When United Future moved to amend the original clause 5, “Performance of functions by council-controlled organisation or council-controlled trading organisation”, and extended its meaning by doing so, the amended provision allowed and added to the fact that private individuals or a private company could invest. I think that was quite clear when Genesis Power, a State-owned enterprise, came and expressed its interest in possibly investing there.

This is not a bill that will automatically put an enormous cost on to Wellington ratepayers and a responsibility on to a council to run what could be quite a large enterprise. [Interruption] It does not forbid it, but this is not forbidding legislation and I—

Simon Power: It is empowering legislation.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: I wonder who is on her feet? I think I made those two points quite clearly. The first point was that renewable energy was something the council was quite happy with, as it did not conflict with the council’s original intention, and the second point was that this clause is not an instruction for those people to own the energy company that may go in there.

JIM PETERS (NZ First): I think that some members of the Committee may be in some confusion. What we had here, despite the best words of the chief Government whip, was a limiting—[Interruption].

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): From the Government benches, and particularly from the chief Government whip, there are too many interjections. I think it is that member’s responsibility to show the way.

JIM PETERS: I was about to say that this is a small bill that came to the House because the Wellington Regional Council in its wisdom found that the Wellington Regional Water Board Act was limiting, due to a series of developments in the past. Part 2 is merely the enabling part of the bill, which is being used in this case to allow the Wellington Regional Council under the enabling arm of the Resource Management Act to strive, and thereby to enable the people of Wellington to thrive. In this case, it is with regard to renewable energy.

Secondly, the new clause 5 was inserted specifically because we were made aware by the Wellington Regional Council of the potential not for the council as the dominant authority to run an energy resource such as a wind farm, but for the council to be allowed to do exactly what the clause states—except that the council will set terms and conditions in accordance with its wishes, as defined by consultation and in terms of the accountability of the Resource Management Act. Those were the final considerations that guided new clause 5, which was agreed to unanimously.

Subsequently, it may seem to some members of the Committee that the Wellington Regional Council may not be the fit body to do that. That is a matter for the council to determine for itself, and will be the subject of adequate consultation in the wider Wellington regional area. That is what the bill states.

That was exactly the intention of new clause 6; it did not concern just the Resource Management Act. We had in mind, in taking up the enabling function of that Act, a clause that would enable the council not to be limited or affected by any other enactment but to be able to proceed.

In summary, Part 2 enables a body that is limited by the past to be creative and entrepreneurial, not necessarily by its own actions but by passing on to another entity or another group the ability to form what the council hopes will be a renewable energy development. That is what New Zealand First supported in the select committee, and that is what I support now.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): I want to begin by thanking the Hon Marian Hobbs for her endorsement of the arguments I was making with regard to Part 1, and I appreciate her support on that. I want to talk on the amendment in clause 6, and in doing that I want to also take the opportunity of correcting an exchange that took place during the second reading debate between my colleague Larry Baldock and Ken Shirley with regard to this issue. In particular, I noted, listening to the radio as I was driving back from a function, that my colleague Larry Baldock talked about how some of this land was in Peter Dunne’s electorate, Ohariu-Belmont, to which there was an interjection from Mr Shirley telling him quite categorically, because he lived in the area, that this land was not in Ohariu-Belmont, and I want to reassure him that effectively the Belmont Hills are indeed in Ohariu-Belmont, at least to some extent.

But the point that I want to make with regard to clause 6 is that this was another issue that was taken up by Peter Dunne in his first reading speech. He made the comment, and it is worth quoting: “… one of the issues that arises—and I am concerned about it when I look at the provisions of clause 4(2)—is that around Wellington, through the prudent management of the regional council over a number of years, we have a significant number of regional parks, which have been established for the enjoyment and the benefit of Wellingtonians and which are widely used.” He said: “I think of the Belmont Regional Park, in my own electorate, as a classic example. It is true that the topography of Wellington means that most elevated sites lend themselves to being good sites for windmills—there is a certain substance that seems to blow through the air that makes the windmills turn. One of the issues that is therefore of concern is that, unless we are very careful, there is the possibility of a number of those areas that Wellingtonians like to think of as good recreation areas becoming distorted, damaged, or overtaken by the high windmills that would be used to generate renewable energy. There would be a public reaction against that. So I think that one of the issues the select committee will have to address is the scope of the bill, the limitations that might need to be imposed on any such wind farms or their equivalent that might be established, and the conflict between that and good recreational practice.”

That was certainly one thing in the Local Government and Environment Committee that we were very aware of, and certainly we had one or two objections. Not many submissions were made, but one or two were concerned with the use of the land. That is the reason we amended clause 6; to make it very clear that the provision that said, in its initial format, that the Act did not limit or affect the Resource Management Act, could not be construed as being limited to that Act, and instead provided that the Act does not limit or affect the application of any other enactments.

In doing so, we were sending a very clear signal, we hoped, to the Wellington Regional Council, of the importance of consultation in terms of any use of this land, and in particular of the land for wind farming, given the value that Wellingtonians place on their recreational facilities It is important that there is consultation and accountability, and that the requirements of the Local Government Act, as well as the Resource Management Act, are followed in order to give the public a very good say in terms of how this land should be used.

But I would like to point out to the Committee that the select committee went beyond that, and effectively asked for, and obtained from the Wellington Regional Council, a written assurance that any application to develop a wind farm would proceed on a notified basis. Whilst we did not think we should make legislative provision as a matter of law—and I think it was outside the scope of the bill, anyway, to do so—we did get that written assurance from the Wellington Regional Council, and it is worth restating that for anybody who might look at the debate in the future on this bill, because of any issue arising. We did get a written assurance from the Wellington Regional Council that any application would proceed on a notified basis.

That then, coupled with the new provision in clause 6, does mean that, effectively, the public will be fully consulted about any development of this land for use as a wind farm, and will have an opportunity to talk about its impact on recreational use, and use by the citizens of Wellington generally. The Wellington Regional Council, I must say, were very happy to provide that assurance. It made it clear that it had no intention whatsoever to do things without full consultation with the public, and, more important, private companies would not be able to avoid doing that either.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I hear words about giving the public a say in how the land should be used, but I put it to the Committee that we have actually pre-empted that right. The way in which the public has a say on how this land can be used is, firstly, through the Resource Management Act process for the provisions of their district plan or regional plan and, secondly, through the resource consent process regarding that. Or, if the regional council is looking at making any changes that affect the use of that land, the council should go through a public consultation process. So perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and explain why we are now giving regional councils and local authorities the opportunity to circumvent the Resource Management Act and the public process on the use of land, by allowing those bodies to come straight to the House and put in legislation that circumscribes the conditions of use in regard to that land without that public input.

The Wellington Regional Council, by having come straight to Parliament, has denied the public a say—both through the requirements under the Resource Management Act, in terms of planning, and through the Local Government Act, in terms of consultation—in what they want to see happening with that land. The public does not now have that right, because this bill specifies that the activities on this land are to be for “electrical installations or works for renewable energy”. That has now been specified. The Wellington Regional Council did that, and Parliament supported the council doing that. But, by doing that, the council has actually denied the public the due process of the Resource Management Act and its planning provisions, and we, in turn, have assisted achieving that outcome.

So does that mean that any regional or local authority can now use a local bill to pre-empt that public process and circumscribe activities that it, in its wisdom—without going back to the public—wants to see happen with the land? For that is exactly what has happened here.

Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call, because, after all, the Resource Management Act does have a planning process. That planning process is a public process. It means that local communities determine for themselves what activities they want to see in their areas and on the lands that are held within those areas. Yet this bill denies them that Resource Management Act process.

It also denies them the opportunity to look at future planning and at the sorts of things they might like to see happen on land within their communities of interest. The Local Government Act 2002 is looking at 10-year plans—long-term plans and visions for communities. Yet this particular area of land—and I understand it is substantial—will have to be excluded from that process.

So perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and explain the efficacy of using parliamentary process to establish a set of activities that a regional or local authority believes, in its wisdom, to be necessary, without the local body having gone through a public process—a full public process—under the Resource Management Act for planning purposes, and the Local Government Act for long-term community planning. Neither of those processes has taken place. That has not happened here and it cannot happen now, because the use has been specified. The activities for this land have been ring-fenced.

In the select committee process we were concerned that the public did have a say on those matters, but we overlooked the fact that we had circumscribed the areas on which they could comment, and had not allowed the opportunity for them to consider completely different activities altogether, rather than renewable energy. So perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and explain why local bills are circumventing the proper Resource Management Act process and the Local Government Act 2002 process for community planning.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): I want to thank Marian Hobbs for taking a call on Part 2. I accept that the bill is exactly as she says, and does not force the Wellington Regional Council to get into ownership. I absolutely accept that. The Minister is dead right: Genesis Energy and others will be keen to invest in wind generation on some of this land. I am sure that Meridian Energy and others will be pretty keen, as well. That is all really good, and I am very pleased about that. She and I would have no disagreement—in fact, I do not think anyone in the Committee would have any disagreement—that, given that we are giving the council the power to put the wind generation on the land, it should get out and do it with these companies.

On one point, I am not sure from the Minister’s comments whether I differ from her, or whether it is just a different level of faith. I do not like the fact that the bill is open-ended and allows the regional council to own those facilities. I do not have the same level of faith that the Minister may have that this regional council, or one in the future, will not go off on some nutty business plan and decide to invest in a wind farm. I guess it is that point that I want to make to the Minister and to the other Wellington regional MPs, who are very keen to prance around with the regional council and say they are the only ones who represent the district.

It is interesting that, apart from Marian Hobbs, no Wellington member of Parliament from the Labour Party—and there are several in the Chamber—has bothered to stand up and say whether he or she is happy about his or her constituents taking the risk. Winnie Laban has not been prepared to stand up and say that she thinks ratepayers in Porirua should be prepared to pay extra rates and take a risk. I think that is appalling. Those members should be on record as to whether they support this.

I give the example of the train service. There are people on the Wellington Regional Council whom Wellington regional members of Parliament know who want the council to operate the trains. They want it to take the risk and do the whole thing itself. I think the majority of the Labour members in the region, myself, and certainly the ACT members—I am not sure about United Future members—are at one in thinking that the regional council should not be operating them. We think it should be tendering that out to someone else to operate. The mayors of the region are saying exactly the same thing. In fact, the mayors are unanimous. They are saying they do not want the regional council to play with their money in owning the trains.

I think the mayors would be unanimous about the council getting into electricity generation, as well. They would not want the Wellington Regional Council getting into electricity generation. So I do not think we should be passing a bill that allows the regional council to become a generator of electricity. I do not believe that that is in the best interests of ratepayers. I believe that what would happen is that ratepayers on fixed incomes would object strongly to having to pick up the losses.

I want it noted on the record that some of the members who represent the biggest number of people on fixed incomes—and, in Winnie Laban’s case, some of the poorest people in the region—are happy to sit silent and let those people take the risk. If Winnie Laban were sitting on this side of the House, in Opposition, she would be standing up to say she does not want the people of Porirua East to take the risk. I think she would say that. But she will not say it today. I predict that in the future, when this turns sour, she will say that the council should not have done that.

Well, I want her and the other Wellington regional members to know that they will be held to account for this. At the moment the regional council looks like it is sensible. It is a good, sensible council. Marian Hobbs is nodding. She might also nod if I said it has not always been like that, and it will not always be like it in the future. That is why I am worried about there being no clause to stop the council from going off on some sort of plan and whim of some officer in the council.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 20 October 2004.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT): I urge Parliament to support the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill. It is a worthy bill that is to be sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I urge parties to put aside any party political views and to look at the merits of the bill, which restores sentencing back to the judges, where it should be, instead of putting it on to the probation service and probation officials. We need sensible sentencing, which this bill will deliver. I urge members of the House to say yes to this bill, to let it go to a committee for it to do its work and to judge it on its merits.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I ask Dr Newman to indicate which select committee the bill would go to.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: I intend to move that the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty): In addressing the issue of Mrs Newman’s bill on community sentencing—

Jill Pettis: How did he get the next call?

Hon TONY RYALL: I suspect that paint is being stripped in Wanganui. In bringing this bill to the House Dr Muriel Newman is focusing on one of the major weaknesses of this Minister’s administration of the criminal justice system in this country—that is, community work. Community work has become a byword for slap-happy mismanagement of people's sentences. I released figures last year that the Government did not want to release—that is, figures that showed in some parts of this country, such as the seat of Rotorua, fewer than a quarter of the people required to turn up for community work actually turned up.

Russell Fairbrother: Ha, ha!

Hon TONY RYALL: Mr Fairbrother can laugh, but he is the man who defended a lot of the crims who are not turning up for community work in the Hawke’s Bay. What is worse, is that this Minister was completely unaware of the mismanagement of community work in his portfolio. Worse still, this week fewer than half the people who should turn up for community work will actually turn up. What is the problem? The problem is that the Government has removed all the power and sanction of the community work supervisors. If someone does not turn up for community work, after a number of non-appearances the community work supervisor may sanction the non-attender by referring that case back to the judge for breaching his or her community work.

Do members know what happens? When those people are referred back to the judge for breaching community work, what is the sentence under this Government? If people do not turn up for community work more than half are sentenced to more community work. Under this Government’s liberal justice policies, if people do not turn up for community work more than half will be sentenced to more community work, and, believe it or not, I think that about a quarter of the people will have their community work wiped altogether. So if people do not turn up, the judges will wipe the community work when their non-attendance is brought to their attention.

This is just another example of the liberal justice system that New Zealanders have decided they have had enough of. If someone is to be sentenced to 300 hours of community work would members not expect that he or she does it? What about the young man in Rotorua who had something like $40,000 worth of fines wiped in return for 300 hours of community work? That is about $143 an hour for the community work that he will be doing in Rotorua. Does that sound fair? Does that sound right? We know that if people turn up to community work in Rotorua they are probably one of only about four who actually turn up. So Muriel Newman is dead right to bring this bill to the House, and the National Party in Opposition for a few months more will certainly support this bill.

However, in the select committee we would like to see changes made to give the community work supervisors power to sanction these people. In the past, the community work supervisors were able to provide immediate penalties for non-attendance, whether it was additional hours, or references to the judge, but now those sanctions have been removed and people know they do not need to turn up. Fewer than half of the people who should turn up for community work this Saturday actually will. If the system itself will not take the sentences seriously, then it is little wonder that the criminals do not.

This Minister has been informed of these changes. In fact, when he was a new Minister he became aware of these problems when I drew it to the attention of the public. He promised there would be a review of the community work scheme and the reporting mechanisms. Do members want to know what has happened? Absolutely nothing! New Zealand continues to be lumbered with a liberal justice system, with a liberal Government, and with a Minister who does not know what is going on in his department.

I would like him to take the next call and tell this House what he has actually done since he announced his review of community work at the beginning of last year. [Interruption] I am sorry—was that the Minister Mr Benson-Pope ringing the police and requiring them to collect his debts again? I wonder whether it was. I doubt it. This Government certainly needs to know that changes need to be made to the community work scheme. One of the reasons why I am suspicious of this Government’s crime statistics, which were released today—and I bet members do not know that the crime statistics were reviewed and corrected secretly in May last—

Dr Muriel Newman: In May?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, in May last year the 2003 calendar year statistics were amended without anyone knowing and without any announcement. Do members know that?

Simon Power: How could that be so?

Hon TONY RYALL: Well, that is just how this Government deals with statistics. Let us look at what these guys opposite were doing with the statistics for community work. The Ministers were saying: “There is 80 percent compliance with community work.” But what they were not telling the public was that when they looked at the form that has to be filled in, they looked at how many people did not turn up because they are regular non-attenders, and they removed them from the equation. The Government looked at how many people did not turn up because they were drunk, for example, or could not find a babysitter—and they removed them from the equation, as well. So the number the Government used in comparing the numbers of those who attend is a much lower number. It is the number arrived at after the Government has extracted all those groups, and the Government gets a percentage, and it can say: “Look, 80 percent turned up.”

Dr Muriel Newman: Isn’t that dishonest?

Hon TONY RYALL: Darn right it is dishonest! We had all these questions and answers in the House about the compliance rate with community work, but when we actually got the forms and asked how many of the people who should have turned up actually did turn up, we found that fewer than half did. That is absolutely appalling.

So what can be done about it? Muriel Newman’s bill proposes a number of changes, and the first of those—[Interruption] Oh, that was the member for Rotorua. Well, let us talk about the member for Rotorua, who chips in here. The member from Rotorua is the member who, when everyone else in the Bay of Plenty was saying: “Save our rescue helicopter.”, stood up and said: “Actually, the ACC plan is great and we want a fixed-wing aircraft.” That is what she said. She said the Accident Compensation Corporation plan was great, and that they should have fixed-wing aircraft.

Simon Power: That will work in the hills!

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes! That member is the only person in the Bay of Plenty who defended the Accident Compensation Corporation’s rescue helicopter plan. The only person in the Bay of Plenty who defended that plan was Steve Chadwick. She said it was a really good plan, and: “Let’s have fixed-wing air ambulances as well.” No wonder this woman is in trouble in Rotorua! She is so out of touch with ordinary people in Rotorua. Rotorua does not want prostitution legalised, Rotorua is not in favour of cannabis reform, and Rotorua is not in favour of civil unions—but Steve Chadwick is. Rotorua is not in favour of a liberal community work approach, which we have seen from this Government, but Steve Chadwick is. And that is the reason why Dr Gilbert Stehbens will be one of the great surprises of the election campaign when he is elected as MP for Rotorua. So I would like to ask Mrs Chadwick to go to her community work centre this Saturday and tell me how many people turn up.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour): One of the surprising things that happened on Monday night was that when the Oscars were handed out Tony Ryall did not receive one. He does a performance like that every day. He is all huff and puff and no action.

It is a bit rich for the National Party to be lecturing this House on toughening up on crime and law and order. The National Party always threatens to ride into town and sort out law and order, but do members know what happens when that party is in Government? Nothing happens! Do members know what is said about the National Party on law and order? It is all hat but no horse.

What about the 1999 referendum? What was that a referendum on? It was a referendum where the public in this country said that it had had a gutsful of crime, and that it wanted the Government to get tough on crime. It was a referendum on 9 years of total inactivity from the National Party in Government. That is what that referendum was on—9 long years of total inactivity. It is galling to hear National Party members, who did nothing for 9 years—all hat and no horse when it came to law and order—stand up in this Parliament and lecture people about how they will get tough on crime. People do not believe them, and that is why that party is languishing in the polls.

As far as this bill is concerned, I would describe it as political puffery from the ACT party. It is absolutely political puffery. The reality is that this bill is, if we like, part of ACT’s death rattle. It is a kind of attempt to try to show itself as tough. I mean, if it had been a “Take ’em out and hang ’em from the highest tree!” bill, or a “Take ’em out and flog ’em to within an inch of their lives!” bill, we could maybe understand that it was an ACT bill, but it is a “Let’s all get tough on community sentencing.” bill.

Jill Pettis: Pitiful!

Hon PAUL SWAIN: It is pitiful; it is pathetic. What it shows, in fact, is that ACT party members, really, have basically thrown in the towel—

Hon Damien O'Connor: They have given up.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: They have given up, and they are saying: “Well, thank goodness! We can’t wait till September, when finally it is all over.” The great Roger Douglas dream is gone. The “values not politics” dream is gone. This bill is from the ACT party. People listening to their crystal sets, who are sitting around having a cup of cocoa, will be wondering what this bill is about. It is called the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to fit the Crime) Amendment Bill, and is from the “tough on crime”, law and order party that is called the ACT party.

Jill Pettis: What does that mean?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: The senior Government whip asks what that means. Well, it is a very good question. I have had a look at it. “Political puffery” is the way I would describe it. But the first thing one would say about the bill is that it purports to really toughen up on community sentencing. That is what it is trying to do. Of course, ACT never want to let facts get in the way of a good argument. The previous speaker talked about completion rates, and that sort of thing. Well, I know a bit about that. In fact, when we look at the figures going back over the last 10 years, we see that they have not changed much at all from those in the old days of probation. One of the reasons it was changed from “turn up on a Saturday” was that the New Zealand employment system had changed and people were working at weekends. Should we say to people: “Get sacked from your job and turn up on Saturday morning.”, then pay them a benefit?

Jill Pettis: No!

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No, that is ridiculous. This bill is totally unnecessary. There are a whole pile of things that I would talk about if I had the time. For example, the requirement that the offender specifically provide for reparation or fine repayment is unnecessary. The courts can require that to happen now. Clause 7 suggests that community work sentences should be cumulative. Well, they can be cumulative now. Clause 10 requires a court to take into account uncompleted community work when sentencing for a further offence. That is completely unnecessary, because that can happen now.

The ACT party has looked at what it can do to show that it is tough on law and order. This bill is not the “Hang ’em and flog ’em!” legislation that one might expect from the ACT party. It is “toughening up on community sentencing” legislation. It is a total waste of time, a total nonsense, and the Labour members will vote against it.

RON MARK (NZ First): It was very interesting, was it not, to hear the speech from the Minister of Corrections. That is the same Minister of Corrections who has told the nation that the Government will tidy up home detention, yet I am aware of a case that will literally knock the socks off that Minister once it becomes public knowledge. We will deal with that in time.

His colleague the Minister of Justice told the House that after the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act of 2002 were passed, life became tougher for criminals. He then had to admit that the deferred sentencing aspect of those changes was an absolute nonsense. We have the ridiculous situation whereby people who are sent to jail do not go straight to jail. They go home for 2 to 3 months whilst they lodge an application for home detention, and—surprise, surprise—when it is denied, people cannot find them. That is what I call nonsense; that is what I call ridiculous. I have to say that New Zealand First will support this bill going through to a select committee, and we will participate—although I am not sure which committee it is going to; is it going to the Law and Order Committee? I will definitely be looking at this bill, because it is not all rosy in the Labour garden when it comes to community work.

The old system that we used to have until this Government got its pinky fingers into it was a good system. Let us just remind ourselves: when people were sentenced to periodic detention, they could receive up to 12 months. The compliance rate with periodic detention was 75 to 80 percent. The compliance rate with community service is very hard to determine, because people who are sentenced to community service have 12 months in which to complete their sentence. As we have already heard from Mr Ryall, if they do not complete their sentence or they do not appear, what do they receive? They receive more community service, or they can even have previous community service wiped, and a new community service sentence imposed that they do not have to do. How ridiculous is that? We went from a system where offenders were told when to be, where to be, and how to be on a particular day, and if they did not turn up, the courts got in and dragged them back into court. Not now; the people who supervise community service have no idea how many people they might be supervising tomorrow, because those people can simply ring up and tell the supervisors that they will not be there. They say that they have to work, they have a sick auntie, they have a hangover, or they still have not come down from their last dak, and that they will not be there.

Russell Fairbrother: Don’t make it up.

RON MARK: Do not make it up? This is the problem. There is a member—Fay Richwhite; no, Russell Fairbrother—whose electorate committee in Napier is falling apart. His electorate committee and a whole bunch of members do not want him re-elected as a member. Members are leaving the Labour Party. He might be a big, hotshot, gun lawyer who defends men who ran down women with their cars by telling people that the Treaty of Waitangi, or their being colonised, made the offenders murderers; he may think it is absolutely correct to defend murderers who run down ladies with their vehicles with the justification that they have been colonised, but we know the truth about that member. [Interruption] What are the facts? I will give him the facts. [Interruption] The member wants to interject. The facts are here, and these facts come from people who do the job, I say to Mr Fairbrother, or whatever his name is. Those are the people who are stuck with this Government’s problems, and who say straight up that they do not know how to supervise people who they know will not turn up.

This bill is a good bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I say to Jill Pettis that she is the chief Government whip and she should set an example. I do not want to hear interjections from that member again.

Jill Pettis: Well, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Do not argue with me.

RON MARK: The clauses in this bill that should not cause upset amongst the Government ranks are the clauses that require people to be randomly drug tested. What is wrong with that? Surely it is an occupational safety and health issue when people turning up to do community service are whacked out on P. What is wrong with making them pay their fines? To hear the Minister of Corrections say that the fines are being recovered is an absolute joke. New Zealand First was the party that revealed that this Government had $470 million outstanding in fines. It still cannot collect it. It rose to about $500 million, which is even more than the Government is giving to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—incredibly. And Government members still have the nerve to sit here and say that the fines have been recovered. What a load of nonsense!

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.