Wednesday, 16 November 2005

Wednesday, 16 November 2005

Wednesday, 16 November 2005

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

Nandor Steven Tanczos was presented to the Speaker, made the affirmation required by law, and took his seat in the House.

Authority to Administer Oath

Authority to Administer Oath

Madam SPEAKER: Members, the following authorisation has been received by the Deputy Speaker from Her Excellency the Governor-General to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House. It reads:

Pursuant to section 11 of the Constitution Act 1986, I, The Honourable Dame Silvia Cartwright, Governor-General of New Zealand, hereby authorise you,

The Honourable Clem Rudolph Simich

Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives

to administer to members of Parliament the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen required to be taken or made by every such member before that member shall be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives.

Helen Clark, Prime Minister

Silvia Cartwright

Governor-General

14 November 2005

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Monitoring and Guidelines

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Was he briefed before the Acting Chief Executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Karen Sewell, stated that: “We will be monitoring results so that very early on in the process we can identify any that differ from what we expect. … In some cases the guidelines we give to markers may need to be adjusted.”, and does this process differ from that used to mark National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) exams last year?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yes. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has announced steps to ensure the upcoming NCEA and scholarship exam round runs successfully and is fair to all students. The process is similar to that used last year, but has more early and intensive monitoring and checking of results, and a greater number of scripts will be used for test marking. More time will be available to remark if necessary.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister deny that we can translate these statements as meaning that the authority has already decided what the pass rates are, and is he aware that last year’s pass rates varied from under 30 percent to over 90 percent; if so, what sort of pass rate is different enough—or politically embarrassing enough—that it will have to be changed by the markers halfway through the exam marking?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, I deny that. Mr English needs to understand that this is not a process of scaling; the process is one of marking to a standard, but ensuring that the way the assessment tool is used is fair. [Interruption] Mr English is trying to listen, and I ask why Dr Smith does not let him do that. So the process is that the assessment tool is fair and consistent to all students. That is what this is about.

Moana Mackey: What reports has he seen on the merits of the NCEA system?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have heard reports that state: “NCEA will force New Zealanders to become more sophisticated in their understanding of assessment and what standards-based assessment actually means.”, and: “NCEA must not be a football that political parties kick around for short-term advantage. Our school qualifications system is far too important for us to make it the subject of ongoing acrimony.” These comments were made by none other than Mr English’s associate spokesperson, Allan Peachey, who has been given the job of looking after the party’s policies on the compulsory secondary school sector, and I welcome his appointment, because he knows what he is talking about.

Judy Turner: How reassured does he expect parents to be that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is making progress to achieve not only a credible set of NCEA exams but also a credible moderation process, and why should parents believe him or the authority?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It is worth pointing out that over the last year the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has been going through a large number of changes in preparation for the exam season this year. That has included reviewing everything that was suggested to the authority by the review of the organisation. It has done that; it is now wanting to get on with the exam season. What I urge people to do, of course, is to give it the chance to do that. Today we have 156,000 young New Zealanders sitting exams across the country and, as Mr Peachey quite rightly pointed out, this is an exam going in the right direction. The authority has done everything it possibly can to make it work. Let us hope it does this year.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the Martin report on NCEA released in June this year stated that there was no time for significant changes to NCEA for 2005 because the exam-setting process was so far advanced; so why should we see any statements made by the authority that it has improved the system as anything other than a political paint job on the results to make sure that he is not embarrassed in January next year?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think because it has made changes, and as the member himself said on National Radio, the best thing to do now that we are into the exam season, with 156,000 young New Zealanders sitting their exams, is to let them get on with it, and then review the process once we have set those exams. Right now, they are sitting exams, the process has been reviewed, and they are sure they have got a good exam season, which should allow students to sit their exams in confidence.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that it could have a large impact on individual students if pass rates are going to be significantly altered, because today students are going into exams where, for instance, there may be five standards in the paper and they choose to be examined in only one or two, and being sensible people, they pick those with higher pass rates? So why does he not tell students what the predetermined pass rates are if they are significantly different from last year, because that would be fair to them?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I want to say this to members again, because it is important for the House. This is a matter of setting standards clearly. What the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has done this year is ensure that it has consistency across markers, and where it is necessary, it will in fact re-mark a whole exam to make it consistent. But the standard is the standard.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister not understand that the publicly announced process where the New Zealand Qualifications Authority will change the marking scheme halfway through the marking is totally inconsistent with standards-based assessment and is a U-turn on everything the Government has said about NCEA during all the controversy this year?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As someone who has marked examinations for 15 years, let me say that one of the common things that markers do is to look at standards and look at their assessment tool and to ensure that assessment processes are consistent and fair across markers. I want to say to the National Party once again, that there are 156,000 young New Zealanders sitting these exams. They can have faith in the exam as having clear-cut standards, and that the NZQA is doing everything it can to ensure consistency of marking.

Hon Bill English: If the Minister is so concerned about fairness and consistency and transparency, why did the New Zealand Qualifications Authority leave this very significant announcement until just 10 days before the start of exams, when he knows that it would have been very controversial and at the very least deserved debate among teachers and students, when they found out that the authority is now going to change the marking schemes halfway through the marking, simply to avoid embarrassment for the Labour Government?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It did not announce that it would be changing the marking scheme. Let me say to the member that the changes in New Zealand Scholarship were communicated to school boards and principals back in June. As far back as May, changes that were going to be made to NCEA were communicated. Two-hundred and seventy-two workshops were held; 4,000 lead teachers went through those workshops; $3.5 million was spent on those workshops. This has been well communicated. The member should stop upsetting 156,000 students for his points.

Hon Bill English: Did the Minister discuss with the authority its public announcements that it intended to change the guidelines it gives to markers halfway through the marking process, and did those discussions include any reference to the potential for political controversy if the results contain too much variability? Did those discussions refer to any potential for political problems if the results were too variable?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is interested only in ensuring—[Interruption] I will ignore that, because it is beneath the member. The authority is concerned with one thing, and one thing only: consistency and fairness across the markers. That is what it has made clear to people—it has made it clear that that is what the changes it is announcing are about, and I understand that to be a fair and consistent process.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister quite a precise question, which was whether he had discussed this statement with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and whether those discussions included any reference to political problems that would arise from controversial results. That was quite a precise question, and the Minister in no way addressed it.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes and no.

Milk in Refillable Glass Bottles—Packaging Accord and Waste Strategy

2. NANDOR TANCZOS (Green), on behalf of JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green), to the Minister for the Environment: Will the goals of the New Zealand Packaging Accord 2004 and the New Zealand waste strategy be compromised by any moves to stop supplying milk in refillable glass bottles, as proposed by Meadow Fresh in the South Island?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment): I do not believe that that move, were it to happen, would compromise the goals of the waste strategy or the Packaging Accord. Those initiatives will continue to drive waste reduction and recycling, and take account of full life-cycle environmental impacts. A report on year 1 of the Packaging Accord has recently been completed, and shows that significant progress was made towards encouraging voluntary compliance and industry self-regulation. I am personally disappointed at the proposal being considered by Meadow Fresh, and I hope it will reconsider. We already have a significant glass mountain to deal with in trying to recycle glass, and, clearly, the reuse of glass containers is preferable to recycling.

Nandor Tanczos: Does he not agree that the proposal to scrap glass milk bottles, such as the one I have here, in the South Island is yet another example of how voluntary measures are totally inadequate to decrease the amount of waste going to landfills?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No. The Government’s desire is first of all to test the voluntary approach before considering legislation. The Packaging Accord was signed with the inclusion of the following clause 12: “If a voluntary approach does not provide sufficient improvements in reducing packaging waste per New Zealander, and encourage product stewardship.” The Government is prepared to consider doing so by regulation.

Nandor Tanczos: Does the Minister agree that the best way to reduce packaging waste is through reuse; if so, will he be directing his officials to look at how we can encourage investment in the packaging reuse market?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Reuse is certainly to be encouraged, but unfortunately the reuse of containers does not apply right across the waste-product stream. I will certainly consider positively any submissions from the member on that matter.

Nandor Tanczos: When will his Government introduce measures that require each business to take responsibility for the waste it generates, rather than allowing businesses to pass the cost of disposal on to the New Zealand ratepayer?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The Government will consider such measures at such time as voluntary measures are shown to be ineffective.

Nandor Tanczos: Given the support the Minister gave to my late colleague Rod Donald on this issue, would he be happy to be the first person to sign this petition to Mr Graeme Hart calling for reconsideration of the proposal to axe glass milk bottles?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, I can assure the member that I do have a copy of the petition, and I will consider signing it.

Television New Zealand—Resignation of Chief Executive

3. Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting: What “other assignments” will Ian Fraser be required to perform in return for remaining on the Television New Zealand payroll for six months, receiving $300,000 and another $120,000 in superannuation subsidy, despite his resignation from the role of chief executive?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting): I am advised by the board of TVNZ that Mr Fraser will be available to provide advice and assistance to management through the transition period until a new chief executive officer is formally appointed. Any other detail, of course, is an operational matter.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Can the Minister specifically deny that he has given any directions to the TVNZ board or chairman about the manner in which TVNZ deals with the contracts or exit payments of Ian Fraser, Susan Wood, or any other news and current affairs staff at TVNZ in breach of the Minister’s duties under the Television New Zealand Act 2003; if not, what directions has he given?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes.

Dave Hereora: What reports has the Minister seen on the performance of TVNZ?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The TVNZ annual report, tabled this afternoon, shows an annual operating surplus before non-recurring items, interest, and tax of $57.3 million. That is up $4 million on the previous year. In addition, TVNZ commissioned 208 New Zealand programmes from 86 separate production companies, with local content reaching a peak of 70 percent in May this year. As I have said before, TVNZ is going through a transition towards becoming a company that will be commercially strong. In respect of its charter it is doing well on that score, as well.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Has the Minister also seen the TVNZ annual report showing a sharply reduced dividend paid to the Government of $10.5 million, down from $37.6 million last year, together with gloomy financial forecasts; if so, has he considered requesting that Mr Fraser earn his golden handshake by taking on the special assignment of attempting to transform TVNZ’s financial fortunes?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The explanation for that change in dividend is, of course, that TVNZ is spending the money on New Zealand programming. I will repeat that to the member: it is spending the money on New Zealand programming. The member needs to remind herself that the company is a public-chartered organisation as well as a commercial organisation. It is required to do things like make New Zealand programmes, so it spends its money on that.

Rodney Hide: Why does the Minister not get Ian Fraser to do something useful by readying TVNZ for sale and privatising it, so that it too can become, in the Minister’s words, a class act like TV3 has?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because that would not be useful.

Hone Harawira: Ā, kia ora Madam Speaker. Me mihi au ki taku hoa ki a Nandor kua hoki mai ki roto i te Whare. Tēnā koe Nandor. Hari ana au kua hoki mai nei i roto i a tātau i tēnei Whare i tēnei rā. Hākoa te taumahatanga o te kaupapa o tō hokinga mai, hoi anō kua hoki mai tēnā koe. Me te mihi atu ki a koe e tautoko kaha ana i tō tātau Tiriti o Waitangi. Kia ora rā! Kia ora anō ki a koutou e te whānau kua tae mai hei tautoko i te kaupapa o tō tātau nei rangatira a Pita.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Thank you indeed, Madam Speaker. First and foremost I must acknowledge my friend Nandor, who has returned to the House. Greetings to you Nandor. I am thrilled that you have come back in our midst today in this House. Although the circumstances of your return were trying ones indeed, the main thing is that you have come back. I acknowledge your strong support for the Treaty of Waitangi. Well done! My thanks to you, the whānau who have arrived here to support our chief Pita’s kaupapa.]

  Madam SPEAKER: I must say that the member is out of order with that greeting. This is question time. One is expected and required to ask the questions on the Order Paper. I understand that the member is a new member, and this, I am sure, will be the only time that he indulges in that behaviour. Would the member now please ask the question. The member is also required to sit when the Speaker is speaking, but I understand that he is a new member. Would the member please now proceed to ask the question.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ki a koe e te Minita. Me pēhea rā koe e whakatau tika ai i te rerekētanga o te kaupapa whai moni ki te kaupapa tiaki tangata? How does the Minister achieve the balance between the demands of a commercial, profit-driven ethos and that of providing a public service, as required in the charter?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There are about 46 organisations within the fold of the State that have the same kind of mandate—that is, that are required to make a commercial return while delivering on something like science, education, or, in the case of TVNZ, public service television. The way we do that is through the letter of expectations to the organisation. We require the organisation to be measured against its public responsibilities and commercial responsibilities.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Does the Minister think that it is fair to describe Ian Fraser’s entitlement to almost half a million dollars in additional remuneration, despite his shock resignation, as a “golden handshake”; if not, is that simply because such a payment can never be called a golden handshake if the Labour administration is responsible for it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The board advises me that Mr Fraser resigned in the correct manner. He and the board are fully entitled to discuss the manner in which that period of notice will be worked out. Therefore, it is not a golden handshake. The board is obliged to honour the contracts under which it employs people, and that is what it is doing.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister list the $20 million worth of local programming produced in the last year that would account for the profit downturn, as expressed in his earlier answer this afternoon?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not have a list with me, but TVNZ reports against all of those programmes.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Is the Minister prepared to deny the accusation that TVNZ board member, former Labour Cabinet Minister, and Labour Party fund-raiser Dame Ann Hercus has, on occasion, gone behind the backs of the board and chairman to discuss with the Minister and Prime Minister statements and messages that they would like her to carry from the ninth floor back to TVNZ?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: What explanation can the Minister offer for why Ian Fraser was moved to blame political interference for his resignation from Television New Zealand; and has he discussed with Ian Fraser or others exactly why the outgoing chief executive had lost confidence in the board of Television New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: You would have to ask Mr Fraser why he resigned. I am not actually inside his head.

Tertiary Education—Māori and Pasifika Participation

4. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Has he received any reports on increased participation by Māori and Pasifika in tertiary education?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): Figures provided to me show that Māori participation in degree-level and higher courses has increased by 25 percent since 1999. For Pasifika, it is 56 percent. The number of Pasifika graduating from doctorate-level courses has doubled. The number of Māori obtaining doctorates has increased by over 30 percent.

Sue Moroney: What reports has he seen on other initiatives to promote Māori and Pasifika participation in tertiary education and training?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report explaining that “The liberating experience of education led me to develop equity admission programmes at the University of Auckland for Maori and Polynesian students undertaking commerce degrees.” I have also seen a report advising universities that “If you want funding you can’t have racially based systems …”. The second was from Dr Brash; the first was from Dr Mapp.

Hon Tau Henare: In light of his primary answer, why will he force a quota on Te Wānanga o Aotearoa when many other New Zealanders would love to take the opportunity to attend that institution?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The wānanga is dropping that role for, I would have thought, some fairly obvious reasons. It did, of course, take a claim under the Treaty of Waitangi for payment in relation to it being aē Māori institution; it then seems rather strange for it to turn round to being an institution with a majority of non-Māori.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I runga i te āhua kei te nui ake ngā Māori e whai ana i te mātauranga i ngā whare wānanga, ka taea e te Minita te whakamārō mai i ngā painga ka ngahoro mai, ahakoa kua iti iho te pūtea A1J1, ka tukuna ki ngā wānanga Māori ko rātou ngā kaihāpai i ngā taura Māori, Pākehā hoki?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Given the fact that a greater proportion of Māori are undertaking tertiary education than ever before, will the Minister be able to explain the benefits that will accrue to the wānanga despite the reduction of the A1J1 funding from which Māori and Pākehā students have tasted success?]

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: First, I think it is really important that we stop talking about the wānanga as if there were only one. There are two others, which are highly successful and non-controversial. There is one with serious governance and management problems, and also with serious financial control problems. The Government’s intention and determination are to ensure that those issues are settled and that that wānanga is able to set itself on a stable path, delivering courses of quality, in terms of both foundation courses and other courses.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Ā, taku mōhio, kāore i te tika te whakautu mai ki taku pātai, kai te īnōi atu kia pātai anō i te pātai, kia taea e ia te kōkiri he whakautu ki taku pātai.

[Indeed, my understanding is that the response to my question was not right, and I seek that the question be put again so that he can put together a more suitable answer.]

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

Madam SPEAKER: Under the Standing Orders, the Minister is required to address the question. The Minister in this instance addressed the question.

Foreign Policy—Confidence

5. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he have full confidence in the foreign policies of this Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): Madam Speaker—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I ask members please to keep their level of interjection down, because all members in the House are entitled to hear the answer.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the member answering on behalf of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, given the Cabinet Office dictum, could indicate which hat he wears as he answers this question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not speaking on behalf of anybody else; I am the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs by Cabinet decision.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you for that point of clarification.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could tell us on which day the Cabinet reaffirmed the Cabinet Manual in 2005, which would allow him to make that claim.

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that that is not a point of order.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, I think there is an issue here that we ought to clarify. When Dr Cullen is the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs is he subject to the same set of rules as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which is the unusual arrangement that is not yet laid out in the Cabinet Manual, or when Dr Cullen answers those questions is he required to exercise collective responsibility as a full Cabinet Minister? That will determine what kind of questions we can ask Dr Cullen when Winston Peters is away.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Peters is bound by collective Cabinet responsibility on matters of foreign affairs. If the member wishes to ask a question of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he can ask it only about matters of foreign affairs. On those matters, Mr Peters is bound by Cabinet collective responsibility. I am, as Acting Minister, bound by collective Cabinet responsibility on this, but of course with various other hats on I am bound by Cabinet collective responsibility on all matters.

Madam SPEAKER: I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 152/6: “Where an Acting Minister has been appointed, the Acting Minister is for all purposes the Minister and does not answer a question on behalf of anyone. If an Acting Minister is present when a question is reached it is the Acting Minister’s responsibility to reply.”

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are we to assume that there will be a different level of responsibility according to the particular Minister who acts for another Minister who, like Winston Peters, claims he is not part of the Government—and Peter Dunne is in the same position—when, a Minister acting for either of them is able to say: “I am bound by full collective responsibility.”? One of the things that has been interesting in this House is that where Acting Ministers have spoken, a Minister has to wear the answer, as if he or she had given it himself or herself. Now, we all know that Mr Peters has views on foreign policy that are quite different from the Labour Party’s, and even in recent days, in radio interviews, he has freely expressed those views. So we do need to get it fairly clear as to just where the bounds of Dr Cullen’s answer will take us.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I think it is quite clear in the ruling I have given, and in the ruling that applies here, that the Acting Minister, when appointed the Acting Minister, is for all purposes the Minister, and answers that question. It is a matter for the Government to decide how that reply is given, and obviously the Speaker does not judge the quality of the reply. I think we shall now proceed to hear the reply.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I ask you to imagine a situation where, for instance, we put down a question about free trade and Dr Cullen is the Acting Minister, and he gets up and gives an answer that directly contradicts the comments that Winston Peters is giving outside the House, because, even though as foreign Minister he is apparently bound by collective Cabinet responsibility, he actually has already expressed views that are at odds with those of the Government. It will put Parliament in a difficult situation whereby the Minister says one thing through the Acting Minister here in the House, but outside says something completely different, because he does not feel bound by collective responsibility. How are we then to judge the veracity of what the Minister says in the House?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It is, in fact, debating material. If Ministers answer inconsistently that may be of significance politically, but it is not a matter of procedure and not a point of order in this House. I ask the member to answer the question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes.

Hon Murray McCully: Can the Minister tell the House, with regard to our relationship with the United States, precisely which foreign policy he is expressing confidence in: the policy of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who stated that rebuilding New Zealand’s relationship with the US is his top priority, for which purpose he will enlist the assistance of the Australian Foreign Minister; or the Prime Minister’s policy that we do not need to rebuild the relationship with the US and do not need any help from Mr Downer; which of those two very different policies is the policy of the Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister of Foreign Affairs represents the Government on foreign policy issues. I do note that Mr Peters has denied on a number of occasions saying that he has asked for Australian assistance. It would of course be a help at this stage if Australia would help us more with the Rugby World Cup than with any other matter.

Hon Murray McCully: Can the Minister tell the House why, when the Prime Minister had already stated publicly that she did not want any help from Mr Downer because we can “paddle our own canoe”, the Minister has confirmed that he has asked for help from Mr Downer and that Mr Downer has agreed to give that help?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The transcript that I have does not suggest that Mr Peters asked for assistance. But, certainly, Mr Downer said that he was happy to help us. We, of course, are happy to help Australia with its relationships with other countries.

Hon Murray McCully: Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree that, in relation to China, securing a free-trade deal is one of the Government’s highest foreign policy goals; if so, can he tell the House how he managed to spend a whole meeting with the Chinese Minister of foreign affairs without once mentioning New Zealand’s strong interest in such a deal?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, the Minister of Foreign Affairs accepts that seeking a free-trade deal with China is one of our highest foreign policy goals. But, of course, the Minister responsible for trade matters is in fact Mr Goff, not Mr Peters.

Hon Murray McCully: Can the Minister tell the House whether the fact that New Zealand’s Prime Minister and foreign Minister have been spelling out different policies on our relationship with the United States, with Australia, and now with China is the reason that the Australian Government has now issued Mr Goff with a “please explain” about the role of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the new Government; if not, why has the Australian Government asked for such an explanation about Mr Peters’ role?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not responsible for the Australian Government, but I can say that the only area where I am aware of immense contradiction in terms of our relationship with the United States is in the Opposition, where the National Party cannot make up its mind whether it wants to have nuclear ships here to pay for a free-trade deal or to continue to keep them out. Dr Lockwood Smith is not the spokesperson on foreign affairs, because he does want nuclear ships in New Zealand.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has no responsibility for that. If that is the member’s point of order, the member is correct. What is the member’s point of order?

Gerry Brownlee: My point of order is this. How can that Minister, as Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs, give this House an answer and deny things that the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself has said? That is exactly the problem Mr English pointed out a few minutes ago, and I do not think that it is fair to the House for you, Madam Speaker, to say that it is simply a debating matter. As far as the Opposition is concerned, this House has the opportunity, and a responsibility, to hold the Government to account. If we are to have an Acting Minister deny in this House what the Minister has actually said, then where do we go from here, and what will be the value of that sort of scrutiny?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Media reports are not regarded as gospel by most members of this House. For example, when one reads that senior managers in the National Party want to get rid of Gerry Brownlee I do not necessarily believe that that is true.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that we need any more assistance on this. The same matter is, in effect, being relitigated, upon which I have already ruled. So that was not a point of order. However, the member is perfectly at liberty to ask the Minister a question along those lines.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Dr Cullen referred to a transcript. A number of us actually heard the voice of Mr Winston Peters explaining his dinner with the Chinese Foreign Minister, and that is at variance with what has been said in the House. What are we supposed to do? Every time we have this situation, are we to push the House into some sort of privilege charge? It would be rather ridiculous if that were to happen day after day.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have said nothing in relation to the Chinese ambassador’s dinner that is contrary to any media report. I was referring to the matter of a request made of Mr Downer.

Madam SPEAKER: I just repeat to members that we are discussing debating material. It is not for the Speaker to judge the quality or anything else of the answers that are given. It is, however, for the Opposition—quite rightly—to question the Government. So perhaps we can proceed.

Hon Murray McCully: I seek the leave of the House to table a New Zealand Press Association piece that was filed at 1 o’clock today, directly quoting Minister Goff and headed “Canberra confused about Peters’ role”.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled.

Meningococcal B Disease—Youth

6. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made on protecting young New Zealanders from the meningococcal B disease?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Very good progress. One million young New Zealanders have now received their first dose of the meningococcal B vaccine. Over 77 percent of all school students have now received all three doses.

Maryan Street: What effect has the vaccination programme had on the meningococcal B epidemic, especially in those parts of the country where the roll-out occurred first?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The first part of the country to receive the full course of vaccinations was Counties Manukau. In the first 9 months of last year there were 17 cases amongst preschoolers in Counties Manukau. In the first 9 months of this year there were two. That is a very clear sign that the campaign will succeed. Many thanks go to many people such as health workers, schoolteachers, staff, parents, and many others who have made this campaign the huge success it has been so far.

Maryan Street: In the light of the Minister’s last answer, what has been, in fact, the involvement of schools in ensuring the success of this campaign?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Vaccinating our young people in schools across the country has been a major effort. The campaign has involved 2,600 schools, 750,000 students, and the cooperation of tens of thousands of staff members to whom I again pay my respects and give my thanks.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister realise that a year since the programme began nationally, in November 2004, 40 percent of under-5-year-olds have still not yet been fully vaccinated, including 60 percent of Māori kids under 5; are not those children the most at-risk young New Zealanders, and what is he going to do about that?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, they are amongst the most at risk. To answer the third part of the member’s question, that is why we have mop-up vaccinations, which will proceed until 30 June 2006. If the view is that we need to continue vaccinations even then, Cabinet will make a decision to do so, well before then.

Crime—Priorities

7. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement that “You and I expect police to come straight away to us but there are some things with lower priority.”; if so, which crimes does she consider to be of lower priority for police investigation?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): Yes, because the police have always prioritised incidents. New Zealanders expect the police to respond as quickly as possible to all incidents, but inevitably they have to give priority to the most urgent cases.

Simon Power: Why has crime been prioritised in the way set out in the Auckland district Investigations: Management Plan, whereby responding to ministerial correspondence is a mandatory priority but homicide and child abuse are lower priorities?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The police will always make homicide and child abuse a high priority indeed. However, they are required to respond to inane questions that come from the Opposition week after week, and if any blame needs to be sheeted home, I suggest it go to the Opposition, and maybe its members would like to stop asking such stupid questions.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is required to address the question. We heard a fair bit of bluff and bluster about the fact that the police respond to homicide etc., but the Minister of Police never addressed the question, which was why—not once. For question time to work, I suggest that Ministers must actually address the question that is asked.

Madam SPEAKER: Ruling on the point of order, I listened very carefully to the answer. The Minister did address the question.

Martin Gallagher: Can the Minister provide information on any specific recent cases where the police had to prioritise their resources?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I can. The recent double murder investigation in Tauranga meant that the police had to allocate up to 39 staff from four different districts. Those staff were involved in investigations over a number of different days, and they worked long hours. It is by no means unusual for the police to be faced with such demands on their resources. I congratulate those officers on the speedy apprehension of the alleged offenders.

Simon Power: [Interruption] So now when we are asking questions—

Madam SPEAKER: You had not started asking the question.

Simon Power: But I had been called at that point.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please proceed with the question. We are in the first week.

Simon Power: Well, that will make all the difference.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it will. I made that comment because we are in the first substantive week of the session. If I picked up on every infraction, we would probably get little done. So some tolerance is being given in the first week. I ask the member to please ask his question.

Simon Power: Does the Minister support the non-assignment of files, as part of her prioritisation programme; if so, what does she have to say to the victims of the 600 unassigned cases—20 percent of the total case number—being held by the Auckland City Police District?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I would say to the victims of those 600 cases that the police will endeavour to get to their files as soon as possible. However, they will prioritise the most important cases first.

Simon Power: Why are police in the Auckland City Police District currently 50 investigators short in dealing with work in progress, and what does that shortage do for the prioritisation of crime-solving?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The police always face difficulties in recruiting police for Auckland. That has been a problem over many years. What they are doing about it, in fact, is what this Government, in conjunction with the agreement we have with New Zealand First, is doing about it. We are recruiting more. In fact, in the time we have been in Government we have recruited almost 1,400 more police. Thank goodness this Government did; that was not the track record of the National Government.

Ron Mark: Which of the following two does the Minister think will do more to resolve the problems in terms of the police being able to handle their workload and the resultant prioritisation task: New Zealand First successfully negotiating with the Labour-led Government for the introduction of an extra 1,000 frontline police, and New Zealand First having a re-evaluation of the possibility of de-merging traffic enforcement from the police; or our having to sit here and listen to Simon Power whingeing for another 3 years in Opposition?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I would say to the member—

Madam SPEAKER: I am having a great deal of difficulty hearing the reply. Would members please lower the tone. Everyone is entitled to hear the reply, as they are entitled to hear the question.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I would suggest to the member, who asked a very good question, that he actually direct it to the National Party, because those members would face a dilemma in answering it. But I suspect they will spend the next 3 years making 9 long years in Opposition, whingeing and moaning and coming up with nothing positive.

Simon Power: Is she aware of the number of victims who have practically handed the police their offenders on a plate—not the least of which are the number of stories that have come out via the New Zealand Herald over the last 2 weeks—yet the police have taken no action as they are too busy writing her correspondence and licking stamps for her envelopes, and what is she going to do about it?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I do not know what happened when the National Party was in Government, but the officers in Auckland are not writing my correspondence, licking my stamps, or anything else.

Simon Power: I seek leave of the House to table the Auckland City district Investigations Management Plan that outlines giving priority to dealing with the Minister’s correspondence ahead of crime solving.

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

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table the assembled answers to parliamentary questions of the Hon George Hawkins, in order to give the Minister a better guide.

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

I just remind members that when points of order are taken, they are normally heard in silence, please.

Peter Brown: I seek leave to table the details on the INCIS computer that National was going to use to solve the lack of policing in this country.

Document not tabled.

Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour—Additional Teachers

8. Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: How many additional resource teachers: learning and behaviour, if any, have been allocated across the country, and at what cost?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I thank the member for the question. Eleven additional resource teachers: learning and behaviour will be allocated across the country for 2006, at a cost of approximately $750,000. Overall, the number of students in schools is declining. However, the reallocation of resource teachers: learning and behaviour has been accompanied by an increase in overall numbers to further strengthen the service.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister explain why in the reallocation process 12 resource teacher: learning and behaviour positions have been cut from Northland’s allocation, given the social deprivation, poor education statistics, and high suspension rates of that region?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Resource teacher: learning and behaviour positions are clustered according to a formula based upon student roll numbers and school deciles. All areas have had access to the number of resource teachers: learning and behaviour required to meet the needs of their students. In the Northland area, in fact, the reduction has been less than what should have been done according to the formula.

Hon Bill English: Does this Minister intend to continue the practice of the last Minister of Education, whereby parents were required to bake cakes and sell raffle tickets so they could pay teacher-aides to look after children who needed their nappies changed and had severe educational needs?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Our aim as a Government, of course, is to fully fund public education. But there will always be fund-raising in our schools, because that is what parents have always done.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What is being done to further improve the effectiveness of resource teachers: learning and behaviour?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Ministry of Education has set up a number of key projects. They focus on improving governance and management through those clusters of teachers. The ministry is looking at the challenges facing resource teachers: learning and behaviour who are working in secondary schools and trying to ensure they meet the needs of Māori and Pasifika students, and it is trying to lift the level of professional practice. A sector reference group has been set up to work with the ministry, and that has been budgeted to the tune of $400,000 this year.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does this reallocation suggest that Northland had too many resource teacher: learning and behaviour positions, and if that is not the case would the Minister be prepared to reconsider the current resource teacher: learning and behaviour allocation proposal?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We are always open to representations made by such an excellent member, but, no, it does not mean Northland had too many. As I said before, there is a formula based upon the number of students and the decile rating, and that applies to Northland as well as to everywhere else. But if the member has submissions to make that change that, we are willing to listen.

State Sector—Chief Executives

9. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of State Services: What specific concerns, if any, does she have regarding terms and conditions of employment for chief executives in the State sector?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): In general, I have few concerns. However, I am concerned at the early resignation of Paula Tyler, the Chief Executive of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. It has highlighted the lack of any clause in respect of her relocation expenses, in the event of her earlier than expected resignation. This is not satisfactory. Future agreements with chief executives appointed from overseas will have a clause to recover appropriate expenses in the event of a chief executive finishing his or her term early. I have given instructions to the State Services Commissioner to implement this clause before any new appointments are made.

Gerry Brownlee: What is her response to media reports in which Ms Tyler blames the State Services Commission for her early departure, as it did not uphold a commitment, or understanding, to find her partner a senior State Service position, and can she advise the House whether promising to find partners a job is typical of the recruitment mechanism used by the State Services Commissioner?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There was no promise to find Ms Paula Tyler’s husband a job.

Russell Fairbrother: Has there been a huge increase in the number of new public service chief executives recruited from overseas?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No. Our records show that since 1 July 1991 only eight out of 81—10 percent—new chief executive appointments have been made from overseas. Two of these were New Zealanders returning home, four were Australians, and two were Canadians. Three of these were appointed for a further term.

Gerry Brownlee: Has she enquired as to what specific household furnishings were purchased by Ms Tyler as part of her $40,000 relocation package, and why does her contract enable furnishings purchased by the taxpayer to be retained by her when she returns to Canada less than halfway through her contract?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No. I do not as yet have a list of personal household effects to share with the member.

Judith Collins: Does she think the attempt by the Families Commission to keep secret the details of a $50,000 golden handshake paid to former chief executive Claire Austin was in keeping with the Government’s promise that it would set new standards and be open and accountable; if not, why did her Government keep the golden handshake details secret for more than 6 months, until, conveniently, after the election?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Whilst I do not have information with me on that particular issue, I think I recall that the payment was noted in the annual report.

Judith Collins: If the details of the $50,000 golden handshake paid to Claire Austin were always going to be revealed in the annual report of the Families Commission, why would these have been kept secret for 6 months, if not to ensure that they remained hidden from voters until after this last election?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I doubt whether, when the annual report was being prepared, there was any idea as to when the election would be held.

Immigration—Return of Skilled New Zealanders

10. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What steps is the Government taking to encourage skilled expatriate New Zealanders back to New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): The recently launched New Zealand Now programme aims to better connect New Zealanders living offshore with opportunities here, to make it easier for them to come home, and to ensure that those people who intend to return have the information they need to help them.

Darien Fenton: Why is the Government keen to attract expatriates back to New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government’s top priority is to see our immigration system serve New Zealand’s interests. As part of this we need to attract back highly skilled New Zealanders, and to attract in highly talented individuals from other countries.

Immigration—Representations from Members

11. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: How many representations from members of Parliament has the Minister, or his associates, received in the past 12 months, and of these how many have been successful?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I have information on representations for the current calendar year ended September 2005. I am advised that during those 9 months 972 representations were made by members of Parliament. I am advised that the further information the member requested cannot be produced in the time available.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Has he clarified the rules to Labour members of Parliament making immigration representations, in light of the inquiry into allegations that Taito Phillip Field was receiving tiling and painting services in exchange for immigration assistance; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am not prepared to comment on a case that is currently the subject of an inquiry, but I will say that experienced members of Parliament well understand the rules, particularly members like the member who asked the question, who has submitted a high number of cases—and good on him for working hard for his constituents.

Jill Pettis: What provisions are there in the Immigration Act 1987 for people to make representations to the Minister on individual cases?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Act enables members of Parliament to make representations on behalf of their constituents. This is a commendable part of an MP’s job. I note that a number of members sitting opposite have made a high number of representations, apparently primarily representing the demographics of their electorates.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Has the Minister investigated the immigration files of Sunan Siriwan and Phongphat Chaikhunpol, or any other of the 262 successful representations made by Taito Phillip Field in the last 3 years, and can he give an absolute assurance that there are no other cases of applicants providing Labour MPs with services in exchange for immigration assistance?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I advised the member previously, I am not prepared to comment on matters that are currently the subject of an enquiry.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the Hon Phil Goff visited Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa at the time that Siriwan, a Thai overstayer whom Taito Phillip Field was assisting, commenced work on the Field house; and did the Hon Phil Goff raise with the Minister of Immigration any concerns about the appropriateness of Phillip Field’s “services for immigration assistance” arrangement?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: For the benefit of the member I repeat that I am not prepared to comment on any matter that is or may be the subject of an inquiry.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on how that answer can be consistent with the public good. Surely the ultimate inquiry comes from this House, and if a Minister can skirt scrutiny simply by jacking up some sort of low-level inquiry, as we have in this case, then I think the importance of Parliament as a place to scrutinise activities of Ministers is diminished. I ask you to reflect again on whether that would be consistent with the public good, because although the Minister does not have to answer, for him to give the answer he gave is an insult to the House.

Madam SPEAKER: Ruling on the point of order, it is the Minister who judges the public good in answering as he does. He, of course, can be criticised if the answer he gives is not satisfactory to members.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: This Minister should have his warrant taken away if he is not prepared to accept accountability. I want to know—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not see what the purpose of that kind of remark is. Perhaps in future when we have these little prefaces bursting forth members might at that point be invited not to ask their question, as some form of punishment.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member just withdraw and start again.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I withdraw, but let us hope we get an answer this time. What action has the Minister taken to reassure those who are following correct procedures that they are not having to wait longer because the New Zealand Immigration Service is giving priority attention to hundreds of appeals from Labour MPs using their relationship with the Minister to advance questionable cases?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: All members of this House follow their duty in representing the interests of their constituents. The member who asked the question has put a higher number of cases before the Minister than most members of this House have done.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Tell us how many.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In the realm of 80 in the last 3 years. It is just a shame that that member’s hard work has not been appreciated by his own colleagues.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is totally unacceptable for a Minister to answer a question in that way. To suggest, as the Minister is trying to do, that Dr Smith has a particular interest in this case is quite wrong. The case here is cut and dried. In 1 year 900-odd ministerial interventions have been required by members of this House, and the vast majority of them have come from one member, and so far, we hope, because of the Minister’s answer today, no other Ministers or members are receiving any particular benefit from any client—or, should I say, constituent—on whose behalf they have been working. For the Minister to answer by trying to imply that there is something murky in the arrangements that members have and do honour honourably is quite wrong, and you should not allow that.

Madam SPEAKER: Addressing the member’s point of order, I point out that, as the member knows, it is not for the Speaker to rule on the quality of the answers that Ministers give. The Minister is, however, required to address the question. The Minister did address the question.

Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I do not want to take any more on this particular point, unless there is a totally different point of order. There is a longstanding series of Speakers’ rulings on this matter.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. One of your jobs is to protect the privileges of this House, and it is a privilege of this House to be able to make representations to the Minister without the fear that the Minister will turn round and try to suggest that those representations are improper. That is the implication that Mr Cunliffe was trying to put on members on this side of the House when he gave his answer. I think that allowing him to do that is wrong. If he wants to say he does not want to answer, then let him say that, but do not let him get away with a smart alec answer such as he gave that will lead, ultimately, to people questioning how well their privilege in this House is being protected.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I listened to the answers very carefully and the Minister said very carefully that members have a right to make representations. We are in the second day of question time and the National Party is back to its old habit: when it cannot win question time it raises a point of order, when it cannot win the point of order it raises another point of order, and when it cannot win that point of order it raises yet another point of order. I suppose we will have another 3 years of this, but it does not make any difference to the public.

Madam SPEAKER: The ruling on the point of order is that it is up to Ministers as to how they reply to questions. If there was an imputation of impropriety, it would be out of order. But Dr Smith did not complain in this instance, and, having listened carefully, I certainly did not take that imputation.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate it if, over time, you would look at the answers the Minister has given us today, because the question put down on the Order Paper asked the Minister how many representations he had received in 12 months. He failed to provide that information for the House, claiming he could do so only for so many months of this calendar year, then further told the House that he could not even tell us—despite his having some hours to prepare the answer—how many representations had been successful, and the question specifically asked for that information. Yet the Minister got to his feet and seemed able to claim that he knew exactly how many representations I had made over 3 years. I invite you to have a look at that series of answers. It would appear that in respect of the original question the Minister may not have been as forthcoming with the House as is required by the Standing Orders.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member is aware, the Minister must address the question. The Speaker is not responsible for the quality of the answer to that question, or for the satisfaction with which it may be received by members.

Passports—Charges for e-passports

12. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: If the electronic chip in a new e-passport costs only $22, what exactly will the extra $57 of the increase in cost of a new e-passport be spent on?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): The cost of the new e-passport represents the cost of producing and supporting e-passport, such as by way of new computer and new encoding systems to make it one of the world’s most secure and internationally acceptable passports.

Sandra Goudie: Is the increased cost of e-passports—and given what he has just said it is hardly likely they will cost around $20 million - odd extra—merely a novel way of enforcing the “no smile on your passport” rule; or is it instead another case of the Government increasing costs, giving New Zealanders yet another reason not to come back?

Hon RICK BARKER: No, the cost of the passport reflects the actual cost of producing and supporting it. It is an excellent passport. New Zealanders want to travel the world on an internationally acceptable passport, and we have an obligation to protect that passport.

Marian Hobbs: Can any of the $150 fee for a passport be transferred to another area of Crown expenditure?

Hon RICK BARKER: No. All revenue from fees on the new passport is deposited in what is called a memorandum account. That means that the money collected in application fees cannot be used for any purpose other than what it was regulated for. That account is open to parliamentary scrutiny.

Peter Brown: Is it true that the cost of a passport has more than doubled, whilst the life of it has halved from 10 to 5 years, which, in effect, has quadrupled the cost to the public; if it is true, how does the Minister justify that?

Hon RICK BARKER: It is true that the cost has gone up and the life of the passport has gone down. That has been done to ensure that the integrity of the New Zealand passport is guaranteed to the New Zealand travelling public. The New Zealand passport is widely regarded throughout the world, and every action must be taken to defend that, because if we do not, there will be consequences for every New Zealand traveller.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I deliberately asked the Minister to explain the effect on the cost of halving the life of a passport. A reasonable person would expect that to reflect a downward charge. The Minister failed to address that component of my question.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to clarify for the member?

Hon RICK BARKER: I addressed the question by saying that Mr Brown was correct that the life of a passport has gone down and the cost of a passport has gone up. The cost has gone up because that reflects the actual cost of production, and the life has come down to ensure that the integrity of the passport will be maintained over time.

Sandra Goudie: How can this outrageous price hike in the cost of passports be viewed as anything other than the Government looking to fill its coffers, when passports are now twice as expensive and last half as long? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I ask members to settle, please. I know that it is the last question. I ask the Minister to answer the question.

Hon RICK BARKER: The price is entirely justifiable. If the member who asked the question would like to look at the cost of a passport in Australia, she will see that it is A$172, which is NZ$185. The costs are comparable.

Sandra Goudie: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Herald report by Helen Tunnah that outlines the details with regard to e-passports.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

Sandra Goudie: I seek leave to table an article in the Independent entitled “Government gouges travellers”, about e-passports.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 15 November.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kai te Manu Kōrero o te Ata, rau rangatira mā, ngā mana, ngā reo o te Whare Paremata nei, ā, tēnā koutou katoa. E taku iwi o Ngāti Kahungunu, taku rohe o Tāmaki-makau-rau i hara mai i tawhiti ki konei ki te tautoko i ahau i tēnei rangi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Nā koutou ahau i whakatōkia ki rō Paremata, tēnei ahau, tēnā koutou.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Madam Speaker and indeed to the many representatives, authorities, and languages of this House of Parliament, greetings to you all. To my Ngāti Kahungunu people, as well as to those of you from my Tāmaki-makau-rau electorate who came here today to support me, thank you, and thank you all. You were responsible for putting me here in Parliament and so here I am. Thank you all for that.]

It is not my intention today to talk about myself or my journey to this place. Neither do I intend to discuss the positive initiatives for Māori that it has been my pleasure to be associated with. Instead, I choose to talk today about certain negative views and beliefs expressed by MPs that have served to promote a negative stereotype about Māori and Māori culture within the community. I do so to clear the air, so that we may build strong relationships in this House and work together for a better New Zealand.

It is common knowledge that Māori do not enjoy the same socio-economic and educational benefits as non-Māori in this, their country of origin. It strikes me as somewhat amazing that half the country, and probably half the members of this House, actually believe that Māori are the privileged group in our society. Cries of racial funding, gravy trains, and special courses are constant within these walls, and are eagerly published by every arm of the media to promote a negative stereotype of Māori. If Māori are the privileged group, why, in my electorate, are Māori not living in prime locations like Kohimārama, St Heliers, and Mission Bay? Conversely, why are they clustered in State housing sectors inland? Does privilege mean that we Māori dominate certain illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, asthma, glue ear, and others, and that we die 10 years earlier than Pākehā? Or is our real privilege to be revealed in this country’s disgusting incarceration figures? I say “disgusting” because in 1980 one in 1,000 New Zealanders was in jail, and in the early 1990s one in 800 was in jail. Today one in 570 New Zealanders is in jail, but for Māori, the privileged group, one person in 180 is in jail.

So I ask this House why Māori are being promoted so negatively by politicians, the media, and, consequently, by non-thinking redneck New Zealanders. How can that be good for our future as a nation? Why were Māori used as a political football in this past election campaign? Uninformed criticism of Māori cultural icons such as the pōwhiri, the poroporoaki, te reo Māori and waiata Māori was prominent in election campaign speeches. But the big question for me is this: why is there so much resistance among parliamentarians to accepting the concept of tangata whenua as significant in our country’s administration and in our history? We learn about the events of world history and about the cultural origins of countries’ customs. Where is the recognition of the 1,000-year bond between Māori and these islands? Why do we accept the world’s history and not our own?

The Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution, the Battle of Waterloo, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates—we know about all those things; we know about those people. So what of Toi Kairākau, of Rauru? What of my history, my tangata whenua-ness, my 1,000 missing years? Toi Kairākau crossed the Pacific and came to New Zealand. At the same time, Eric the Red was expelled from Iceland and voyaged to Greenland. Toi Kairākau is my ancestor; he still lives, in me. His history and genealogy is my history and genealogy, my bonding to these islands of Aotearoa. Toi’s son was Rauru; his son was Whātonga. From Whātonga came Tahaiti; from Tahaiti came Uenuku. At the time of Uenuku, William of Normandy conquered England and became King William I. From Uenuku came Ruatapu; from Ruatapu came Rākeiora; from Rakeiora came Tama ki Te Hau. Those are my ancestors—tangata whenua—and the ancestor Tama ki Te Hau lived at the time of the great military leader Genghis Khan, who established the Mongol empire, uniting almost all of Asia and Europe. My genealogy descends to Tama ki Te Rā and Tame ki Te Mātangi—and now the Magna Carta is signed on the other side of the world.

I continue my whakapapa by naming Tama ki Reireia, Te Kāhuārero, Pito, Rere, Tangi, Maika, Toto, and Tamatea Arikinui. Tamatea Arikinui brought the tapu canoe of Tākitimu across the Pacific. He is the eponymous ancestor of all descendents of the Tākitimu waka and I ascend from him, and so do half the people up there in the gallery. At this time, history records the crusade of Joan of Arc of France, who was burnt at the stake aged 19 years. From Tamatea Arikinui came Rongokākō; from Rongokākō came Tamatea Pōkai Whenua. His son was Kahungunu. Kahungunu was the founding ancestor of my tribe, Ngāti Kahungunu. Then came Kahukuranui, Rākaihikuroa, and Tarāia. Taraia led the migration of my people, Kahungunu, from Wairoa south to the Napier-Hastings area. That is my history. At the same time Columbus stumbled upon America.

I move on from Tarāia to Te Rangi Tūmaha to Te Huhuti. Te Huhuti married Te Whātuiāpiti. He was a great war chief. He had red hair. Those are the eponymous ancestors of our subtribe, Ngāti Te Whātuiāpiti. Then came Te Wawahanga, Rangikawhiua, Te Manawakawa, and Te Rangikōianake, and at that time Cromwell overthrew the British monarchy and declared a republic. All that is history. Te Rangikoianake is the ancestor of the subtribe Ngāti Rangikōianake of Te Haukē. Also my grandson carries his name and his spirit. His eldest son was Te Kikiri o te Rangi, another chief—another famous war chief, another redhead. He led many successful forays to avenge the deaths of his two grandfathers. He is the eponymous ancestor of my subtribe, Ngāi Te Kikiri o te Rangi. And the genealogy continues, from Kanohi Tū Hanga, to Te Aroatua, Hōri Niania, and Paora Kōpūkau Niania. He was my grandfather, and his name and his spirit are carried by my son, who is here today and in whom I also live. From Paora came my mother, Ruihā, and then me. This is my history. This is tangata whenua, and this is New Zealand, history. This is our history.

I have chosen to use this time to explain to members the importance of the concept of tangata whenua. I do so because I believe that the future of New Zealand is deeply intertwined with the future of Māoridom, and is, in the eyes of the global community, uniquely intertwined with the idea of this nation. In a world increasingly homogenised by global commerce, migration, communications, travel, and trade, Māoridom provides an enduring point of difference that other cultures envy—a difference we must preserve. For this nation to thrive economically, culturally, and with a sense of social justice, Māori must be able to play a full role in all parts of society, not only as leaders, educators, artists, business chiefs, and sporting champions, but as citizens whose rights, culture, and fundamental worth are valued and supported. Although Māori have made great strides within kaupapa Māori initiatives, the reality of equality for Māori is still far off.

We all, here in Parliament, must now work towards a society that embraces Māori culture as well as the people, a society where Māori are able to enjoy their health and education whilst also enjoying being Māori, where te reo Māori can be heard on the streets and in the shops by all people—free equality for Māori. I firmly believe that by increased dialogue across parties we, as a group of responsible parliamentarians, can do much to combat the negative stereotypes that serve to lock many Māori into a negative poverty mindset. We can be emancipatory.

What is clear to me, though, is that there must be no more trashing of Māori people and of Māori rights, and indeed there must be no more obstruction of due process in the manner of the foreshore and seabed legislation. The entire country was led to believe that such a law was appropriate and fair, but, firstly, the decision to legislate was made by a few people, without consulting with the Māori Ministers and Māori members of the Government. Their opinions were not sought until after the decision to legislate had been made. Secondly, the legislation produced the single greatest act of confiscation to date, and that occurred during the time of the Treaty settlements.

“Wā-ā, ko te Kāwanatanga wā tā ringa ka-tau utua raupatu,

Wā-ā tā ringa ma-auī tāhae taku tai moana – e!”

[“Alas, it was the right hand of the Government that imposed confiscation upon me, and now its left hand has stolen my seashores – woe is me!”]

The right hand pays out for last century’s confiscations, but the left hand steals more land.

Thirdly, public support for that legislation was sought by promoting the idea that Māori would stop public access to the beaches and, furthermore, might sell the asset offshore. I would like to remind the House that Māori culture is inclusive and not exclusive, and that Māori leaders who represented a population of more than 100,000 signed a contract at Waitangi on 6 February 1840 with a people numbering only 2,000. It allowed that people not only to access and emigrate to our islands but to establish a Government as well—surely a generous and an inclusive offer. Then, to add insult to insult, the Government used its Māori MPs to sell that bill to the people. The final act of the Government was to disregard the United Nations report condemning the legislation as racist.

I want the people of this Parliament to understand that the hurt to my people in that matter was very, very deep. To be regarded as not worthy of a voice, to be called “haters and wreckers”, and to be held in contempt and ridicule cut even deeper than the legislation itself. That absolute disregard for Māori, for our views, for our customs, and for our mana, will not—will not—be allowed to happen again. With regard to the foreshore and seabed, I say that that Act must be repealed. Primary issues of due process, of property rights, and of customary rights must be preserved. Questions surrounding access and alienation can be handled in a variety of other ways. It is my party’s intention to seek this House’s support for our member’s bill to repeal that Act.

I now wish to acknowledge my co-leader, Tariana Turia. Her courage and integrity in opposing that legislation and her standing down from the Government were acts of heroism. Her stand against the pressure of her Māori colleagues and of the Government leadership inspired us to establish the Māori Party. I say to Tariana Turia that the people salute her and that they have voted us in to support her. No more, then! No more!

I look forward therefore to working positively with everyone in this House, and towards empowering all our communities so they can realise their potential. My hopes are to ensure that being Māori is something to be proud of, and that Māori—like all New Zealanders—can enjoy a good measure of health and wealth, and can participate when required as global citizens yet still live as Māori in these islands.

Nā reira ki a kōtōu katoa kua hara mai nei ki te tautoko i ahau, koi nā taku karere mō tēnei rangi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, thank you, thank you, kia ora!

[And so I say to all of you who came here to support me, that’s my message for today. Thank you, thank you and good health!]

Waiata

Haka

MARYAN STREET (Labour): Te Rangatira o tēnei Whare tēnā koe! Ngā mema nei o tēnei Pāremata, tēnā koutou. E ngā iwi katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you Madam Speaker. Greetings as well to members of this Parliament. And to everyone else, greetings, greetings, and greetings to you all.]

It is a privilege to stand and present my inaugural speech to this forty-eighth New Zealand Parliament. I begin by offering my congratulations to you, Madam Speaker, on your election to your position as Speaker of this House. I know that your training while chairing unruly annual conferences of the Labour Party in difficult times has stood you in fine stead for this position. I look forward to your continued management of this Chamber with the fairness, competence, and style with which I am so familiar from your previous role as president of the Labour Party. I wish also to recognise the Governor-General and the dignity, propriety, and calm that she brings to that office. I acknowledge the Speech from the Throne, and I celebrate the outline of this Labour-led Government’s intentions for its next historic term of office.

I stood in the last election in the constituency of Taranaki - King Country—that well-known bastion of Labour votes! I pay a tribute here to my National Party opponent, the sitting member for Taranaki - King Country, Shane Ardern. Although knowing I was never going to be a huge threat to his tenure in that seat, he engaged in the campaign with respect and decorum, knowing that the process we were engaged in was bigger than both of us. I appreciated his consistent courtesy and his firm commitment to playing the ball, not the player.

My congratulations go to him on his success in the election result, and my thanks go to the members of my campaign team, especially Andrew, Lesley, Shane, and Ingrid for all their support.

My political awakenings derive from that area. Two significant events in my teenage years impacted upon me permanently and fixed my political direction forever. The first was the Viet Nam War. My very first political action was to participate in a public march against the war organised by a well-known Quaker couple in my home town of New Plymouth in 1969.

The second event occurred over a longer period of time, but is set in my memory as a singular event. It was learning about Queen Elizabeth I from my extraordinary English and history teacher at New Plymouth Girls High School, Ida Gaskin. Apart from being a Shakespearian Mastermind twice, and the most outstanding of English teachers, Ida had the ability to bring history alive. In that seventh-form year when she asked me in class whether I thought I was a Whig or a Tory, she made me realise that knowledge was never neutral. Knowledge requires a response; one cannot know something and not be altered by it. In case members were wondering, I answered that I thought I was a Whig. Ida did not let on that she thought that that was the right answer.

My Presbyterian upbringing in New Plymouth left me with an enduring legacy, as well—a burning passion for social justice. That fundamental sense of fairness and equal treatment, which we pride ourselves on having as a national characteristic, drove me through all my previous working lives as a young secondary school teacher, a trade unionist, an academic, and an industrial relations practitioner. It is that continuing desire to see social justice manifest in New Zealand, through its human rights, its economic structures, its equal opportunities for all regardless of accidents of birth, and its legal system, that has driven me to this place.

My most recent working life has been in health, housing, and Treaty settlements, and, with apologies to St Paul, the greatest of these is Treaty settlements. Each of these areas is shot through with issues of social justice. I enter this Parliament as a list MP; I am proud and honoured to do so. List MPs in particular represent the change to our democratic processes that was ushered in by the electoral referendum of 1993. I supported MMP because I considered then, as I do now, that it had a better chance of delivering a fairer and more representative Parliament and decision-making structure than the previous first-past-the-post system.

Democratic participation has long been a subject of immense interest and passion for me. My never-to-be-finished doctoral thesis was about participation in the workplace and the resulting preparation of workers for full participation as citizens. The basic idea was that if one educates a worker in the ways of participation in workplace decision-making, one educates a citizen for participation in the wider polity.

I take this opportunity to dwell on the nature of democracy, because if it is not done in this place of all places, democracy will be at risk everywhere. At the core of democracy are human rights, which have, at least in our country, become inalienable. These are: the right to participate in elections—extended, uniquely, to women in New Zealand before any other self-governing nation in the world—the right to freedom of expression, the right to be treated equally before the law, and the right of the media to operate without interference and political coercion.

These are fundamental aspects of democracy that are by no means experienced universally. They are rights and also privileges for which wars have been fought and lives have been lost, and the fight continues. Just as we went to our polls in our free democratic elections in September of this year, the former president of the Czech Republic Vaclav Havel and the Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town Desmond Tutu were releasing their report to the UN Security Council entitled: Threat to the Peace: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act in Burma. One of my political heroes isAung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the democratic movement in Burma, and “the world’s only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize laureate”, in the words of the report. She has consistently kept the flame of democracy alive, through the National League for Democracy, against extraordinary opposition. Having won the elections resoundingly in 1990 with 80 percent of the seats in Parliament, the National League for Democracy was never allowed to take up office, and Aung San Suu Kyi has remained under house arrest in Burma since 1990, with occasional periods of release. Burma needs the international community’s attention and support if it is to become a free, independent, and productive nation. Burma is the new South Africa.

There are other just as significant yardsticks of a democratic society. One is the existence of strong trade unions, independent of employer or political patronage, and free to affiliate with political allies or not, as they see fit. Another is the existence of political parties, without which political organisation and expression are unfocused and disparate at best, and chaotic at worst. Some might consider that unfocused political chaos happens anyway, but I am sure from my own experience as the president of the Labour Party, that having political parties that come from strong philosophical and political traditions, such as the Labour Party does, provides citizens with something to vote for, or against, as they choose. Having such an organised expression of political commitment enhances the political process and allows citizens to participate intelligently and meaningfully in it.

Another yardstick of democratic society is its treatment of minorities. This is not a new thought; it is a truism. But in recent times it has taken on a new relevance in New Zealand. The shabby, slovenly thinking behind the detractors of what is pejoratively termed “political correctness” must be seen for the crass political opportunism that it is. Pushing people to the margins of our society and then despising them for being there—purportedly in the interests of the great, ill-defined “mainstream”—serves our democracy badly. All New Zealanders would be much better served if mainstream society was seen for what it is: a loose conglomeration of varying interests, all seeking to move forward peacefully and profitably within the laws of the land, to improve their lot and the lot of others.

The true measure of the democratic State, however, is not in its treatment of the majority, but in the respect, rights, and opportunities it affords its minorities. If any are barred from opportunities by virtue of their gender, colour, race, religious tradition, sexuality, disability, trade union affiliation, or political beliefs, then we are not a true democracy. If any are allowed to be excluded or despised by virtue of any of the characteristics I have just listed, then our democracy is less than it should be. This is not about a Government telling people what to think. It is not about saying which jokes are permissible and which are not. This is about basic respect for others who may be different in some identifiable respect but who seek the same law-abiding, improving quality of life in this country that most people seek.

A strong, self-confident democracy is one that recognises, embraces, and values diversity. Only a cringing, unassertive democracy retains its power by excluding others and stripping them of their place in it. As a lesbian, I have often been the subject of other people’s efforts to push me to the margins, to erode my legitimacy as a citizen, and to belittle my efforts and achievements. I have never accepted marginalisation; it is a construct of others who wish me to be marginalised. It is not where I see myself or the many others like me. But it has always required courage, and I have not come into this House to be less than brave about the human rights of those whom some would seek to marginalise.

I seek an inclusive, just, and tolerant society as one that is more likely to be peaceful, productive, and safe for our children to grow up in. A pluralist society is stable because of its differences, not despite them. It is the very differences between people, working together peacefully and with respect for each other, that allow a society to remain strong and cohesive. The hallmarks of a society that excludes and marginalises people for whatever reason are instability, disharmony, intolerance, and violence—and that is not the society I seek for our children. Those who would dismiss these sentiments as political correctness need to rethink their reasons for doing so, because their aim can only be to create a fragmented, divisive, and hateful society. The reason for doing that escapes me completely.

I want every child to have the opportunity to be what they can most fully be. Sometimes that means that we have to apply resources inequitably in order to bring young people up to the same starting line. I do not resile from that. I do not call it preferential treatment, and I do not call it political correctness. I call it fairness or social justice. I want women and children to be able to live, move, work, and play safely in our communities. I do not resile from that. I do not call it feminist extremism, and I do not call it political correctness. I call it fairness or social justice. I want a growing productive economy that can lift the living standards of all people in New Zealand so that there is no child in desperate need, no substandard housing, and no illnesses of poverty. That is social justice, too.

Finally, I want to pay a few personal tributes. First, I acknowledge the presence in this Parliament of my predecessors in the Labour Party presidency: the Hon Jim Anderton, yourself, Madam Speaker, and the Hon Ruth Dyson. I have learnt a great deal from each of these people and celebrate all their past and ongoing contributions to making this country a fairer and more compassionate place. I hope I can maintain that tradition worthily.

I also pay a tribute to Helen Duncan whose position on the Labour Party list I took. I hope I will carry on the work she did and the values she reflected in this place. She has been a battler with me on common issues for a very long time. I pay tribute to her for her work for women, for workers, and for trade unionists. To my daughter, who is a case study on her own for lowering the voting age to 14, I say thank you for supporting me in being here today. I fail if I do not help Aotearoa New Zealand to become a better place for you to live in.

It is a privilege to be here. My fervent hope is that I use whatever time I have here usefully to further social justice for all, for which the Labour Party stands. Kia ora koutou katoa.

PAULA BENNETT (National): Madam Speaker, may I offer my congratulations to you on your re-election as Speaker and congratulate Clem Simich on his role as Deputy Speaker. In relative terms, I have known Clem a short time, only about 8 or 9 years. He probably does not know it, but he influenced my decision to run for Parliament. He has always held himself with dignity and integrity, and that is an example to us all. I wish you both all the best. If the first few days of this parliamentary session are a measure of what is to come, then you both have a very challenging job, to say the least, ahead of you.

I have been overwhelmed by the warmth and generosity of the response to my election to Parliament. I am greatly moved by the attendance here this afternoon of friends and family who have contributed to my life’s experiences and have supported me through the good times and the bad. Others who have worked so hard to support me are listening over the airwaves from many parts of New Zealand The best way I can thank them is to go forward in this new role with vigour and enthusiasm and maintain my integrity.

I proudly call myself Māori. I proudly call myself European. But I most proudly call myself a New Zealander. I am of Tainui descent, but consider myself urban Māori. A lot has been said over the past few years of the “browning” of New Zealand. There are many different shades of brown. I am very proud of my heritage. I grew up with a picture of Tāwhiao on the wall, and later in life I gained, via my grandmother, knowledge of our Māori history. I was raised as a New Zealander. I did not grow up using Māori language or really understanding tikanga Māori. However, under the guidance of my parents I grew up with a strong sense of self-responsibility, and a sense that one was master of one’s own ship; that the true measure of a person was not only how he or she handled himself or herself day to day, but perhaps more important, how he or she dealt with adversity and the many challenges that life seems to throw our way.

I do not consider myself tribal, but I do have a very real sense of who I am and where I came from. It was not until I was at university as a mature student that I connected with my Māori self. I realised then that I had always felt it. It is difficult to put into words, but I feel Māori blood running through my veins. I feel the power of my ancestors when I stand on a marae, or hear a pōwhiri or a waiata. But I am urban. I believe that we are all equal and should be treated equally before the laws of this great country. I do not think for one moment that because I have Māori ancestry my love of New Zealand and my affinity for this land is any stronger than someone whose ancestors may have arrived here after some of mine.

We are all so privileged to live in an open democracy and have rights from birth as residents. All rights should be equal for all New Zealanders. I meet New Zealanders every day who feel the same as I do. They are part-Māori and feel comfortable in their shade of brown, but they live in today’s world and do not feel comfortable with the growing sense of separation between Māori and other New Zealanders. I for one am grateful for the Treaty. I believe that it has been a founding document and has helped us to move forward as one people. There can be little doubt in modern New Zealand that there were wrongs in the past that needed to be righted, and I am proud to be part of a National Party that started the process of addressing historical Treaty grievances. And there are some wrongs that still need to be righted, but we need to move forward. We need to settle claims quickly and then see the Treaty for the historical document that it is and move forward, as was always intended, as one people.

Although born in Auckland, I grew up in Kinloch, a beautiful bay on the shores of Lake Taupō where I learnt to fish and hunt and had a relatively carefree and easy childhood. It was a predominantly male household, and like many of its time, was rather traditional in its values. I was treated differently from my brothers purely because I was a female. And so I learnt to fight for what I believed in. I rallied against the sometimes only perceived injustice of it all and found that I had a voice. With women at record levels in tertiary education, and, in many ways, outdoing boys academically, we seem to have come so far. But now there are some questions that we need to ask.

I want to be part of a Government that opens up discussion on the type of society we want to be in the future and the role the family plays in modern New Zealand society. It is not individual pieces of legislation that have been passed recently that I rally against; it is the fact that this House of Representatives does not lead the discussion by encouraging open debate about what direction we want our country to go in. As we are pushed to increase women’s participation in the workforce we need to ask who will be raising our next generation. A lot of women are saying that they would like to; that staying at home and raising their children is an option they would not only like to have but one they would like to be actively encouraged to do.

More women are in paid employment than ever before, and their contribution is immeasurable. However, when we hear of someone, currently working, who becomes pregnant, one of our first questions is: “How long will she be taking off work?” There is a subtle—and sometimes not so subtle—push for women to return to the workforce as soon as possible. But I ask members not to misunderstand me. I advocate for choice—for women to work part time or full time in paid work, or not at all, or to stay at home and raise their children. Most men make wonderful fathers. We should let them have a choice about the role they play in raising their family. Most of all, we should let parents have choices. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and no one formula will suit everyone, so we should stop presuming that it does.

A good Government stays out of people’s homes. I would never have wanted anyone to tell me how to raise my daughter, and I would never presume to tell someone else how to raise his or her family. All parents, regardless of the make-up of their families or their economic situation, want what is best for their children. The role that Government has to play in this is to provide an education system that sees all children develop to the best of their ability, a health system that supports its citizens in their times of need, and a welfare system that supports people when they cannot support themselves. A good Government does not come into parents’ homes and tell them how to raise their children. It does not provide welfare to middle New Zealanders and package it as a scheme that “works for families”. It does not push through legislation that may change the very fabric of our society without asking us what type of society we want to live in and without openly encouraging debate on the issue.

I have first-hand experience of knowing what if feels like to believe that one has few choices in life. Like many other strong and outspoken teenagers, I took an unfortunate turn in my teenage years. I found myself mixing with the wrong people and making some poor decisions. As a consequence, over 18 years ago I found myself to be an uneducated, unemployed, young solo mother with very few opportunities ahead of me. It was not an easy time. I found myself living day to day, with my primary focus being one of survival. But I also had a strong sense of self-responsibility. I felt that it was my decision to have my daughter and, as such, it was my responsibility to raise and support her, not the taxpayer’s.

I had short stints on a benefit, but I knew that being in paid work was the only way for us to try to get ahead. In the early days I worked two jobs. One was a part-time job I did during the day at the local harbour, organising fishing and sightseeing trips for tourists. The other job was at the local diner, where I worked the midnight to 8 o’clock shift serving food to truck drivers while my daughter slept. By the age of 19 I had bought my own very humble house in Taupō. There were days, weeks, and months of real struggle. I knew I could not keep going like that, but I also knew that only I could change my and my daughter’s life.

Upon the untimely death of a much-loved brother, I found the courage to move to Auckland and make a new life. Living in west Auckland, I initially washed dishes at a local rest home, before being promoted after 6 months to the role of nurse-aide. The most significant thing that happened to me at this time was that I met people who told me that I should get an education. I had never considered university as an option, but the seed was planted, and I knew that if I did not make a significant change, then I would find myself in exactly the same situation of day-to-day struggle for the rest of my life.

I was accepted into Massey University Albany Campus as a mature student and quickly found myself involved in student politics. I was the first female student president at Albany, and I was responsible for getting many services up and running at the then new campus. These may seem like small accomplishments, and in the scheme of it all they are, but they changed my life. They proved that I could advocate on behalf of others, that sometimes, with the right argument and the right pressure, commonsense just might prevail, and that I could make a difference.

After completing university I worked as an electorate agent for a few years before leaving to work in the private sector, initially as a recruitment consultant, and then, in my final role before coming here, as a manager for a human solutions company. My daughter is now 18 years old, and I am incredibly proud of her and our relationship. Some might say I was lucky, but luck had nothing to do with it. It took hard work, determination, the ability to bounce back after the knocks, and a lot of love. So the values that I hold true to—self-responsibility, hard work, and reward for effort—made it an easy decision to join the National Party.

With unemployment levels at their lowest in many years, we should also be seeing reduced numbers of those receiving welfare. But we are not. The number of people receiving benefits is still way too high, and the cost to taxpayers is huge. The financial costs are not what should concern us most. Our concern should lie with what it is doing to our culture, and the lack of aspiration and self-esteem that many beneficiaries feel. There were times in those early days when I made less money in paid employment than I would have if I had been on the domestic purposes benefit. But I knew I had to start somewhere, and it was very important to me that I set a positive example for my daughter. I am grateful that there was a benefit system for me to fall back on when I needed it, but welfare needs to be seen as a backstop—a hand up until people are able to stand on their own two feet.

I support an initiative that would see those who are on the domestic purposes benefit in some sort of part-time employment, retraining, or community service when their youngest child reaches school age. Raising our next generation is, without doubt, the most important job those parents will do, but we equally have a responsibility to instil in our children a sense of ambition and aspiration. My own life experiences have shown me that taking responsibility for myself and my own, and getting into paid employment—no matter how lowly paid—was the stepladder to a better life and the only way to escape the welfare trap.

I want to work on implementing systems that will encourage welfare beneficiaries to have choices, because a life of dependency gives none. That cannot happen by the will of a parent alone. Employers need to get with the programme and offer part-time work that fits in with school hours, flexibility for parents with children who may be unwell or need a bit more attention at times, and an understanding that some of those workers may need retraining.

It is with enthusiasm, a touch of cynicism, and a bit of trepidation that I step forward to take on my new role as a member of Parliament. I feel extremely fortunate to be based in the beautiful and wild west Auckland. People in west Auckland are my kind of people—determined, innovative, creative, and gutsy. West Auckland is like most areas in Auckland in that it is made up of Māori, Pacific peoples, Europeans, Indians, many Asian groups, Croatians, and a myriad of other nationalities. People drive Holdens and BMWs, and they do not all have haircuts like Pita Sharples, but some do. Their issues are not unlike those faced by people in many cities across New Zealand, as they raise families and try to get to and from work in a grid-locked roading and transport system that needs urgent improvement to keep up with their needs.

I never thought I would be a member of the House of Representatives, but I did know that I would not lead a passive life. I was always going to be an active participant, and as I have such an aversion to physical activity I was never going to become a Silver Fern, so I had to use my brain and my mouth. I feel a great sense of responsibility, but I know that I have something to offer, and I will actively play my part in helping to shape New Zealand’s future. I stand before this House as a New Zealander—as a Māori and as a European, as a solo mother, as a graduate, and as a woman. I know that it is how I face the upcoming challenges as a member of Parliament that will be the measure of me as a person.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your election as Speaker and wish you all the best for the term of this Parliament. Our paths have crossed before, on the Rules Committee of the High Court and on the Council of Legal Education. I enjoyed working with you on those committees and I look forward to working with you in Parliament. I note that some commentators have been speculating that you could be appointed to the Supreme Court. I hope, however, that you remain on this side of Molesworth Street.

I also congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply. I think they spoke very well, although I disagree with most of what they said. I look forward to debating Treaty issues with Mr Jones in the course of this Parliament. One issue I think Parliament will need to revisit very soon is Māori fisheries. The Maori Fisheries Act is destroying the fruits of the settlement won for Māori in 1992 by that great New Zealander, Sir Tīpene O’Regan. It is not Treaty settlement legislation but welfarism and bureaucracy, and it needs substantial amendment.

I acknowledge the Hon Winnie Laban, my Labour opponent in Mana. I congratulate her on her good win in Mana and her appointment as a Minister. The member for Mana was a worthy opponent. Unlike many politicians, she debates the issues but does not get personal. I commend her example to the House and, particularly, to the Deputy Prime Minister. Out of familial loyalty, I also congratulate the member for Rongotai on her new responsibilities. If one has to have relatives on the other side, then I am lucky to have the member for Rongotai.

I also take this opportunity to express my thanks to Joel George and Parliamentary Service staff for all the help they have provided to new MPs in the last few weeks. Becoming an MP is a daunting experience, but my transition to parliamentary life has been greatly assisted by the work done by Mr George and his team.

I am proud to be a member of the National Party, which I joined in 1974. I joined the party because I particularly liked and admired my local MP, Sir John Marshall. I spent my early years in the party working for Hugh Templeton, the former MP for Ohariu. Hugh was a fine MP and Minister, whose contribution to this country has never been properly recognised. I have held most administrative offices in the party except president—a position currently held by a fine New Zealander, Judy Kirk. I acknowledge today her huge contribution to the National Party and thank her for all she has done.

Next year will be the 70th anniversary of the formation of the National Party, which was formed from the remnants of the old Reform Party and United Party. It is the true heir to the liberal and conservative traditions of New Zealand politics. On 8 July 1947 Sir John Marshall gave his maiden speech as MP for Mount Victoria. In that speech he outlined his adherence to the principles of liberalism and the liberal tradition. Almost 60 years later, that speech reads very well, and the principles that Sir John outlined are still relevant to the National Party today. I have the right to live my own life in my own way, provided only that this does not interfere with the rights of others. I should be free to do so as I wish, subject only to the rule of law. The classic conservative has a deep suspicion of the power of the State, prefers liberty to equality, is patriotic, believes in established institutions and hierarchies, and is sceptical about the idea of progress. The National Party takes the best of liberalism and conservatism. So, for example, a classical conservative Government would not have pursued the Treaty settlement policy advanced by the Bolger administration in the 1990s. That great work was liberal conservatism in action. As Benjamin Disraeli once said, his ideal Government would be made up of Tory politicians and Whig policies.

Some contend that conservatism and liberalism are unhappy partners, and that today the Labour Party is really the natural home of the liberal. I disagree. The Labour Party’s philosophy is, in fact, opposed to liberalism. The left may have admitted that the right won the great economic debate of the 20th century and that socialism in its various forms has failed, but the left still wants to regulate and control. Only they know best. There is a huge difference between being a liberal and being a socialist or social democrat.

What I want to do now is consider a practical application of liberal conservative principles to what I think are some of the issues facing New Zealand in the early years of the 21st century. In the time available it is impossible to deal with all issues so I intend to focus on constitutional and legal issues.

First, the rule of law. The liberal conservative believes that the rule of law is fundamental to our society and is to be nurtured and safeguarded. Important ingredients of the rule of law include respect for the judiciary, careful lawmaking by Parliament, and, where necessary, sensible law reform. I do not think politicians today show enough respect for the judiciary. All too often politicians promote badly drafted legislation, which is either too prescriptive at one extreme or too vague at the other, then expect judges to interpret those laws to their satisfaction. But when the judge gives a judgment that may not please the politician, the politician starts complaining about activist judges encouraged by lawyers who are the only ones to make any money out of the process—I cannot see what the complaint is there!

Lawyers would make less money, and judges’ lives would be easier if the work product of Parliament improved. Vague formulaic references to Treaty principles, for example, constitute poor lawmaking. On numerous occasions in my career, I have made submissions to judges trying to interpret references to Treaty principles in a particular context. This is because politicians did not give proper consideration to the implications of the language they used in legislation. More care needs to be taken to ensure that legislation is carefully drafted and that it reflects the intention of Parliament.

Another important aspect of the rule of law is meaningful and timely law reform. Some years ago former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer was asked to evaluate the Law Commission. His report was released in April 2000, and I refer to the following extract: “A fundamental change of attitude to law reform is required. Law reform has been neglected in recent years. New Zealand will suffer if proper repairs and renovations to its statute laws are not performed. The law needs to be kept up to date to reflect developments in new technology and business practices. New Zealand is probably falling behind its trading partners in this respect.”

Five years have passed and nothing has happened. Sir Geoffrey’s recommendations have been ignored and, in particular, his recommendation that the Attorney-General should be explicitly tasked with overall responsibility for the legal system and its operations, and that the Law Commission should be transferred to the Attorney-General away from the Ministry of Justice. The Attorney-General would then be the Minister for Law Reform. Lack of law reform is a very serious issue that must be addressed by the new Attorney-General. Given that he is a lawyer and not a former history teacher, I hope he will see the need to provide leadership on this issue.

The liberal conservative respects the institutions of the State. An important constitutional issue we may have to deal with in the next 20 years is whether New Zealand remains a monarchy. Whatever the future outcome of that all-important constitutional debate, we must continue to respect the Crown. That does not mean, however, that the role of the Crown and its representative, the Governor-General, cannot be debated. I was in Canberra last Friday, which was the 30th anniversary of Gough Whitlam’s sacking by Sir John Kerr. The role of the Governor-General in that momentous event is still being vigorously debated, particularly by the Australian Labor Party.

However, I take exception to increasing prime ministerial domination of the functions of the Governor-General—in particular, the tendency for a Prime Minister to undertake certain ceremonial functions of State that previously had been discharged by the Governor-General. These ceremonial hijacks are wrong. As one Australian commentator has said, politicians who attempt to capture some ceremonial moment of national importance are also attempting to attach to themselves some element of public legitimacy, and to strengthen the degree of identification between themselves and the State. By so doing, they seek to enhance their personal and political prestige.

The liberal conservative is positive about New Zealand’s ability to settle Treaty issues finally, expeditiously, and justly. For many years I was involved in Treaty litigation. In particular, I acted for Ngāi Tahu in its claim against the Crown. The proudest moment of my professional career was being at Kaikōura on 21 November 1997, when former Prime Minister Jim Bolger and Sir Tīpene O’Regan for Ngāi Tahu signed the deed of settlement. Since then, Ngāi Tahu has gone from strength to strength, and is now a major economic and social force in the South Island. The National Party can be very proud of its work with Māori over the years. The legacy of National Ministers like Ralph Hanan and Sir Douglas Graham is an outstanding one.

If, however, New Zealand is to complete the Treaty settlement phase of its history within a reasonable time, much more needs to be done. In particular, the Waitangi Tribunal needs to be properly resourced, both financially and in human terms, so that it can complete its very important task. I also think the Crown needs to show more energy in negotiating settlements with iwi. The Crown’s lethargic and bureaucratic approach to settlement negotiations needs to change. It seems clear that Parliament will be revisiting the Foreshore and Seabed Act—another masterpiece of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think we do need to review this legislation. My personal view is that if one respects the rule of law, due process, and property rights, that legislation is unfair and discriminatory. It should not be beyond the wit of politicians of goodwill to work together to devise a more acceptable model. New Zealanders should not be divided on this issue.

The liberal conservative is a realist, motivated in the end by what is in New Zealand’s national interest. He or she is not imprisoned by ideas or prejudices formed in one’s adolescence that stay throughout adulthood. An example of this affliction is the way many people in this country dislike the United States. This dislike was formed during the Viet Nam War when they were anti-war activists and when, as Ronald Reagan said of some protesters at Berkeley: “They acted like Tarzan, looked like Jane, and smelt like Cheetah.” That dislike affects some politicians today, preventing them from acting in New Zealand’s interests. They have grown older, but they have not grown up. It is time there was a complete reappraisal of New Zealand’s relationship with the United States, based solely on what is in New Zealand’s interests.

Finally, the liberal conservative is an optimist, who does not view the governance of New Zealand as a grim and humourless task to be undertaken without any generosity of spirit, who does not feel the need to have informants strategically placed in the bureaucracy and Government-appointed boards to ensure that everyone obeys, and who does not think she has a monopoly on high-mindedness. The liberal conservative is concerned with governing in the public good and the national interest, confident in the knowledge that this is a great country full of talented and decent people and that the enterprise is worthwhile. As someone said to me in the course of the campaign, other countries have problems; New Zealand has a project—an exciting, sometimes difficult, but none the less achievable project.

After spending years sitting on the sidelines watching others have their go, I now enter the arena, willing and able to work for New Zealand. Winston Churchill once observed that he preferred the past to the present, and the present to the future. I could not disagree more. I look forward to the future and to its challenges.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa. It is an honour to speak for the first time in the House, and I take pleasure in congratulating you, Madam Speaker, on your election as Speaker of the House. I congratulate my fellow new MPs on their election, and those who have been re-elected to this Parliament. I celebrate the return of a Labour-led Government, led by Prime Minister Helen Clark, and I look forward to 3 more years of social and economic progress for the peoples of our country.

I send love to my whānau who are here today and to those who cannot be here but who are listening. I particularly acknowledge my husband, John, my son, Aisha, my daughter, Anna, my sister, Linda, and my brothers. I thank them for their love and support in years past and in the years ahead. I honour the memory of my parents, Verdun Edward Frost and Patricia Mary Te Rata Māhuta Frost. I miss them both. I pay tribute to the leaders, delegates, and members of my union, the Service and Food Workers Union Ngā Ringa Tota, whose courage and determination for a better life for working people comes with me to this House.

I follow my grandfather, the Reverend Frederick Ledger Frost, who was a member of this Parliament. He died when I was a very small child, so I have no personal recollection of him, but I am here on his shoulders, just as we are all here on the shoulders of many. My grandfather was born in the north of England to a poor family. He left school at the age of 12 to work in the mines as a pit boy, continuing that occupation in the mines on the West Coast of New Zealand when he immigrated here as an adult. He studied at night and qualified to become a Methodist minister, but war intervened. He was a soldier in the 1st Otago Tunnelling Corps in World War I and was injured at the Somme. After the war he was the Auckland City Missioner.

My grandfather was deeply troubled by the Depression, and, as a consequence, he joined the Labour Party. He was the Labour candidate for Napier, but lost by a handful of votes, so he went back to work at the Huntly mines in the intervening period until he was elected as the member for New Plymouth in the first Labour Government. After my grandfather had made his maiden speech to the House, that great orator John A. Lee said: “By their deeds are Parliaments known; and if Parliaments have played an important part in the public well-being—in nation building—and if politicians have done so, then they are known by their institutions. I venture to assert that as the years go by because this party”—the Labour Party—“has established good institutions and will continue to do so, there will be many members of this House whose names will become by-words and will become as historical as some of the great names in the history books of New Zealand.”

How right he was. During my grandfather’s time in this House, the Labour Government introduced the Social Security Bill, which brought in free health-care and universal superannuation, in addition to the programme of State house construction and many other achievements that set the basis for a fairer society. So many members of that Parliament are, indeed, now great names in our history books. We know them well: Michael Joseph Savage, Peter Fraser, and Sir Walter Nash. I am proud that my family was part of that important contribution and part of the first Labour Government of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Politics is in my blood. I suspect that that is not unusual in this House. Many of us have whakapapa that could indicate why we have chosen this path. I have proud family connections with Ireland, England, and the tangata whenua of, in particular, Waikato. But there is one story in my ancestry that I want to tell because it illustrates the terrible battle that many have waged for justice. An ancestor of mine, Charles O’Brien, who lived in Youghal, County Cork, was the local leader of the United Irishmen resistance fighters, and he was known to the English as “Plague O’Brien”. Charles was caught by the English and sentenced to be hung from the Clock Gate tower in Youghal. The Clock Gate was a grim prison building, a symbol of terror and tyranny for the countryside around, and its inmates were often tortured.

The United Irishmen movement was recruited principally from amongst the working class and the labouring element of the country districts. In that period, the open organisation of labourers for any purpose was against the law. Consequently, all the trade unions that then flourished among the Irish working class were illegal organisations whose members were in constant danger of arrest and transportation for the crime of organising. What was Charles O’Brien fighting for? He was fighting for the democratic reform of the Irish Parliament and for the removal of English control from Irish affairs. He fought for political reform and the rights of others and paid with his life.

A poignant account of Charles’ execution is told by family members. At the top of the Clock Gate tower, the mayor was supposed to put the noose around Charles’ neck and push him out. But the mayor was a family friend doing the job under duress. Charles is reported to have said to the mayor: “Let me do that for you.”, and to have put the noose around his own neck and jumped.

The point of this story is that history and whakapapa are important. We are shaped by experiences, where we come from, and those in our families who have gone before. As a Government list MP I have no particular electorate, although I am from the west of Auckland. I acknowledge the tangata whenua of the Waitakere Ranges and coastal valleys, Te Makerau a Maki, and I celebrate the vibrant city of Waitakere and its surrounding rain forest, wild coast, and rich diversity.

I am proud to be part of a city that is young, progressive, eco-friendly, and Labour. But I claim as my constituents the service workers across New Zealand—those who clean for, cook for, and care for others—and the workers who process and manufacture our food. Many of them work long hours on shift work. They work in hot factories with repetitive and noisy machines, they care for someone’s grandmother in a rest home, or they clean up after the rest of us when we have gone home. Some of their jobs are physically hard and are not particularly well paid. But what amazes me is the pride they have in the work they do—the belief that they are making a contribution, no matter how disregarded by some. It is union organisation and rights that bring dignity and give a voice to their contribution. I salute those workers, particularly those in the gallery today who have come here to encourage me on my new journey. In addition, I pay tribute to the great women presidents of Ngā Ringa Tota: Sue Wētere, Julie Kāhaki, and Sharryn Hough, along with our mate and fellow unionist Mary Campbell, who, sadly, passed away earlier this year.

I follow other leaders from the union movement into this House. It interests me how often our beliefs, experiences, and talents are written off by some in politics and the media. I believe that this is because their view of society is as indistinct as the view of the street below from the lofty heights of a high-rise building. It shows no understanding of the real world of work and of what life is like for many ordinary working people. Unions represent the hopes and aspirations of hundreds of thousands of workers in our country. They stand for the fundamental principles and beliefs, shared widely in our society, of a fair go for everyone, whereby in good times people can get a fair share of the benefits, and in the bad times there are protections. I grew up with these values, believing that if people worked hard, played by the rules, and paid their dues, then the nation would provide security, opportunity, and fairness for all.

As a trade unionist, I experienced first-hand the devastation of a New Zealand experiment in the 1990s—the Employment Contracts Act, the welfare reforms, and other structural adjustments. I saw worker after worker lose pay, sick leave, holidays, public holiday pay, and jobs. I despaired at the ruthless restructuring, whereby quality jobs became casual jobs with no security of hours of employment—where workers were supposed to wait at home, on call, in the hope that they could get a few measly hours of work per week. Thousands of hospital cleaners and kitchen workers had their jobs contracted out and their pay slashed in the brutality of competitive tendering.

Catering workers employed at Capital Coast Health, for example, had their employer change six times in 8 years, and their managers change at least 10 times. The only thing that stayed the same for them was their pay rate. Until September 1999, those workers were paid the same hourly rate as they were paid under the 1990 hospital domestics award. Some employers’ idea of a fair employment agreement was a 2-page individual contract that scrapped all conditions and paid a minimum wage. The impact on the lives of working women and men was appalling. It set our country back years, yet what astounds me is that even with the evidence that those kinds of policies do not work, we continue to hear a call for more of the same from some in politics and business. These are not the standards of an advanced economy; they are the standards of a Third World country, and they undermine the generations of people who have worked hard to get a fair share of the prosperity of our land and give their families a chance to get ahead.

New Zealand’s unions are modern, energetic, and representative organisations. When unions had the opportunity with a change of government in 1999, they did not demand a return to the past. They intelligently sought democratic engagement with our future, including in the areas of growth and innovation, sustainable development, technology, skill development, and industry and regional development. Unions, instead of being seen as part of the problem, have become part of the solution. Initiatives in industry training, such as Learning Reps; in Māori economic development; and in productivity; as well as in the future of manufacturing and tripartite development projects in the wood, food, and beverage industries, to name just a few, have all had significant union involvement. Changes to industrial law, with the emphasis on good-faith bargaining and the recognition of fundamental International Labour Organization conventions on the rights to organise and collectively bargain, set the scene, and there are now real results to show for it.

We can contrast the gloom of the 1990s with last week’s announcement on wages and employment. New Zealand’s unemployment rate fell to the lowest rate since records began, and is the lowest in the OECD. The largest annual and quarterly wage and salary increases since the series began in 1992 were also recorded.

Success in building a secure, high-skill, high-productivity, and high-wage economy relies on an understanding that it is people who make the difference. It requires an investment in all workers, not just a few at the top. No one gets to do well on their own. None of us here, or anywhere, is a self-made person. All of us, rich or not so rich, can advance only because of the efforts and contributions of many. New Zealanders past and present have invested through their taxes in our education system, health care, infrastructure, highways, airports, and even this House, providing the opportunity to make our way in our lives. Those contributions must be defended so that they are equally available for others.

This brings me back to the cleaners, kitchen workers, caregivers, and food production workers. They have a right to be heard in this House, and I bring with me their hopes and dreams for a fair share and a better life for their families and communities. Their place in our economy and society is essential. They help to build a nation that makes life better for all of us. My role in this House—this House of the people—is to help make life better for them. The last 6 years and the programme of the third term of a Labour-led Government means that we are well on the path to doing so. I am conscious of the privilege it is to serve as a parliamentarian. I will do my utmost to uphold the values and core beliefs of the Labour Party and to do my best for all the peoples of New Zealand. Nō reira ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga): Madam Speaker, instead of my congratulations, may I give you my commiserations on your being re-elected to your position. The first speech I heard in this place was Helen Clark’s Speech from the Throne. We were roped into the aisles and the doors were locked. We could not leave. I have deep sympathy for your position.

I wish to speak on several subjects, but before I do I want to tell members a bit about myself. I was born in 1939 as a male, and I have stayed that way all my life. At the age of 8 I did my first business deal. I bought some chocolate bars for 20 pence, broke them in half, sold half a bar for 20 pence, and made 100 percent profit. The trouble was that I ate the profits.

At the age of 15 I left high school after 2 years and did an apprenticeship as a fitter and turner. At the age of 19 I played hockey for Poverty Bay. At the age of 22 I left Gisborne for Matamata and ended up selling and fixing tractors and farm machinery. When I was 24 I played hockey for Waikato. When I was 26 I started stock car racing. I love this sport, because it is one the whole family can enjoy.

When I was 30 I got married. I was married for 11 years. I have two lovely daughters, Caprice and Megan. After 11 years of marriage I asked my wife what she wanted for Christmas, and she said: “A divorce.” I said that I was not thinking of something quite so expensive.

At age 35 I played hockey for New Zealand’s second team against the team that went to the Olympics in 1976 and won gold. At the age of 36 I worked in the Kaimai tunnel and got sacked because the boss would not do as he was told—take note.

When I was 38 I started importing V8 motors and parts from the United States. It was a very successful business. I got into dragster racing with my mate Lewis Wymer from Tīrau, and we were very successful. We held three New Zealand titles and the New Zealand - Australia record for 7 years.

At the age of 40 I started buying and building flats and houses to rent. I had a dream. I believe that one must have a dream. One must have a go. My aim in life is to have good memories. I do not intend to die wishing I had done something. I wish to lie straight in my coffin when I die. My dream was to have 100 units rented out. I got to 52 units and realised I was not making any money out of it, so I sold the lot. I attracted the attention of the Inland Revenue Department, too, by the way—but we will not mention that. At age 44 I started to build and lease industrial buildings. I ended up with 58 tenants in Matamata.

At the age of 46 I got married again. It looks like it might stick this time. My wife, Martha, has been my helper and best mate for 20 years. It is actually our anniversary today. She has made great sacrifices for our business and will make more for my being in this House. In my early business years I was very shy when I walked into a room full of people. Martha told me: “When you walk into a room, nobody is better than you.”

At age 52 I had trouble with the Matamata Council. It would not do what I told it to—take note, again. So I left town for Mount Maunganui. I have been very successful in the Mount and in Tauranga, building industrial buildings for tenants.

At the age of 61 I had another dream. I wanted to do something different. My love was speedway. I wanted to build a stadium that could be used for both speedway and rugby. The local speedway club had tried to get a resource consent, and that took all its money. It spent all its money on paperwork and still had no track. I offered to do the job. I too had enormous trouble getting resource consents and permits, but I got the job done.

The Baypark Stadium is a landmark in the Bay of Plenty. Members are welcome at any time to visit the place. National Party members can visit for free, Labour Party and New Zealand First members have to pay. By the way, the Hon Bill English has actually driven a stock car at my stadium, and I believe he truly enjoyed it.

I would like to mention that the resource consents and permits on that building alone—it is a big stadium—cost 985,000 wasted dollars. That is ridiculous.

When I was 65—which nearly puts me at being the oldest member on this side of the House—I had another dream. I wanted to do something bigger. I considered that New Zealand was on a slippery slope and heading downhill fast. I had breakfast with the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Tony Ryall, who persuaded me to throw my hat in the ring and stand as the National candidate for Tauranga. I thought: “This should be easy.” I only had to beat Winston Peters, who had done nothing for Tauranga in 21 years.

I was wrong about the campaign being easy. It got dirty. It was muck, sludge, and sewage every day of the campaign. But my honesty and morals carried me through. Even after all the muckraking and scandal-mongering, Winston Peters lost. Winston was the loser. “I am perfectly happy being the member for Tauranga.”—an interesting remark.

My big worries for this country are roading, student loans, and law and order. Let us take roading. Roading is totally underfunded. Why do we pinch $646 million from fuel tax, and so on, and put into the consolidated account. This is morally wrong. It should be spent on new roads. If we build better roads, fewer deaths will occur on the roads.

I have just read a story about Ireland, where $5 billion has been spent on roads. The number of deaths and the injury rate from road accidents have dropped substantially. Ireland is going to continue to build new roads, and it looks forward to having an even lower accident rate.

Forget speed—that is not the killer on the roads. The Rt Hon Helen Clark will confirm that speed does not kill. It is the lack of speed that is killing people. Frustration is the problem. Long queues of cars frustrate people, and they take chances. I believe that the average New Zealander is quite happy to cruise at 80 to 105 kilometres an hour, as long as he or she is not held up by other cars and trucks. We need more divided, four-lane, dual carriage roads.

In New Zealand we have killer roads, and the Government of the day is responsible. I believe that if the roads are not improved, the Government should be charged with manslaughter.

Twenty percent of our tertiary students are incurring student loans while studying what I call “hobby” courses. They have no hope of getting a job in the field of those subjects. They will end up with $20,000-plus loans that they will never be able to repay, and their lives will be put on hold forever. I strongly suggest that the Government deals with that problem and stops students from getting loans where they have no hope of getting a job in their chosen field and no hope of repaying the loan.

We will never have law and order fixed until we fix the problem. The problem is that our prisons are like motels in the prairie. Let us toughen up our prisons, so that people will not want to go there. Let us get prisoners out of bed at 6.30 in the morning, and get them outside marching and running until noon. After a short lunch, they should get into another 2 hours of marching and running, and then have a 2-hour break. They should get 1 hour to recover and 1 hour to think about whether the crime was worth the time. Then they should do the same thing again the next day, the day after, and every day of their sentence. We would not have to build any more prisons; people would not want to be there and would not do the crime.

Let me finish by saying that I live in Tauranga and do all my business there. I am passionate about Tauranga and Mount Maunganui. I want to do all I can to promote and stimulate the area. Mount Maunganui has some of the best beaches in New Zealand, and Tauranga is the largest export port in New Zealand—it exports 70 to 90 million trays of kiwifruit alone. The place is growing. The Tauranga City Council is having trouble keeping up with the infrastructure required to keep up with the progress.

Tauranga has a great future ahead of it. The city’s problems are mainly to do with roading and resource consent issues. The appalling state of our roads is limiting our growth. When we have a cost-benefit ratio in our area of $5.50 gained for every dollar spent on roading, my business brain asks why we are not building roads.

I have a lot of practical experience. I know how to get jobs done fast, on time, and within budget, and built to the highest standards. I want to use my knowledge and ability in Government to get those jobs done.

I want more apprenticeships given in the trades, which would help to fix the leaky house problem. I want State house tenants to be given the option to buy the house they occupy. The money recovered from those sales could build more houses for people who need them—for example, young married couples. I see that 6,000 affordable houses are being built a year by the Housing New Zealand Corporation. That would solve the housing problem faced by young people today. It would cost the Government nothing to do that project. It would save the taxpayer the high cost of running State houses.

I repeat that New Zealand is going downhill fast. When I look across the Chamber at the members of this Government, I say: “God help us! God help New Zealand!”.

Let us get this country humming. Let us make decisions. We should let New Zealanders have a go; we should not tie them up in red tape. New Zealand’s future is at stake. We should let young and old New Zealanders have a dream. With a chance, they could make it come true. I will not die with a dream—I want the rest of New Zealand to dream and achieve with me.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That this debate be now adjourned until after consideration of Government order of the day No. 3.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill be now read a first time. At the conclusion of the first reading, I shall move that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration, and that it be an instruction to the committee to report back the bill to the House by 5 December. I will also seek leave for an instruction to the committee, through Supplementary Order Paper 1, to consider amendments to the bill to enable the Inland Revenue Department to assist in the administration of the Australian wine producer rebates. I thank all other parties for their expression of support for that measure being included, and I understand that that does not necessarily mean they will support other parts of this bill. The bill will be fast tracked through all its stages before the House rises in mid-December. That will enable the changes it introduces to take effect from 1 April next year, which, of course, is consistent with the pledges made by the Labour Party before the election.

The bill delivers on three key election pledges, to the real benefit of hundreds of thousands of ordinary New Zealanders. It reflects the Government’s commitment to an inclusive society that is based on fairness, security, and opportunity for all its people, including its young people. The bill extends the Government’s landmark Working for Families package. It builds upon changes that were already scheduled to come into effect on 1 April next year as part of the phased implementation of that package. As a result of the changes in the bill, about 100,000 working families who were to receive increased assistance next April will receive even more, and an extra 60,000 families will become eligible for family assistance under the Working for Families programme.

The size of the extra relief introduced in the bill will depend on family circumstances, including the number of children and the family income, but will average around $50 a week. For example, a family that was already on track to receive an extra $55 a week from 1 April next year will now receive an extra $48 a week on top of that—a total of $103 a week. That is achieved by raising the threshold at which family income assistance begins to abate, from $27,500—actually, at the moment it is still $20,000—to $35,000, and by reducing the rate at which assistance abates for income that is over the new threshold, from 30 percent to 20 percent, which, for very large numbers of working families, also decreases the effective marginal tax rate by some 10c in the dollar.

The bill further honours the Government’s election pledge to make student loans interest-free for most borrowers. The changes are designed to reduce the cost to students of tertiary study, and to encourage tertiary-educated New Zealanders to invest their skills in New Zealand. From 1 April next year, borrowers who are studying part-time or full-time will continue to have the interest on their student loans written off. Borrowers who are no longer studying, regardless of whether they have gained a qualification, will pay no interest on their student loans, provided they are living in New Zealand. Interest will be charged on student loans if borrowers are away from New Zealand for more than 183 consecutive days, which is, of course, the same criterion that applies to tax residency within the taxation legislation. Short visits of 31 days or fewer to New Zealand will not count as living in New Zealand. The Inland Revenue Department will have the discretion to exempt from this rule borrowers and their partners who are overseas for a variety of reasons, including postgraduate study or being unexpectedly delayed overseas.

There has been a considerable degree of interest in the cost of this policy, and we have heard some very large claims being made about that. Before the election, the Labour Party costed the impact on the operating provisions of this policy as rising to some $300 million or so a year by 2008-09. This was attacked as being ludicrously low. Let me announce today that Treasury has refined its costings of the policy, and I have to admit that the Labour Party was significantly in error. The actual costing will be $202 million a year by 2008-09 in terms of the impact on the operating provisions. Those are the actual Treasury costings—not done on the back of an envelope like its first effort, but done somewhat more carefully, taking account of all factors. [Interruption] I am so sorry to disappoint the members opposite about that fact, and I must congratulate myself on my self-discipline in holding back those numbers until the first reading of this particular bill, because I have been sitting on them for some time up to this stage.

The third key election pledge delivered in the bill is for an amnesty on student loan penalties for borrowers in arrears who are living overseas at 1 April next year if they give an undertaking to meet all their obligations under the Student Loan Scheme Act for a 2-year period. That will apply to those borrowers who give the necessary undertaking between 1 April next year and 31 March 2007. The removal of the very, very large penalty payments that some people overseas have accumulated offshore will enable them, if they want to, to come back to this country. A significant proportion of the level of outstanding debt on the student loan scheme is accounted for by a relatively small number of borrowers, nearly all of whom are actually offshore and whose penalty payments have now mounted to the point where it becomes impossible for them to return to New Zealand. That is not in our interest as a nation.

The changes in the bill will save many thousands of dollars a year for many young people in terms of the costs of their tertiary study, and will knock years off repayment times. Indeed, the new member for Tauranga has already had an effect on Government policy. This was one of the three elements in his speech—apart from, one might say, the somewhat uncharitable remarks about his predecessor. He might have learnt that one is usually nice about one’s predecessors in this House when taking over a new seat. Mr David Carter managed to bring himself to be so when he was once an electorate MP.

The bill also fixes the rates of income tax for the 2005-06 tax year, which is an annual requirement. That is contained in the main tax bill, but there is a risk—I hope not a serious risk—that that bill may not be passed by the end of March. I am hopeful that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be able to get that bill through by the end of March so that measures such as depreciation and other changes can come into force on 1 April. But there has been some pressure, I might say, from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand, amongst others, to delay the provisional tax and GST measures for a short period to give some more time for publicity and other matters.

In closing, I am extremely pleased that the Government has been able to deliver so quickly on the promised reforms introduced in the bill, which will have long-term benefits for New Zealand and its people. I commend the bill to the House. We anticipate it passing in the last sitting week before Christmas—13 to 15 December.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville): I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill, and all I can say—and I do want to touch on the student loan scheme in a moment, because it clearly forms a significant part of the legislation—is that this policy has caused Michael Cullen tremendous embarrassment so far in the House. I know that Labour stands for the notion that the means justify the ends and it does not matter what it takes to get there, but he has embarrassed himself even further in the House today if he seriously expects anybody in New Zealand to believe that it will cost $202 million to run this policy. I am tempted to repeat what Mr Locke said—he said he would go naked in Epsom if Rodney Hide won the seat. I do not want to make a similar pledge because my wife could be listening, although she hardly listens to Parliament, but I am tempted to say that that kind of pledge is befitting of the comments of Michael Cullen.

Just a very simple analysis of cancelling the interest alone equated to around $348 million. No, Treasury was right when it costed the policy as one that was tremendously expensive.

The front page of the New Zealand Herald was right, the day after John Belgrave, the Ombudsman, required the Government to release that document, when it led with the headline: “What Labour didn’t want you to know”. That was the headline: “What Labour didn’t want you to know”. That is quite a significant issue that I wish to discuss. But before I start I want to draw to the House’s attention Part 1, which deals with the affirmation of the annual income tax rates, and I say that for this reason. At 4.30 this afternoon the Government dumped on the media unit its incoming briefing to the Minister. The Government dumped it at 4.30 for a reason—it does not want it on the 6 o’clock news tonight. The Government could have dumped it at 6.01 p.m. but chose not to do that because that would have been tremendously embarrassing for a Government that does not want that kind of information in the public domain.

But for the listeners to this address, and for the members of the House, let me just paraphrase what the briefing says. It says that if this country wants to get into the top half of the OECD, then it needs a lot more than rhetoric, and that what the country actually needs is growth-enhancing policies, and that Treasury’s No. 1 growth enhancing policy is to cut taxes. It says that New Zealand will not get into the top half of the OECD with Labour-led policies. It says that this country has grown at a rate of around 2 percent per capita and it needs to grow at a rate of 4 percent if it wants to get back into the top half of the OECD. The briefing makes it quite clear: the international evidence is overwhelming that if we want a fast-growing economy, and for this country to get what it wants and deserves—a growing economy that delivers opportunities—then this country must cut taxes, and that information comes on the day the Government released its full-year surplus of around $8 billion—$2,000 per head. In case the Minister of Finance has missed it, it was a 42 percent increase in tax revenue.

This country needs a lower-taxing Government. The country voted for tax cuts. Treasury said that National was right to advocate that position. The international evidence said that National was right to advocate that position. The public said we were right and the public knew we were right. Treasury said that if New Zealand wants to get into the top half of the OECD it is the No. 1 most important thing to do, and the leading statement in the Speech from the Throne was that this Government—this Labour Government—will not be cutting taxes. This Labour Government will not be growing this economy, and this Labour Government will not be taking New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD. It does not matter how many times Michael Cullen, Helen Clark, and the rest of the Labour front bench come to this House and argue to the contrary, they are wrong, just as Michael Cullen is wrong when he embarrasses himself by claiming that a policy such as interest-free loans will cost $202 million. As I said last night the most sense we will get out of Michael Cullen now will be when he delivers his valedictory in 2½ years’ time.

I want to move on to the student loan policy, because it was an amazing policy. I remember that before the forty-seventh Parliament broke up, I asked Michael Cullen what the cost to the balance sheet would be—in other words, what the cost would be of having roughly about $6 billion worth of loans that no longer have any interest bearing on them. My previous history was in the financial markets, and anybody in the financial markets will know that a valuation of a loan portfolio that all of a sudden yields zero is worth considerably less than a portfolio that has an interest rate applying to it. And that was right, because earlier in the year the Government had passed the financial reporting legislation, which required New Zealand to adopt international accounting standards. I argued with Dr Cullen that that cost would be $1.7 billion, nearly the equivalent of taking Solid Energy and Landcorp and giving them away to anybody for zero. Michael Cullen looked at me, grunted a few things, did not really say a lot, and sat down. Again, about a week ago in a rather embarrassing and sort of coy moment for the Minister of Finance, he had to admit that in fact even I was wrong—it was not $1.7 billion; it was $2 billion.

This is a Government that took $2 billion and gave it away. It does not want to privatise assets, but it is happy to give some things away for zero because Helen Clark was so desperate to become Prime Minister again. She did not care that the country will not get back into the top half of the OECD, and she proved it because she is doing the complete opposite of what Treasury said. She just gave away $2 billion. It was a disgrace. Michael Cullen went on to say in his press release that it was a one-off charge. Well, that is not correct. What actually happens is that for every dollar that gets written in student loans—and there will be a great many student loans written—about 30c will have to be written off the Crown balance sheet. That is the truth of this policy. It is a policy that tells young New Zealanders to go and borrow—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: To the hilt.

JOHN KEY:—to the hilt. The poor old students will be out there borrowing a whole lot of money, and what will they also be doing? Yes—they will not be paying interest under a Labour Government. They will not be paying interest on those loans. But they will be paying off larger loans, it will take just as long, and the great tragedy of it is that under a National Government they could have had tax cuts, they could have had vibrant opportunities, and they could have had the things that Treasury told this Government in its incoming briefing notes to the Minister were so much required to make New Zealand go forward. I think it is a great tragedy.

Helen Clark has spent quite some time, as Steve Maharey and others on that side of the House have done, lamenting the fact that student loans are there—lamenting the fact that young New Zealanders are in debt to the tune of around $6 billion. Well, the great tragedy is that Treasury was right, Michael Cullen was wrong, and we need only roll the clock forward another 14 or 15 years to know that young New Zealanders will owe somewhere between $18 billion and $20 billion. That will be a sad day, and that is a very expensive price tag in order for Helen Clark to secure a third term. What a cost to the country! What an unaffordable—

Lindsay Tisch: Irresponsible!

JOHN KEY:—and irresponsible cost to the country! It is a sad day.

I want to finish by talking about the Working for Families adjustments. Under Labour’s Working for Families package—and the incoming briefing notes to the Minister made this point equally as well—families who live in many of our electorates and who earn under the average wage in this economy will face effective marginal tax rates of well over 50 or 60 percent. New Zealand families who so desperately want to get ahead, and who are working hard to make a difference, face a Labour Government that says it will tax them at the rate of 60 percent. That is so wrong, and that was what was so right about National’s tax package because it picked up people who earn between $38,000 and $50,000, and applied to them a tax rate of no more than 19 percent. It was significantly below the 33 percent, and it took an effective marginal tax rate of around 60 percent down to 39 percent.

Lindsay Tisch: Very good policy.

JOHN KEY: It was a very good policy. National members will be opposing this legislation with every bone in our bodies.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I do not think that we have very many worries about Mr Key opposing this legislation with every bone in his body. I am not sure how many he has got left after the election that he helped to lose—that he helped to ensure would put the National Party back in Opposition for what is going to be a historic 9 long years. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith will be retired, nosed out, by the end of that period of time, and will slip off into the darkness, having never returned to where he wants to be on the Government benches. The man to blame for that, Mr John Key, just spoke. He helped to lose the election, and Bill English, no doubt, is seeing that his chances of returning to the leadership—having lost it some time ago—are now rising because of John Key’s performance. [Interruption] It is worth pointing out to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who is calling out across the House, that the National Party lost the last election.

This is a Government that has won not one term, not two terms, but three terms. It went back into power with 100,000 more votes than it won last time. After three elections we have 0.03 percent less of the vote than last time, and we won on more votes this time, than we won on in 1999. That is not bad for a third-term Government—not bad for a Labour Government, I would say, on looking back over history.

I say to people on the National side of the House that they should ask themselves why that was. I think the simple answer to that question is that New Zealanders believed they wanted to see a continuation of investment in the things that make a real difference to the future of this country. The students of this country understand themselves to be people who will get an education and then invest their skill back into what we do in this country. They know that if the costs of that education are too high, then the chances are that they may take those skills somewhere else. If we want to retain those people—if we want to ensure that they can start a family, buy a house, start a business, and do all the things we want them to do—we should not have them leave tertiary education with the kind of burden they would have under a National Government.

Members should remember National’s track record. Who allowed the fees to rise, on average, 12 percent every single year in the 1990s? National. Who said that people did not really need an allowance as students? National. Who put in the loan scheme? National. Who gives the signal that they will give people back a tax cut, but that they will pay more for their education because all the regulation of fees will be lifted? The National Party. Students could see that; anybody could see that. So students said that they wanted to look at a party that would invest in keeping the cost of education down, and that they would then stay in the country and invest their skill here, as they should. I want to applaud students for saying that that is what they wanted to do, and for not being led off by some massive bribe by the National Party that says: “ Let’s cash up the hard-won gains of the last 6 years—the hard-won gains that came under a Labour-led Government—and just blow them on immediate consumption.”, as would have happened if the National Party were the Government today. Students understand that investment is the key.

I want to turn to the Working for Families policy. It is one of the most important policies this country has seen in 30 years, because it is the first time in 30 years that we have set an intentional, purposeful redistribution of wealth in this country into the pockets of people in lower-income brackets all over the country. It means that they get accommodation supplements and childcare supplements, and that when they go to work from a benefit they will get a definite increase in their take-home pay. It means that money goes into the households of families, and kids all over the country are better off on that. Now, Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith would say we should not do that, but should give more money to higher-income people. But we have said that we have to start reinvesting in having children in this country. That is not just something an individual should be doing by himself or herself. This country has always stood for sharing the costs of having children, and for making it attractive to have a family.

We on the Government side of the House believe in families, and I see Gordon Copeland sitting there, representing a party that wants to make sure that families are something people want to have, because they can share the cost with people across the country—as they should be doing. That is what Working for Families does; it is a direct investment in the families and children of this country.

I say to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith that we were seeing child poverty driven to a point where one in five children were in poverty under the previous National Government in this country. We are now finally seeing ourselves on a track by which we can compare ourselves to the best in the world. That has to be an achievement that everybody in this House should be proud of. I know the National Party is not proud of that. It would rather have given more money to people who are well off, as an incentive for them to work harder—as if people who are less well off do not work hard! National does not seem to want to put money directly into the pockets of families who have children. It does not seem to want to be family-friendly. It does not seem to want there to be an in-work payment so that when a person goes from a benefit into work he or she actually gets genuine money. It does not seem to want to help with childcare costs.

But Working for Families does provide such assistance. It was another part of an investment policy, alongside the investment in keeping students in this country so their skills will stay here. Students know that their country has invested in them, and they will invest their lives in this country, just as generations of us in this House today have done—staying here to live and investing our lives here. Labour has invested in working families; we have invested in children. That is the difference between Labour and National, and we are on the Government side of the House because we belong to a group of people who said: “Please carry on investing in the future of this country. Do not cash up after only 6 years of really getting some gains, carry on making a difference, and do not have the short-sighted view that Dr Brash and John Key had.”

That is why we have the privilege to be on the Government side of the House, leading this country, and why the National members have the privilege of going for 9 long years—probably 12—sitting there opposing, opposing, and opposing.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): One does wonder what the question was that Helen Clark was asking herself when she came up with an answer that was to put Steve Maharey on the front bench and back into education. I think it must have been: “How can I destroy any possibility that he will become leader of the Labour Party?”. And she got the right answer. The most incompetent education Minister the country has seen in my lifetime was sacked from that portfolio, then put back 12 months later. I note that she said he was there because of his marketing skills. I hope, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of children in New Zealand, it means he will not actually be allowed to do anything, because he will be busy marketing. I hope that is the case.

I remind Mr Maharey, who in the fashion of left is totally rewriting history, that the in-work payment was invented by National. It was called the child tax credit, and he said that it was a right-wing conspiracy against fair pay for the workers. Now he calls it the in-work payment and says it is the best thing in 30 years. The childcare subsidy has been there for a very long time, it was not invented by the Labour Party, and this false and new interest in families from Steve Maharey and the Labour Party is just about more than I can sit here and listen to. These are what are called his marketing skills!

I want to give Mr Maharey one simple fact out of one of his own Government publications. He says that Working for Families is the biggest redistribution of income in 30 years. Well, he is wrong about that. The tax packages of 1996 and 1997 were a much, much larger redistribution, and he should be smart enough to know that, but he wants to rewrite history. I had a look at the social indicators report. After 6 years of Labour being in Government, income inequality in New Zealand is worse than it has ever been.

Lindsay Tisch: What?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It has been getting worse. After listening to Steve Maharey’s speech, one would think that it was really bad before, and that now he is doing all these things that will fix it—but he is not. Income inequality in New Zealand is worse now than it has ever been. I invite members to look at the social indicators report that the Government puts out, if they do not believe me. Labour members are intellectually unable—their brain cells will not let them—to understand or absorb that information, because it runs totally counter to everything they believe they are doing, but it is the truth.

The other truth about this bill is that we have not yet talked about the elephant in the lounge, behind this bill.

Lindsay Tisch: How does that work?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it is not in the bill. The elephant in this lounge is Government spending. Why are these tax rates being set where they are? It is because Dr Cullen is going to spend every last dollar of it and he has those plans well in train. He is not going to make the mistake he made at the last election, which was to have a surplus that could have rightfully, fairly, and economically been successfully returned to the people who paid it—that is, the taxpayers. No, no, he will not let that happen again.

John Key: Once bitten, twice shy.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Once bitten, twice shy—very, very shy. Government spending has been increasing at about 6 or 7 percent in nominal dollars every year. The economy has been growing at about 5 or 6 percent in nominal terms every year. What is about to happen is that we are going to see the wave of Government spending, breaking over a beached economy. Nominal growth in the economy will slow down. It could slow down to 4 percent, maybe 3 percent. Inflation is quite high, and that helps a bit with the numbers, but the growth in Government spending will not slow down. What is driving the 6 or 7 percent growth is, principally, a startling figure that Treasury has produced. The State sector pay bill, over the next three or four Budgets, will grow at $1 billion per year, year on year. That is why Dr Cullen needs to collect every dollar of tax.

I invite the Labour Party to think about what it will feel like out in the suburbs. The first thing is that those middle-income families will be facing marginal tax rates of 50 or 60 percent. They will now be facing a future with no tax cuts. They were looking for those tax cuts. Dr Cullen can argue that they make stupid decisions about housing, investment, and saving, and he will continue to do that—I hope that he does, because I do not think they are stupid people; I think he is the stupid one—but those people were looking for tax cuts, and they will not get them. It is only just starting to sink in, out in the suburbs, that there will be no tax cuts.

But, secondly, they will be facing higher interest rates. Their floating mortgage rates are now getting well up over 9 percent. With a couple more official cash rate moves they will be 10 percent. We will have double-digit interest rates, and who will people blame? Do members think they will take Dr Cullen’s theory, which is “Blame yourself. You’re the problem.”? No, they will get a grip on reality and they will blame Dr Cullen.

John Key: And rightfully so.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: And I will tell members why. Here is another silly question that Helen Clark asked herself: “Who can I get to go out there and jawbone interest rates down, because we know it will eat into our support? I know, let’s get the person who is doing the most to push them up.”, and that is Dr Cullen. His spending programme is becoming the biggest single influence on pushing interest rates up. That is the elephant in the lounge. That is the bit the Governor of the Reserve Bank kind of had to sit on in the run-up to the election—and, funnily enough, he is now coming out with three official cash rate increases in rapid succession. It is a typical example of the contradictory policy that the Government is presenting to New Zealanders, and this is where, as the economy slows down, the economic credibility is going to corrode.

In relation to the student loan issue, we have had “he said, she said” and now we have a number that is so small that we cannot really believe it. The important point about the student loan debacle is this: the Government is pushing our young people further and further into a culture of debt, and it is doing it by telling them the story that they will have less. Do members know what is happening with student support? The number of students on student allowances is dropping quite fast because of means testing and because they do not bother applying for small amounts. In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister said that there were more students on student support. Well, there are not, there are fewer, and the number has been dropping for at least 12 months. The most recent reports tell us that it is dropping further. The Government will save money, it will not be paying out as much student allowance as it said. What is happening is that students are getting less student allowance, so there is more need to borrow. They are now being encouraged to borrow, as well as the fact that they have more need to borrow.

I just cannot see where the Government is going to go next. The $150 a week borrowing for living costs is not sustainable. It will just have to lift that. The dropping numbers of student allowances are not sustainable, either. But what the Government has done is make one of the biggest single fiscal decisions of its last term in office. It has committed a billion dollars to interest-free student loans. No attention has been given to the quality of education that those students are getting. The Government has forgone every opportunity to do something significant about literacy and numeracy rates in our primary schools. The reality is that in education the commitment to interest-free student loans is giving the most money to the group who need it the least. Of course they want it! Who would not? But the Government has no sense of priority, and as the economy slows, as its tax take slows, and as its spending explodes, it will be forced to make some very, very hard decisions. Now I look forward to debating those decisions over the next couple of years in this House. The public could have had 85 percent of New Zealanders on a 19c marginal tax rate, under National’s plan.

Lindsay Tisch: A great policy, that!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is an absolutely outstanding policy, the one opportunity in 30 years that New Zealand had to secure it, and that is my biggest regret about losing the election, because we could have had that. Instead, we will have what Steve Maharey calls investment, and everyone else calls over-taxing, wasting, and exploding Government spending. The wave of Government spending will break over a beached economy in the next 2 or 3 years, and the Government will be back within this term looking to increase these tax rates.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): To start with I wish to take the opportunity to express my sense of loss at the passing of Rod Donald. Having made my affirmation the previous three Parliaments alongside Rod, I tangibly felt his absence last Monday. I also sat beside him for some time during the last Parliament, and seeing his seat empty last week certainly was poignant.

New Zealand First has some misgivings about this legislation. However, I can say at this point that we will be supporting it through its first reading. There are two reasons for that. The first is an important thing called democracy. We recently had an election. Different parties put up their policy positions, and the largest number of New Zealanders voted for the party that proposed the policy changes contained in this legislation.

New Zealand First listens to the voice of the people—as we did back in 1997. We put to the people a proposal regarding a retirement savings scheme. We responded to the voice of the people, even though it overwhelmingly rejected our very sensible proposal. In the same way, the voice of the people on 17 September told us it was largely in favour of the policies that this legislation advances.

The second reason we will support this legislation going to a select committee is much simpler: we agreed to do so in our confidence and supply agreement with the Government. I shall read the relevant passage—and also tell members about the bauble that came with it: “The government has identified the pledges on its commitment card along with their election policy to extend the working for families package as priorities for them and New Zealand First agrees to support the legislation if required to give effect to these policies.” New Zealand First is an honourable party and we will be honouring that pledge. Honouring that pledge in no way denies us the right to express our misgivings.

This legislation deals with the Working for Families package. From New Zealand First’s point of view, if there is redistribution of wealth, it makes sense to target such redistribution to families with children. Some years ago economist Brian Easton did some research into this and revealed that four-fifths, or 80 percent, of the total cost of rearing a child falls to the family. One-fifth, in fact, is funded by the State. However, the benefit of the educated, healthy, pro-social adult that the child becomes accrues to all members of society. Therefore, New Zealand First supports the targeting of redistribution to families with children.

However, our misgivings lie in the potential of this proposal to lock in welfarism. Let me put it this way. My father was a shirt-cutter by trade. I do not think that the trade actually exists any more, but it certainly was not a very highly paid job by any means. His tax code would have been M5—married with five kids. As a result of that he would not have paid very much tax at that time, but he never brought home more than he earned—and that is the problem this legislation has. The thinking of the day was that if one was funding the upbringing of children directly, as a parent must, then one paid less in taxation. It was not welfarism.

The problem we have now is that because we have become such a low-wage economy, many people cannot earn enough in a normal week to fund the costs of catering for the physical, health, educational, and social needs of their children. So we have the prospect of decent, hard-working families being forced on to welfare for the mere basics of survival of the adults and children within those families.

New Zealand First believes that the real challenge to our nation is to become a high-wage economy rather than the low-wage one that the forces of Rogernomics and “Ruthanomics” created. To that effect, we believe that New Zealand First’s gain in the confidence and supply agreement—to raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2008—is a bauble we are quite happy to accept. This policy will create a “trickle-up” effect, and we well know that the trickledown theory just did not work.

However, we will continue through the period of this Parliament to work towards the other part of the quinella of New Zealand First policy, which is to reduce the company tax rate. Business creates jobs, and nothing but social good flows from the employment created by business. Government policy that maximises profitability of businesses needs to be devised. So New Zealand First supports the idea that we invest in our children by creating more disposable income within families; it is just that we see fish-hooks in the manner in which this legislation will achieve that.

New Zealand First’s second area of misgiving is interest-free student loans. We believe that is a simplistic answer to a genuine problem of student debt. During New Zealand First’s short period in Government in 1997-98 it took steps to reduce student debt. For example, we stopped the lump-sum loans that existed at the time, and we introduced in 1998—people will remember that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was the Treasurer at the time—a partial interest write-off on student loans. What we would not do, however, was to wipe out the base rate, which accommodates inflation so that the student pays back the real amount of the loan.

This Government’s policy is, in fact, a giveaway, because students will be paying back less than what they are borrowing and not the real amount. The worst feature of the policy is that rather than reducing student debt, it will dramatically increase it. The Minister of Education has come up with some figures in the House today that are really quite unbelievable. When the Minister announced them to the House he told us that the calculations were based on a loan uptake of 70 percent of students. Well, guess what—the current take-up rate is 70 percent. We are being asked to believe that this policy will not make any difference to the take-up rate of students, and if I looked out of the window I would see pigs flying by if I were to believe that particular premise.

However, I also make the point that National needs to come clean with its policy, which was based on treating education as a commodity. New Zealand First believes that education cannot be equated with a set of carpenter’s tools or a herd of cows, but that is exactly what National’s policy was based upon.

New Zealand First has long had a policy of a universal student allowance. Its rationale is based on a fundamental belief in the manner in which our society should operate. We believe—and, in fact, all the parties in the House, with the possible exception of ACT, believe—that one of the fundamental principles of our society is this: if, for whatever reason, a person is unable to earn the rudiments of survival, which are food, shelter, and warmth, then there is a collective responsibility to provide those rudiments. That principle is fundamental to the way our nation operates. Yet students, as the only people in our society who are unable to provide for themselves because of their full-time study, have to borrow, purely and simply, to live. There is already an opportunity cost in full-time study, so why do we also burden our students with debt by making them take out loans purely and simply to live? This bill will not lead to reduced debt; it will lead to increased debt.

The real problem that our society faces is the level of student debt, and we believe that a universal student allowance would have cut into it in a manner that this bill will not. Nevertheless, we will support its passage through to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We believe that we have an obligation to do so, because in doing those sorts of things we have enabled ourselves to achieve some of the other baubles, such as the $12 per hour as a basic minimum wage. We are prepared to pay that price.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party will support this bill through all stages of its progress through the House, but not without reservations. We will certainly be seeking to put up amendments at the appropriate stage in the process. Although we welcome unreservedly the bill’s improvements to the student loan scheme, which I will turn to in more detail shortly, it is in the area of Working for Families that we take particular exception to the underpinning assumptions that the Government is making in carrying out these reforms. This bill increases the annual income level at which the abatement of family assistance starts, from $27,500 to $35,000, at the same time as it reduces the rate of abatement from 30 to 20 percent. Dr Cullen estimates that this would help up to 160,000 families, at an average additional $50 a week—great stuff! The Green Party has no objections per se to this extension to the Working for Families package. We appreciate and support any increase in assistance to families struggling to raise children in our current low-wage, high-cost economy.

However, what we do object to—as we have done since Working for Families was first introduced—is that a bonus has once again been given to what the Government calls “working families”, while the children of beneficiaries continue to miss out. Right from the start, even through its very name, Working for Families has been the latest subtle tool in an ideology promoted by National and Labour from the mid-1990s through to the present day. It is an ideology that promotes structural discrimination against children if they happen to be unfortunate enough to come from a family dependent on the benefit system for survival. According to the last publicly available Government figures, over 20 percent of our country’s children still live in poverty, and that is according to the Ministry of Social Development itself. A high proportion of those children come from sole parent and/or beneficiary families. On principles of social justice and human equity, it is simply wrong and cruel to continue to increase the amount of Government assistance that is going to the better-off, while denying that the child tax credit / in-work payment should be given to those children who need it most, just because one of their parents is not in the paid workforce for 30 hours a week, or more.

As the Child Poverty Action Group stated last week, “it is misleading for the Governor General to claim that the change ‘will mean tax relief for every low and middle income family with children in New Zealand.’ ”, when, in fact, this addition to Working for Families offers nothing to the 250,000 poorest children in Aotearoa. The Child Poverty Action Group’s finance spokesperson, Dr Susan St John, also went on to say: “The latest changes only shunt the poorest kids further to the back of an already long queue, when they urgently need to be first in line,”.

On top of the intrinsic unfairness epitomised by this bill—in its current form at least—is the fact that Labour in the new Parliament appears bent on continuing with its intention to scrap the special benefit, which was brought in through the legislation that also produced the initial Working for Families package. The special benefit is to be replaced by temporary additional support, or “TAS”, as it is colloquially known, which the Government claimed would save it some $26 million in the 2006-07 financial year, and a further $38 million in 2007-08. This new system, as far as we are able to ascertain, will mean an end to the last layer of discretionary support that allows people who do not have enough to live on to survive. The fact that a Labour Government makes no bones about saving an initial $64 million through cutting this special benefit is a disgrace. The special benefit under both the National and Labour Governments has been the only means by which Work and Income can exercise discretion in making sure that at least some of those who do not get enough to live on by other means can access the bare essentials of survival. Without a discretionary benefit like this, poverty and indebtedness will only increase for those who are already suffering the consequences of unemployment, sickness, long-term disability, or sole parenthood. Those impacted are, disproportionately, tangata whenua, Pasifika peoples, and refugees and migrants.

Strangely enough, the Hon Mark Burton, in a speech to the House in 1995 criticising the National Government’s then social welfare reforms, said that the removal of discretion from special benefits was “just a de facto extension of benefit cuts”. The new Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon David Benson-Pope, should take this opportunity, in taking on his new portfolio, to reflect on his colleague’s earlier comments and to reverse this further attack on those in our society who already have the least. Mr Benson-Pope should either allow the special benefit to continue until such time as benefits are enough for people to live on with dignity, or ensure that the new temporary additional support regime continues to allow discretion and to meet people’s actual, rather than imagined, needs. The Government should not take Green Party support for this particular bill before the House today to mean that we accept Labour’s further consolidation of systemic bias against the children of the non-working poor, nor that we will stay silent if it continues with its plans to end genuine discretion at the tough end of the benefit system.

To those who may be asking why on earth the Green Party is supporting this bill at all, given the criticisms I have just been making, I must reply that not only are we giving it our backing because it does increase aid to some families, but also because of what it does to student loan recipients. The current $8 billion or so of student debt is not affordable for our graduates or for our country. We have to stop seeing education as a cost, and understand that it is an investment in the future of Aotearoa New Zealand. In amending the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992 to allow a full interest write-off for resident borrowers, and in granting an amnesty on penalties for people who return home between April 2006 and March 2007, the Government is taking a major step towards reducing the horrendous consequences of this dreadful scheme. The Green Party has been campaigning for an end to the student loan scheme for many years. It has been a key plank for us in the last few election campaigns, and we remain committed to getting rid of the whole thing, alongside reducing and capping fees, instituting a universal student allowance that is a truly universal allowance—not a partial one—and allowing a year for year debt write-off for people who stay in the country and still have loans outstanding.

Meanwhile, we enthusiastically welcome any moves in the right direction. Students should not be forced to borrow to live, any more than beneficiaries should be forced to borrow to live. We also believe that high-quality tertiary education is a public good, not a private property right. Those complaining about the potential costs of interest-free student loans are wrongly assuming that our young people will act like property speculators. National seems to be saying that if students are offered interest-free loans, they will all borrow the maximum amount in order to make a profit from the State. This assertion is completely out of step with reality. The vast majority of students borrow money because they have no choice if they want to pay their course fees and study, and if they want to meet their basic living costs while studying. In 1999 when Labour and the Green Party made student loans interest-free for the period of study, National predicted that all students would rush out and get loans, yet the pick-up rate barely moved. A recent study by the Educational Policy Institute found that New Zealand’s student loan interest rate of 7 percent is higher than any other comparable OECD country. Our graduates are paying one of the highest student loan interest rates in the world.

For all these reasons the Green Party is therefore delighted that scrapping student loan interest, as laid out here today, will wipe years off the repayment schedule of many loans, and will save an average of $4,000 in interest payments per graduate. I imagine there will be some complaints of unfairness from graduates now living and working overseas, as two of my own graduate offspring currently do. However, I think it is fine to have a scheme that offers such a great incentive to our young people to come home and bring their New Zealand education and overseas experience back with them to enrich our society and our economy. Our support for this part of the bill rests on our commitment to a tertiary education system that is accessible to all, and that, through that accessibility, can manifestly benefit the country as a whole, not just students and graduates as individuals. I hope that before too long the Green Party will be part of a Government that is foresighted and courageous enough to get rid of the whole foolish student loan scheme, altogether.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise on behalf of the Māori Party to speak to the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill. We support this bill in light of the commitment to a full interest write-off for student loan scheme borrowers. We also support the expansion of the Working for Families package in the bill, despite many concerns.

We do, however, have very serious reservations regarding the need to respond to the most vulnerable—the poorest families and, in particular, the tamariki who are severely affected by the trauma of poverty. Our party supports the introduction of a full interest write-off for student loan scheme borrowers. We have consistently argued the need to respond to the huge number of past, current, and future tertiary students with loan debt. We believe that the $8 billion student debt is a huge barrier to learning for the next generation. If we are serious about supporting our rangatahi towards making a successful transition to parenthood, homeownership, financial security, and community-mindedness, we need to demonstrate the willingness of the State to invest in education as a public good.

In particular, our concerns are with the fact that Māori student debt is escalating at a greater rate than non-Māori student debt. This is due to a number of factors: a greater proportion of Māori are undertaking tertiary education—more than any other group; and a greater proportion of Māori students take out a loan, reflecting socio-economics. Māori also earn significantly less than non-Māori after graduation—because of this, repayment times for Māori are significantly longer, and with accumulated interest they pay significantly more than non-Māori for their education.

Although the interest-free loan scheme legislation will alter things and is a significant step in reducing the student debt crisis, the fact still remains that more Māori will hold a debt and they will take longer to pay it back because they will earn less. Debt limits the ability to get credit for some of those things that we consider necessary to enable us to participate as citizens within Aotearoa—things such as a warm, secure home. We support this bill being passed through as quickly as possible in order to ensure that students receive the vital support they require as soon as possible. It is my firm belief that education should be free and should be seen as an investment not only in our future but in the future of this country.

I turn now to the expansion of the Working for Families package. The Māori Party is very pleased that the bill introduces additional targeted tax relief to 160,000 working families. Although the size of the tax reduction will differ for different families, it will average around $50 a week, and there is no doubt that that will make a difference.

Our concern, however, is for the many families, and the children therein, who will not receive the benefits of that package. The Māori Party recognises some very serious reservations in the effectiveness of this bill to offer relief to those who most need it—benefit-dependent families. The Working for Families package has targeted relief for those engaged in either part-time or full-time paid work. What this means, in effect, is that the expansion offers nothing to the 250,000 poorest children in Aotearoa. That is despite the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that addressing child poverty should be a high priority for this Parliament. I am sure that the issue of child poverty will be of particular interest to the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples in his visit to New Zealand this week.

We know that more than one in five children live in low-income families, which is nearly twice the level of the late 1980s. If we were to see real child poverty addressed, the Māori Party would expect to see a number of specific strategies in place. The strategies that we present include establishing a poverty line in Aotearoa and monitoring it with living standards assessments each year, setting agreement on specific target dates to reduce child poverty, and reviewing the child tax credit to ensure that children of parents whose income includes benefit assistance are also supported within the Working for Families package.

The poor are not responsible for being in poverty. They did not create the conditions in which they find themselves today. We need to consider that today’s political solution is an attempt to correct yesterday’s political solution, which was, in fact, a failure but was at the time claimed to be the mother of all solutions. It is an indictment on both Labour and National Governments that, besides inflationary adjustments, core benefit levels have not changed since 1991.

Our preference would have been for lower taxes for those families. We cannot understand why taxes are taken from a low-wage worker and then given back to them under another name. That creates the perception that this is a benevolent Government. This Government wants to present itself as caring for the working person, yet it does not want to care for our poverty-trapped children of beneficiaries. All this package does is continue to entrap workers in welfare, rather than give workers a sense of pride in saying: “We earned this money.” The Government’s redistributing of the tax denies the initiative, entrepreneurship, and creativity that should be rewarded by a higher working pay. Those who have only just escaped are actually being re-entangled back into the welfare net, just as our old people use the hīnaki to entrap a slippery, slimy eel. Should not the focus be on helping people out of the net, as opposed to what is currently being done, which is trapping them back into that net?

This whole package is designed to force beneficiaries to become the working poor—to join their many kith and kin, whom my former colleague Parekura Horomia, in referring to our people, frequently says are the working poor. He knows that well, because the wall of wood that was supposed to descend from the East Coast is actually a barrier to forestry workers earning a decent living wage while employed in a highly dangerous occupation. Their level of remuneration does not reflect the danger of the work they do, and the Minister of Māori Affairs knows that.

This is a war that is being waged on the poor. What hope is this Government offering to those who are more than willing to give a decent day’s work for a decent day’s pay? How will this Government explain to the many workers in this country that if they work hard they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour, when we all know that many people have worked hard? As my colleague and co-leader, Pita Sharples, stated in his maiden speech, many of the hard-working people in his electorate can never afford a home in Kohimārama. How do we explain that away?

Finally, the Māori Party will support the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill going through to the select committee, where we hope that many of these issues raised today will be discussed in more depth.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): Pursuant to the confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party, United Future will be voting in favour of this bill. Notwithstanding that reality, when it comes to the issue of the removal of student loan interest post-graduation for those who remain in New Zealand, our own policy position differs greatly from that of the Labour Party. We believe that a policy that would write off 10 percent of the principal of a student’s loan for each year he or she remains in New Zealand post-graduation would better incentivise debt repayment and avoid the obvious moral hazard of Labour’s policy. However, we live in a democracy and, as the saying goes, the people have spoken. By a narrow margin we have a Labour-led Government through the last election.

Our approach to the provision of an adequate income for families with children also differs from the extension of the Working for Families package as it is proposed in this bill. Having said that, however, I say an adequate income for such families is also a high policy priority for United Future. I think that any civilised country, particularly one such as New Zealand with a history of social justice, needs to give—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the dinner break.

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

GORDON COPELAND: When we adjourned for the dinner break I was commenting on the Working for Families package, and saying that an adequate income for families with children is also a high priority policy for United Future. I think that any civilised country, particularly one with a history of social justice, such as New Zealand, needs to give policy priority to income adequacy for families raising children. United Future certainly wants to ensure not only that child poverty is reduced significantly but also that all Kiwi parents have the financial means to give their children the best possible start in life. Therefore, we reject the notion that the Working for Families package is some kind of handout. That is not its motivation. Rather, in our view, it is an investment in the future of our nation, and an advancement of the common good of our society—a tangible and practical recognition that intergenerational families are the irreplaceable foundation on which the social and economic future of New Zealand will be built. A moment’s consideration will, I have no doubt, reveal the self-evident truth of that proposition.

United Future is delighted, however, that our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-led Government foreshadows a Government discussion document covering income splitting for couples with dependent children. Income splitting for taxation purposes has been and remains a key part of our policy, and one that is designed not as a replacement for, but as a supplement to, the Working for Families package. Income splitting will reduce the tax burden for an estimated 325,000 couples, and in many instances, especially for single-income families, by substantial amounts. Income splitting is a tangible recognition of the fundamental contribution that couples with children make to our society and our economy, and it would increase the after-tax income of those families right up through the income tax brackets to a combined income of up to $120,000 per annum for a household led by a couple with dependent children.

John Key mentioned in his speech the high effective marginal tax rates that flow from the Working for Families package. But John Key knows—because I have shared the figures with him—that that problem is also addressed through an income-splitting system. Because it actually reduces the tax burden in the first instance for many families in the way I have explained, it deals with the problem that he has identified. So from that point of view too, it is an integral and important addition to the current taxation system in New Zealand.

Why is income splitting a priority for United Future? Simply stated, it is because it is fair and just. A considerable self-sacrifice is demanded of those who choose to continue the intergenerational structure of human society by becoming parents. The arrival of one or more new babies is but the first step in the 18-year or so task of raising, educating, and training the next generation of our society. All the studies show—and there are significant international longitudinal studies that have evidenced this fact—that on average the best outcome for children, in terms of health, education, income level, and the avoidance of involvement in the criminal justice system, arises when two parents combine their complementary gifts and talents to perform the task of raising children. That is especially so when those parents are aided by contributions from grandparents and other whānau members, and are surrounded by supportive local communities. It surely must be objectively recognised that such couples are in a different position, including financially, than either single people or those in adult relationships—which include many grandparents, such as my wife and me, who are now without dependent children. Income splitting is a fair and just way of recognising those different financial circumstances.

At the same time, income splitting both recognises and assists the promotion of that mum, dad, and the kids ideal, based on the best interests of the children themselves. As I mentioned earlier, all the international studies indicate that the best results for children flow from families that are headed by a mum and a dad who are committed jointly to the raising of their children. We know that virtually all of the negative statistics in our society—be they for health, education, low income, poverty, or involvement in the criminal justice system and crime—flow predominantly from families where that is not the case, and where there is very often one parent who is struggling. I salute those parents, as I did in my maiden speech, because they are doing a very difficult job, but they themselves tell me United Future should keep pushing its policies, because their position is not ideal. They say that poverty is not great, that is it not a great way to live, and that they only wish their circumstances had turned out differently.

We need to continue as a Parliament and as a society to emphasise the reality that families headed by a mum and a dad are the best way to bring up children. That is the best way, and it has stood the test of time. It is an irreplaceable part of any strategy whose objective is to build a strong and prosperous future for our lovely nation of New Zealand.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill. I was very heartened to hear from Brian Donnelly, because one of the things that has happened with New Zealand First is that part of its—what is it called, I ask Mr Brown—

Gordon Copeland: Enhanced supply and confidence agreement.

RODNEY HIDE: —enhanced supply and confidence agreement—

Peter Brown: You mean you don’t know what’s going on?

RODNEY HIDE: Well, it is hard to keep up with what is going on with New Zealand First; it changes on a daily basis. But I know that Mr Brown is really on this side of the House, so we are brothers.

I was very pleased to hear Mr Donnelly say that New Zealand First members will support this bill going to a select committee because it is part of their enhanced confidence and supply agreement, but they have had problems with it and they will give it a good look over in the committee, and I suspect we may see some changes in this legislation following select committee examination.

Hon David Carter: No, no—the bauble won’t allow it.

RODNEY HIDE: No, they will—Brian Donnelly and Doug Woolerton will—because this bill is wrong. Let me just point out why. We had a big election campaign, and several political parties went out and campaigned for lower taxes. I just want to go through the list of those that did. First of all, there was the National Party, which succeeded with 48 MPs—it had big support. National wanted large-scale tax cuts. Next was New Zealand First, which succeeded with six MPs plus Winston Peters, and it wanted large-scale tax cuts. In fact, New Zealand First wanted to drop the company tax rate to 20c in the dollar. We had United Future, which went out and campaigned for large-scale tax cuts. In fact, its estimate of the cost was about $2.5 billion—I think I am correct. United Future particularly wanted the company tax rate to go down to 30c in the dollar. The Māori Party, to my left, campaigned for large-scale tax cuts, particularly for low-income workers, but it also wanted the company tax rate dropped to 30c in the dollar. The Greens actually campaigned for lower income taxes, but they wanted the money collected in the form of pollution levies and resource taxes.

Darren Hughes: This is yesterday’s speech.

RODNEY HIDE: Members should listen to Darren Hughes, and look at him. I thought that after one term in Parliament, he would have grown up. [Interruption] Dover Samuels is calling out; that is the man who lost his seat. Dover Samuels is the man who lost his seat, and he wants to sit there and call out. The only one who is being quiet is David Benson-Pope, because he knows that there is a police report sitting in Crown Law with his name on it, and he is not prepared to say anything.

Darren Hughes: Get out of the gutter.

RODNEY HIDE: I would suggest to Darren Hughes and Dover Samuels, that unless they want me to reveal the contents of that police report, they should be quiet and let me deliver my speech in peace. We have 65 MPs out of 121 in this House who campaigned for lower taxes, and what does the Clark Government do? It sticks tax rates at the same level. That is wrong. So this bill is opposed by the ACT party, and I hope it will eventually be opposed by United Future and New Zealand First, true to their word to the people of New Zealand.

What else happened today? Well, at 4.30 in the afternoon—and we always have to read the stuff that this Government releases at 4.30 in the afternoon—

Hon David Carter: What did it say?

RODNEY HIDE: It was a report from Treasury. We discovered that there is one department left that is not cowed by the Clark-Cullen Government and will actually stand up and speak the truth. What is the truth? The truth is that this economy cannot prosper, cannot succeed, cannot sustain the current tax rates, and it called for lower taxes, particularly the company tax, and the high rates of tax on high-income earners, but also, and most important, the high effective marginal tax rates on low to middle income working New Zealanders. That is what Treasury called for. Have not Labour members gone quiet now! They know they are wrong on taxes. The public has said they are wrong, because they elected the majority of MPs to this House on a promise of lower taxes.

We learnt something else this afternoon. This Government is sitting on a surplus of $8 billion.

Mark Blumsky: A mountain.

RODNEY HIDE: A mountain of money—and that is after it has wasted truckloads of hard-working taxpayers’ money on twilight courses, on the wānanga—

Darren Hughes: On Pipitea Street.

RODNEY HIDE: —and, I say to Mr Hughes, on police reports on David Benson-Pope, showing that he is guilty and that he misled the House. That is what they wasted the money on, because the public is not allowed to see that report. Nineteen students said that it happened, and David Benson-Pope stood up in this House and said that it did not, and he is not prepared to let the public of New Zealand see the police report about what the ex-students said. Nineteen students who were in the class that day said that that member lied to the House in the last term when he gave his answer in this place—19 students.

So I would like Darren Hughes to reflect on that. We drag the police in to do a report like that, and they do the report, but no one is able to see it. That is because they have a problem—because Mr Benson-Pope told the police he did not do it, but the investigating police officer told me that it happened and that the evidence is overwhelming.

So the people of New Zealand miss out on their tax cuts. The Labour Party unilaterally declares that working New Zealanders—that includes low to middle income working New Zealanders, who face the highest effective tax rates in New Zealand, and it includes the entrepreneurs, who create the wealth and the jobs for all of New Zealand—are going to miss out on tax cuts.

Hon Tau Henare: Shane Jones will like this.

RODNEY HIDE: Shane Jones is all right, because he got a tax rate last term of 19.5 percent, for Māori authorities. Māori authorities got 19.5 percent. They did OK, but everyone else has to pay 33 percent for their business.

Gordon Copeland: I thought you were arguing that everyone should have 19.5 percent.

RODNEY HIDE: Absolutely! I do not mind Shane Jones’ Māori authorities getting 19.5 percent. All I want, and I stand with the Māori Party, is that we should have one law for all New Zealanders. Let us have 19.5 percent for every New Zealander. The tragic thing is that the Government can afford it.

There is something else we are voting on—and I would like to hear from United Future and New Zealand First about how to justify this. I know that Labour Party members say they justify it, because they just did it as an election bribe, but how does one justify taking off the taxpayers of New Zealand $2 billion in a hit and handing it across to graduates? How can one in good conscience stand up in this House and say: “I will vote for this.”, which takes $2 billion off New Zealanders who are earning $30,000, or $35,000, or $20,000 a year—the very people Darien Fenton purports to represent; those who do the cleaning, the cooking, on $12 an hour or less—and give it to the accountants—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: The dentists.

RODNEY HIDE: —to the dentists, to the doctors, and to the lawyers? And Gordon Copeland is going to stand up and vote for that theft from hard-working New Zealanders. So too is New Zealand First. So too, I think, is the Green Party. How can they possibly take $2 billion off the working poor of New Zealand and give it to the graduates, who are earning $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, or $100,000 over a year? How can they in good conscience do that? I say that this bill is a shocking thing.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): It is great to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and it is great to be part of a Government that is delivering on its promises. We gave these undertakings to the electorate just a few weeks ago, and already we have in the House legislation to deliver on those undertakings and commitments to our community.

This bill represents the biggest investment in families made by any Government in decades, and it will have a dramatic effect on child poverty in this country. The widening of the scheme was promised as part of our election campaign and means that almost all families earning up to $70,000 will qualify for extra support. We are committed to the belief that the top priority for tax relief right now is for our hard-working families. They face the extra costs associated with raising children, and the well-being of the next generation should be of vital concern to all in this country.

As the people of New Zealand have known for the past 6 years, they can trust Labour to deliver on its campaign commitments—and deliver fast. Members can compare that with National, which rolled over on every single campaign pledge it made, as it tried desperately and fruitlessly to form a Government. Dr Brash turned out to be just another used car salesman in a cheap suit. Ōrewa was gone, the Māori seats were fine, and the hypocrisy that that party and its policy displayed, continued. As the Prime Minister noted yesterday, what distinguishes centre-left Governments from those of the right is a determination to see the benefits of our growing economy reach households and families across the land.

The extension of the Working for Families scheme will see an extra 60,000 families eligible for relief, increasing the number of families helped by the Working for Families package to 350,000. We are putting more money in the pockets of New Zealand’s low and middle income families with children, and making work pay for parents who move off benefits and into work. Significantly, the extension of Working for Families sees substantial income gains for middle-income families and greater income support for working families. Combined with the existing package it will reach a total of 348,000 families from 1 April.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How many?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: It will reach 348,000 families from 1 April 2006. This represents over three-quarters of all families in this country receiving an average of $64 extra a week. The impact of changes like this will be substantial and widespread. I give, as an example, a married couple in Waitakere City, with three children, who currently earn $52,000 and have a mortgage. To date they have been $100 a week better off thanks to the Working for Families package. From 1 April 2006 they will be better off by an additional $76 per week—in addition to the $40 they were expecting to receive on 1 April 2006. They will get a further $30 more family support from 1 April 2007. In total, by 2007 Working for Families will leave them better off by $246 per week. That is $12,792 a year for that typical New Zealand family. Those gains are available to thousands of New Zealand families. We expect to see child poverty reduce by around 70 percent.

National’s tax cuts policy would have cost a whopping $9.95 billion over 4 years. That would have delivered savage cuts to health, education, and the other public services New Zealanders value so much. It would have required more borrowing. And what would it have delivered? It would have delivered a stingy $10 a week to two-thirds of taxpayers. But let us not forget that it would have delivered $92 a week to someone like Dr Brash, or to millionaire Mr Clarkson, or to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, or to the rest of us in here—or to other sewer-dwellers like Mr Hide. It is no wonder the voters rejected the National Party. What is the old sports adage? [Interruption] It is, I say to Mr Henare, that second place is the first of the losers.

This Government is making sure that every New Zealander has a fair go, opportunity, and security. As this country grows and develops, every one of us will be able to share that progress.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the Labour Party does not take Māori seriously, but it is a convention in this House that members try to pronounce people’s names appropriately. I think that Mr Benson-Pope should be pulled up for the way he pronounced Tau Henare’s name.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that is not a point of order.

Rodney Hide: It is a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that is not a point of order.

Rodney Hide: It is a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will give the member one warning. He will please be seated. That is not a point of order, and the member knows it.

Rodney Hide: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will give the member just one warning. If he relitigates my decision, I will have no choice but to ask him to leave.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you please explain why members in the previous Parliament were constantly pulled up for mispronouncing surnames in this House, yet when Mr David Benson-Pope does it in respect of my colleague Tau Henare it is suddenly OK, and even raising the matter is not a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have already told the member that that is not a point of order. [Interruption] The member is interrupting me while I am ruling on the point of order. If there is a deliberate failure to address a member properly, then, yes, that would be something. But that is not the case in this instance. It is not up to the Speaker to correct the mispronunciation of a member’s name. The member will now leave the Chamber.

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): It is not often that even this Labour Government introduces into Parliament legislation that I totally oppose every part of. Usually, in taxation legislation, there is something we can support, but I totally oppose every part of this bill. I shall tell the junior Government whip, who is trying to interject, why that is. This Labour Government—

Darren Hughes: Got re-elected.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: It was re-elected because it gave Winston Peters the baubles of office, and that gave Labour the numbers. What a shonky, shonky Government! I want to come back to why I totally oppose this legislation and talk, first, about the part of it that deals with expanding the Working for Families package.

I believe that the Working for Families package is one of the most serious and most destructive pieces of legislation that has been introduced into Parliament for a long, long time. The reason is that this Labour Government now sees fit to control the net income of, we are told, 350,000 New Zealand families. This Government will dictate the income of three-quarters of all New Zealand families with dependent children. No matter how hard they work and try to get ahead in life, this Government knows best.

Steve Chadwick: It is nothing about dictating.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: The trouble with people like Steve Chadwick and Ruth Dyson is that they do not employ anyone. I do. I pay PAYE for middle-income families. An employer doing that discovers that he or she has to deduct PAYE. The employee then has to go along cap in hand to the Government to get it all back.

Low-income families can get back more than middle-income families, but the tragedy is that the effective marginal tax rates they face are not the published tax rates. The briefing papers for the incoming Government has graphs and tables that show people like Steve Chadwick what the figures really are. There are poor families in this country who face 100 percent effective marginal tax rates. Is that good? The effect is such that for families on the minimum wage there is no point in their trying to work more hours, because they do not get to take home any more pay. If Steve Chadwick were to look at the tables that the Government’s own Inland Revenue Department publishes, and at the effective marginal tax rates of different family configurations right through the income range, she would find that on incomes of from $30,000 to $65,000 a year there is no point in people who happen to have three children working harder, because they do not get to take home any more pay. This Government takes most of it in tax. That is outrageous, because it traps families in hopelessness. There is no way those families can get out of it.

Over the next few months, the National Opposition will show just how destructive the Working for Families package is. Admittedly, this legislation changes the effective marginal tax rates a bit, but they extend up to a higher level of income. At the moment we think that highly taxed New Zealanders pay a marginal tax rate of 39 percent. When people talk about New Zealand’s tax system, they say that 39 percent is the top tax rate. Nonsense! For the 350,000 families who are caught up in this legislation, 39 percent is one of the lowest marginal tax rates they face. They face marginal tax rates of way above 60 percent. This Government thinks that poorer families do not deserve to be able to get ahead in life. This Government thinks that when they try to work harder to earn more money, Dr Cullen has the right to take most of it off them. If this country is to have any future, that has to change.

The briefing papers for the incoming Government show how the peaks have grown. Those peaks represent income points where the marginal tax rates change. Around that very high effective marginal tax rate for families with about $20,000 of income a year, there is a huge growth.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It’s called superannuitants, God help us! That is single superannuitants.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Dr Cullen is not even aware, for example, of the research work being carried out at Victoria University on those kinds of income peaks. If the Minister were to look at those graphs, he would see massive growth in the number of people earning salaries at certain key points on the income scale. What did he say tonight on television? He said that every 3 years we get the Treasury burp. Treasury is trying to advise the Minister that there are real problems in our taxation system, but Dr Cullen knows best. Just like Helen Clark, Dr Cullen knows best. He knows better than all the experts in Treasury. He knows better than all the experts in the OECD. Dr Cullen knows more about tax than anyone else in the world, because he is so, so clever.

But, I say to Dr Cullen, the problem is that families suffer hugely under this kind of legislation, because it destroys hope. This country will start to see that it is a disaster when the State controls how much take-home pay families can get. If members do not believe what I am saying, they should read the briefing papers to the incoming Government. The serious problem of high effective marginal tax rates for families is all spelt out there. That is the first problem with regard to this bill.

The second problem is that of tax rates. This bill reconfirms the existing basic tax rates, including the corporate tax rate. Again, if we read the briefing papers to the incoming Government, we see that there are huge problems around the corporate tax rate. The briefing papers tell Dr Cullen and Peter Dunne that, in fact, we are starting to lose tax revenue. As other countries reduce their corporate tax rate, New Zealand—because Dr Cullen knows best; Dr Cullen knows far better than Treasury—will not reduce the corporate tax rate, and the revenue base bleeds.

The third reason I totally oppose this bill is the interest-free student loan policy. It is probably one of the most blatant political bribes I have seen in 21 years in this Parliament. I have seen bribes over the years, when politicians thought they could buy the odd vote. I designed the student loan scheme in the early 1990s, so I know a wee bit about it. This measure will vastly expand the amount of money being borrowed. What is more, Dr Cullen is giving dentists, doctors, lawyers, and accountants a huge $2 billion handout over the years, while families—taxpayers—on the minimum wage, who may not be able to get a son or daughter into dentistry, medicine, or law, pay for it. They pay for Dr Cullen’s and his Labour colleagues’ political bribe of giving New Zealand’s graduates $2 billion. It is like giving the graduates Solid Energy and Landcorp Farming combined. It just gives away a massive $2 billion asset to people who are some of our highest income earners.

Those are the reasons why National and I totally oppose this bill. Every part of this bill is bad policy, and we will fight it tooth and nail. The officials all agree with us. All Dr Cullen can say is that Treasury has released its 3-yearly burp. That shows his arrogance; it shows why this Labour Government is in its death throes.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I certainly join with my National Party colleagues in opposing the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill. Is it any wonder that in the first few days of this Parliament, the very first piece of legislation the Labour Government introduces is a taxation bill in order to grab more money off hard-working New Zealanders? Here we are debating a taxation bill within the first few days of Parliament, because Dr Cullen wants not only to accept an $8 billion surplus but to see whether he can do better than that.

First of all, I will address the issue of the incorporation into this legislation of interest-free loans to students. I agree with what Lockwood Smith said. That policy was the most blatant election bribe I have ever seen in the time I have studied politics. I remember the pledge card of 1999—with Helen Clark’s dollied-up photograph—which stated that the Government would address the issue of student loans. At that stage, student debt was $4 billion. In order to address the quantum of student debt in this country, Dr Cullen and his cohorts came up with a mechanism to make loans to students interest-free while they study. Well, surprise, surprise, student debt did not come down; it finished the last parliamentary term at over $6 billion. Helen Clark pledged to address student debt, yet it has gone up by over 50 percent. Because the election was suddenly looking pretty tight and Labour needed to do something very, very desperate, it advanced a policy to make all student loans interest-free. We are told by Treasury that the quantum of student debt in the next few years will peak at $18 billion. That is because of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, who promised to address student debt.

I also want to talk about the costings. Dr Cullen came into the House today and said that Treasury has re-costed the policy at $202 million. Yet I listened with interest to John Key, who said that income from interest on student debt is currently around $360 million. In other words, I have no faith at all in the figure of $202 million that Dr Cullen introduced into the House tonight. I suggest that if that is not a Treasury burp, it is probably a Michael Cullen burp. The reason the costing will exceed that figure considerably is that Dr Cullen seems to fail to realise that students will now borrow to the max. Why would they not? If they have the intelligence to involve themselves in tertiary education, they surely have the intelligence to take up a student loan to the absolute maximum quantum available to them. If they do not need it, they can stick it in the bank and earn bank interest rates. That is another reason why, under this policy, student debt will extend extensively, to at least $18 billion.

The other thing in this legislation that I will talk about is Dr Cullen’s attempt tonight to confirm the annual taxation rates for the 2005-06 year. He has an $8 billion Budget surplus and is continuing to tax what he calls wealthy New Zealanders—those earning over $60,000 per year—at a rate of 39c in the dollar. We know that Labour introduced that “envy tax” after the 1999 election, and we know it will stick with it. But let us look at the parties that we think will support this legislation being referred to the select committee and, following that, through its readings in this Chamber.

During the election campaign, New Zealand First campaigned around the country for lower taxes. Somebody suggested today that New Zealand First campaigned for a company tax rate of 20c in the dollar. For a small bauble of power, New Zealand First has sold its principles completely, and will now vote for the continuation of a company tax rate of 33c in the dollar. New Zealand First is not the only party that will do that. United Future candidates argued all around the country that the country is overtaxed and that they would make sure they delivered lower taxes to New Zealanders. Do the United Future members look as though they will vote for this legislation to go to the select committee? Yes, again, they do.

That is what happens when an election campaign becomes as tight as the last one was. Dr Cullen got into a situation that gave him a hell of a fright. If we go back to the start of this calendar year, we see that the members of the press gallery, one and all, were saying that the election could not be lost by the Labour Party, because the economy was so strong. But Dr Cullen personally underestimated the strength of ill feeling among New Zealanders who know that they are completely overtaxed. Suddenly, as the polls became tighter and tighter, the student loan policy came out. Then, at the end of the day, Labour could not form a Government without giving the bauble of power—only one bauble—to Winston Peters. Doug Woolerton missed out. Ron Mark would have been a superb Minister of Police. He deserved to have the title “Honourable” added to his name, but he did not get anything. Winston Peters took the lot, and sold the New Zealand First members down the drain.

There is one small piece of this legislation that I want to agree with and acknowledge tonight. The matter is on Supplementary Order Paper 1, which Dr Cullen has put before the House very late in the piece. It will change the taxation laws in New Zealand in order to allow New Zealand wine producers to also collect the rebate that was announced by the Australian Government in a previous Budget. The Australian Government, for reasons known only to itself, determined that a tax rebate would be made available to wine producers in Australia for produce sold in Australia. That was a complete breach of CER, and the Government was not prepared to do anything about it until the Wine Institute, supported by the National Party, raised it as a serious issue. Very belatedly, the Minister for Trade Negotiations, the Hon Jim Sutton—[Interruption] He was the Minister at that stage, and he still is the Minister for another month or two as he speeds around the country. Dr Cullen then managed to raise the issue sensibly with the Australian Government, and what we see is the Supplementary Order Paper tonight. When enacted into law, it will change the taxation law sufficiently so that the Inland Revenue Department can monitor that situation and make that rebate available to New Zealand wine producers who produce wine here in New Zealand and market it for consumption in Australia.

Those are the only couple of pages in the whole of this legislation that are worth anything at all. The rest, the fact that taxation rates delivering an $8 billion surplus continue to be raised in this country, is an outrage. Well-qualified, talented New Zealanders continue to leave this country in droves, because suddenly it is a lot easier to make progress in Australia. Dr Cullen is going to continue that process, unless he is prepared to investigate and reduce taxes. He can appear on television on Close Up and waffle all he likes about the Treasury report; New Zealanders now know the truth about the taxation situation in New Zealand. They know that New Zealanders are heavily overtaxed, and that we will continue to see qualified, talented young people leave this country unless the Government is prepared to do something about that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Bill read a first time.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its consideration, and that it be an instruction to the committee to present a final report on the bill by 5 December.

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

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Motion agreed to.

Instruction to Finance and Expenditure Committee

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I seek leave for the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in its consideration of the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill, to have the authority to consider, and if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1. Those relate to the wine equalisation tax rebate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. That is agreed to.

Bills

Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time. At the conclusion of the first reading debate, I will move that the bill be referred to the Regulations Review Committee with an instruction that the bill be reported back finally by 5 December 2005.

This is a routine annual bill that is required to confirm and validate items of subordinate legislation that, in accordance with the provisions in the Acts under which the various instruments are made, lapse at stated times, unless earlier confirmed or validated by Parliament. This year the bill provides for Parliament to confirm or validate one set of regulations and 18 Orders in Council made under 11 Acts. To avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing, the bill must be passed by the end of this calendar year. The 5 December report-back date will allow time for the select committee to receive explanations on the contents of the bill from the departments that administer the various orders and regulations.

Two of the 18 orders apply movements in the consumer price index to the rates of social security benefits, New Zealand superannuation, and war pensions. Five orders are made under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Two of those apply to annual excise adjustment rates, one continues to prevent the importation of trout and trout products, and another continues import prohibitions on goods such as certain types of asbestos and specified offensive weapons. The fifth continues the export prohibition on goods such as defined pounamu, but discontinues the export prohibition on certain sheep breeds and their reproductive material—[Interruption] I was not looking at Mr Clarkson at that point.

Four of the orders are made under the Tariff Act 1988. They insert new items into the tariff, extend the tariff concession, and implement various tariff reductions and removals. Three of the orders deal with commodity levies. The first replaces a similar order relating to eggs, and the second relates to grape wine and the component of grape wine products. Those two orders were voted on by the respective industry participants themselves. The third is a technical amendment relating to green-lipped mussels and to the repeal of parts of the Meat Act 1981. Two of the orders apply biosecurity levies to contribute to the cost of post-border surveillance for gypsy moth, and implement a national pest management strategy for varroa mite. One order increases certain rates of road-user charges under the Road User Charges Act 1977. Another order amends a principal order to require international operators to pay the departing international passenger levy, which was previously paid by aerodrome operators.

Finally, one set of regulations alters various animal product verification charges and levies to reflect similar changes to amounts payable under the parallel regime in the Meat Act 1981. I commend the bill to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): National will be supporting the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is one that we will not get too excited about; it is not a very interesting bill. In fact, it is amazing that there are so many people here to hear my speech this evening.

Hon Member: Just keep us awake.

LINDSAY TISCH: Well, yes, here we are. It is very important bill though, because as the Minister said, it does confirm and validate a range of regulations. They will be going to the Regulations Review Committee, of which I was a member for some time, so I do know the importance—

Darren Hughes: A senior member!

LINDSAY TISCH: Yes, I certainly know the importance of it. I note that that committee is chaired by Dr Richard Worth, one of our own—a very worthy chair. His experience and knowledge of legal matters are very important in a committee such as that. He chaired it in the last Parliament and he will be chairing it again this time, so I know this legislation will be in very, very safe hands.

This is not a very big bill; it is only about four pages. When we look at it, we see there are 17 clauses in it. If we were to take out the title and commencement clauses and then look at the rest, although Part 1, “General and technical provisions”, has a number of clauses, we see that it is really Part 2, “Confirmations and validations”, that is the important part. The clauses in that part range from clause 8 through to clause 17. We will be debating those particular clauses in time, but not tonight. Once the bill goes to the select committee I am sure that its members will look very closely at those 10—clauses 8 to 17—different measures.

An interesting question arises—it is not new tonight; it has arisen before—as to why we actually go through this process, when there could have been sunset clauses. I notice that a number of jurisdictions around the world are now implementing sunset clauses. Of course, if this Parliament does not validate these regulations, then many people and organisations will be in deep trouble. I guess that if we look at clause 13 we see that that is the key. That is probably the most important measure, and the Minister did mention it. It is to do with changes to social security, and I read in the explanatory note that that order, which came into force on 1 April 2005—so it is retrospective; it has happened a few months ago—increases most benefits and pensions according to an increase in the all groups consumer price index of 2.7 percent. So if this Parliament decided not to pass this legislation, then that increase would lapse and a number of people would be sorely affected by it.

There is another matter that I want to bring to members’ attention, and it relates to the biosecurity provision in Part 2. I said right at the beginning that we would support this legislation, but it does highlight the incompetence of this Labour Government in the way that it has handled border control and the incursions that have happened. If we look at the varroa bee mite, remembering that it got only as far south as Taupō, we now see it extending throughout the whole of the North Island. The whole of the North Island is affected by that mite, and of course it is only a matter of time before it gets down into the South Island. So border control is a very, very important part of our security. It affects the bee and honey industries, yet border security and border control is something we believe this Government has been lax in. The varroa bee mite is a wake-up call, and when we get to the select committee and look at that provision, I am sure some important measures will be debated at that point

I also want to bring members’ attention to clause 12, which contains the prohibition on importing trout. In the Waikato, Bay of Plenty, and Taupō regions trout fishing is a very important part of the tourism industry—and I should have also mentioned the South Island. Clause 12 sets out the prohibition on importing trout from 7 November 2004 for a 3-year period to 7 November 2007. So that is a very important one for New Zealand.

Once again, I say National will support this legislation. In the capable hands of Dr Richard Worth I am sure it will get the due attention it deserves, and those who wish to make submissions on it will be able to do so at the appropriate time. National is happy to support the bill.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): As the previous speaker has said, this is not a very exciting bill, but New Zealand First will be supporting it going to the Regulations Review Committee. I am pleased that Lindsay Tisch gave Mr Worth such a good build-up, because he is probably the only person who would. We are pleased to support this legislation.

But I want to say to the House that we went through the right-wing economic phase some years ago—which I am sure Dr Cullen would sooner forget about, and which the National Party and the ACT party find it impossible to forget about. In fact, they are rushing around hoping for the day when they can reinstitute many of the things that happened all those years ago. But this is a typical example of what happened all those years ago when people were so keen on talking about reducing taxes: they would reduce taxes here; they would give tax reductions all over the place; and the Government had no place in business or in people’s lives, etc., etc. So they did all of those things, but let me tell members that these sorts of things were the result of that. They got tax cuts, and they did all those sorts of things, but along came levies in another guise. So in the cities were people who were paying rates and being promised rate reductions, but then they went out and got charged 20 bucks to dump their trailer-load of rubbish in the dump where previously that cost was built into the rates.

It is the same with these sorts of things. These levies have come about as a result of the unbundling all of those years ago, but the point is that people are still paying tax, and they are paying levies on top. Now, I must say that these particular levies are at least under the scrutiny of the House or a committee of Parliament, and at least they are renewable each year. So when a levy is no longer needed, such as the levy for the varroa bee mite and things like that, it can be got rid of without fuss, without causing alarm around the country, and without a whole lot of political agitation. They can be simply left off and not renewed. As to the rest of them, they have a slide rule, as it were, run across them, and they have a fresh examination each year to see whether they are just, whether they are right, set at the same level, and in fact still needed.

I like to think that there should be more of that sort of thing. I know that the argument against it is that it would choke up the House, but there are other levies and taxes that, if done on an annual basis, would make many of us feel far more comfortable about it.

I want to leave people with the message that there is always a cost, and there has been much ranting over the previous bill. It is true that we are in favour of people paying lower taxes in this country, but to a level where we do not have to reinstitute levies in another form, or licences, or fees for other things that in my view can sometimes, when all added up, be more expensive than the original tax, but just levied in different parts of one’s life. So New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee, where it will get the scrutiny it deserves. If I do not have a heck of a lot of faith in Mr Worth, at least the other select committee members will make sure this thing is done properly.

Bill read a first time.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be referred to the Regulations Review Committee for consideration, and that it be an instruction to the committee to present a final report on the bill by 5 December 2005.

Motion agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting days for the remainder of 2005 and for 2006 up to Thursday 14 December be as follows:

2005

November 17, 22, 23, and 24;

December 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15;

2006

February 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 28;

March 1, 2, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, and 30;

April 4, 5, and 6;

May 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, and 25;

June 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, and 29;

July 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 27;

August 1, 2, 3, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, and 31;

September 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14;

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

November 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, and 23;

December 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 14.

Hon Members: Holidays!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I actually thought it was holiday time in question time, myself, too; I would not have expected the Opposition to say that. [Interruption] The one thing that the Treasury papers did not state is that there is room for large tax cuts now. They stated that we should be maintaining the current surpluses. I suggest that the National Party actually reads to the end of the document and not just the first bit that it likes.

Simon Power: No!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Exactly! Mr Simon Power, one of the rising, aspiring members for the leadership of the National Party, says “No”.

I will get back to the motion. It states that after this week we will sit for one further week, have a 1-week adjournment, then come back for 2 weeks, finishing on 15 December. In 2006 we will resume on 14 February, although, looking at the Opposition, I wonder why we bother coming back at all. Unfortunately, we have to have Parliament, although it is true that we can manage without the National Party being here, for all the use that it is in terms of contributing to this place. We certainly get far better opposition from the Māori Party on occasions, from New Zealand First on occasions, from United Future on occasions, from the Greens on occasions, from ACT on occasions, and even, about once every 3 years, the Progressive party puts on a better show than the National Party does in that respect. But, never mind, no doubt sometime soon the National Party will change leaders again and we will go through the whole process one more time.

Darren Hughes: And Bill English is trying out the seat!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I notice that Bill English is smiling at the thought of that, but it is John Key who is the happiest-looking man in Parliament these days, which tells us something.

So we will come back on 14 February and we will go through a process of 3 or 4 week sessions for the remainder of the year. At the moment the timetable is set down to 14 December 2006. That provides for 29 sitting weeks next year, or 87 sitting days, with the potential for 1 more sitting week at the end, making 90 sitting days. Standing Order 78(3) provides that the sitting year should be approximately 90 days. Last year and the year before we went rather over that. I think that one year we went for 34 sitting weeks and 33 sitting weeks. We are now basically forecasting a sitting year next year that is much more in line with the norm outlined within the Standing Orders. So it is certain that there will be 87 sitting days, with a possibility of 90 sitting days if we proceed through to 21 December. I must say, from long experience, I notice that when we get into the week before Christmas there is a sudden accelerated desire on the part of an extraordinarily wide range of members of Parliament to call it—

Simon Power: Not true. We never cave on those urgency motions.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am sorely tempted to comment on the truth of the situation, but the nature of agreements between whips and the Leader of the House prevents me from going into the sordid details of what has occasionally happened in recent years in terms of ensuring that Government business has finished, not merely in time to ensure that the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt got his plane to go overseas, but also that colleagues on the opposite side of the House got home at the time that they were promised they were going to, to see their families and to deal with other things that are going on.

So that is what we have set down. This will, I think, provide very early notice. Most important, it means that members can plan, and parties can plan for activities during the adjournment periods. But I would issue just one note of warning. I think it is very important that people understand that when we have a 2 and 3-week adjournment there is select committee work to go on during that period, as well, and it is not all other things—

Hon Bill English: The select committees haven’t got any work.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am surprised that the member says that. I have seen the number of bills in front of select committees. I have two that have just gone off to a committee and I think there are another four down for first reading. There will be plenty of work to keep most parties going, and enough to reduce the National Party to its usual state of exhaustion over the next year.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): The National Party in Opposition will be opposing this motion, because what it tells the New Zealand public and the rest of the members of this Parliament is that this is a do-nothing Government. Dr Cullen has just indicated that if this motion is passed, the House is to sit for 87 days in the entire 2006 year. The question that we on the Opposition side of the House ask is: what does the Government intend to do for the other 9 months of the year, when it is required to be here for only 87 days during that time?

This is a soft programme. It is a soft programme because this Government has run out of legislative ideas. It has no programme. It is just reheating the corned beef, as it were. This Government knows that its time is limited. It does not want to be subjected to question time. It does not want its legislative programme to be subjected to debate. It does not want any aspect of its programme questioned or queried by the large number of National MPs sitting on the Opposition side of the House. I say to the new National MPs from the last intake that this is the shortest sitting programme we have seen in the years I have been here.

This is a soft programme from a soft Government that has run out of ideas and cannot confidently—and this is the crucial point—pass legislation through the House. The easiest way to deal with that is not to have the House meet, because every time Government members will have to crawl on their bellies to New Zealand First or United Future. Every piece of legislation will be up for negotiation and debate, and the Government knows that will not suit its programme, at all. Dr Cullen has been on National Radio and said that most of the major changes will be done by way of regulation or policy change, and that the Government envisages a very light legislative programme during 2006. That is because the deal has not been stitched up properly. It is because the New Zealand First arrangement is brittle at best.

We now have so many foreign Ministers we do not know who will stand up to answer a question in question time. We do not know whether Dr Cullen will be answering on behalf of Mr Peters or Mr Goff, who is sort of the Minister of Trade but is really doing foreign affairs. We have an Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs who is not answering on behalf of the other Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the meantime that does not matter, because Mr Peters is busy wandering around the world and saying he is not bound by collective ministerial responsibility. This Government knows that it cannot get its programme through in any reliable way, so it has produced the softest sitting programme for next year that we have seen in this Parliament in the last 7 years.

Even tonight, at 5 o’clock, the New Zealand Press Association is reporting just how brittle the nature of the relationship between Labour and New Zealand First is. According to the New Zealand Press Association, Phil Goff has chosen tonight to “take a side swipe at Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his comments on Chinese students in relation to New Zealand’s trade deficit with China.” It is reported that Mr Peters did not raise his concerns about the deficit with the Chinese when he met with them yesterday. They were not raised, and let us assume for one moment that he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs for that short space in time, and that it was not someone else on the Government side of the House at that particular moment in time. It was interesting because Mr Goff also said: “It was also not right for a Foreign Minister to ‘browbeat’ another country about a trade deficit.”

Whilst Mr Peters is out there representing the Government on all issues, except those he disagrees with—which is everything except the portfolio he holds, so he has no collective responsibility for anything other than that—

Hon Bill English: I bet he disagrees with it on that.

SIMON POWER: Mr English’s point is right, because now there is a disagreement in the area where he does have collective ministerial responsibility. That is so much so that the New Zealand Press Association reported at 5 o’clock tonight: “In another meeting Mr Goff was asked by the Australian Government for an explanation of Mr Peters’ role in Government.” Well, we would quite like to know the answer to that, too. We are very confused about that at the moment. In fact, Mr Goff goes on to say this—and it is not a bad line, actually—“Alexander Downer was very keen to know what the new Government arrangement meant.” So are we. We would like to know what the new Government arrangement means, as well. So would Darren Hughes and Ruth Dyson; they do not have a clue. I noticed the look of surprise when Dr Cullen rose today in question time and said that he would not be answering on behalf of Mr Peters, and that he was in fact the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Labour back-benchers all looked at each other and said: “Gosh, that’s interesting. When did that happen?”. That is exactly what is going on. Mr Peters is operating in a little world of his own, while all the conventions around collective ministerial responsibility are left behind.

But, better still, Mr Goff has explained: “The situation can be made to work and will work. I think Winston Peters will want to make his third endeavour of performing the role of a Cabinet Minister a success.” So another Minister is saying that Winston Peters’ first two times as a Minister were not a success and he is sure he would like to make his third crack at it a success. So we have a former foreign Minister, now a trade Minister, overseas with Mr Peters, mopping up the mess and bagging him at the same time.

This Government is brittle. This Government has no confidence in the arrangements it has made with New Zealand First. It will not test a wider legislative agenda in this House, and for that reason we are seeing the softest sitting schedule for 2006 in the last 6 or 7 years. This is a do-nothing Government that is not prepared to front in this House and answer the hard questions. It is not prepared to front for more than 87 days in the entire 2006 calendar year—[Interruption] Darren Hughes is chipping in. That is a surprise. What is the definition of a marginal seat? A safe seat held by Darren Hughes. So let us just remember that this is a soft programme from a do-nothing Government that does not have the courage of its convictions, or the belief that its arrangement with New Zealand First will be able to take the legislative test that this House offers. We will be voting against a Government that has decided in this term to do very little in this Chamber.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the recommended sitting programme for the remainder of 2005 and for 2006. The recommended sitting dates are very similar to those of the previous Parliament, and the total number of sitting days will also be very similar. We believe that the programme as outlined will be sufficient to give effect to those policies that are important to New Zealand First and the New Zealand people. So New Zealand First will be supporting the programme as outlined.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rose to my feet before my colleague. [Interruption] That is a debatable point. As I read the Standing Orders, they state that the first person to get up on his or her feet to seek the call gets the call.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that. It is possible that the colours she is wearing are more easily seen. I call Heather Roy.

HEATHER ROY: I would have deferred to my colleague Mr Henare, who is obviously very keen to get back into the cut and thrust. Unfortunately, he will have only 87 days next year to do that. I will take my time first, but I will be brief.

I agree entirely with what Mr Simon Power had to say about this soft programme. It is indeed a very light legislative programme. Dr Cullen said—in what I expect he thought we would consider to be a very reasonable manner—that it takes us back to what the House should be doing. ACT New Zealand will—to some people’s surprise, I am sure—be supporting this motion, because 87 days is infinitely better than having more days when the Government can do damage. It is much better to have less Government. Less Government, as we know, is good Government. So although I agree entirely with the National Party’s arguments for denying this Government motion, ACT New Zealand will be supporting it. We think less damage can be done in the fewer days that we will sitting than could be done if we had the number of days that we had in the last two Parliaments.

This is a Government with no ideas and no vision, and that was blatantly evident in the Speech from the Throne. This soft programme does, in fact, highlight the brittle nature of this minority Government’s standing. We think New Zealand First will not be able to be relied upon to support the Government. [Interruption] Well, that party has supported the Government and has an agreement with it. In fact, it is agreeing with the proposed number of days the House should sit. That is entirely because that party knows that it will be opposing the Government, and that the Government will not be able to rely on that party’s support for many things.

Dr Cullen also cast what I felt was a terrible slur on select committees. He said that members should be well aware that, despite the fact there would be a lighter legislative programme, select committees should expect to work through adjournments. Well, what exactly does he think those select committees will be doing? There will not be any legislation to go before the select committees.

Simon Power: They are going to be doing inquiries.

HEATHER ROY: That is right. The enthusiastic Opposition in this Parliament will be beavering away on inquiries, because there will not be anything much in the way of legislation coming before the select committees. What exactly will there be to be supported by New Zealand First, or United Future, which has said that it will support the Government?

Less government is good government, and for that reason ACT New Zealand will support the lighter number of days. Of course, it is an indictment on this Government that it will not be able to get through the House the legislation that it would like to get through. It begs the question as to quite why Labour fought so hard to be in Government in the first place. So this soft programme is something that New Zealanders should watch out for; they should watch out for the light legislative programme that we will have, not just for the rest of this year and next year—we are debating here the dates for 2005 and 2006—but for the rest of this term, if this Government manages to reach as far as that. To have only 87 days in 2006 is shameful, but it may be that it is for the good of the country that that is all we have.

I come back to my comment on select committees. The chair of the Health Committee in the last Parliament is here and she will be able to verify for me that the Health Committee worked extraordinarily hard in the last term. We sat in most adjournments. Unfortunately, I am not on the Health Committee this time; I am on the Social Services Committee. But this time the Health Committee can rest assured that it will not have to sit in adjournments like we did, unless—

Steve Chadwick: We’ll work hard in Social Services.

HEATHER ROY: The members of the Social Services Committee will be working hard; the member for Rotorua is quite correct. I guess that the committees that do have a majority of Opposition members on them will be working hard in the adjournments, I am sure, hearing those inquiries that Mr Power has pointed out.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): First, I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your position, although personally I believe that you would have been a helluva great Speaker.

Democracy in this country is absolutely under threat from this poor excuse for a Government. I have just made a quick calculation of all the bills before this House and found that the sitting programme has only 87 days to deal with 35 Government bills. The Government has not left enough time to deal with even half of those bills. Eighty-seven sitting days is a threat to democracy. Robert Mugabe would have been proud of the Clark-Peters Government for its lack of interest in democracy. We hear every day this Government go on about how it prides itself on the democratic process and on people being part of a Western democracy. This Helen Clark - Winston Peters Government is nothing more than the equivalent of a Robert Mugabe Government. It does not believe in democracy. It does not want a bar of democracy and I shall tell members why.

It is because of the shonky deal that is being done with the sycophants who will jump into bed with Labour at any cost. We can all laugh about the words “baubles of power”, but it was nothing more, and nothing less, than naked ambition. That is what it was. What do we have? Why does the Government want to meet for only 87 days? It is pretty obvious.

Martin Gallagher: Which party are you from?

Hon TAU HENARE: That member should pipe down; he is a has-been. He is gone. I say: “Ta-ta! See you later!”.

There are 87 days to protect the so-called leader of New Zealand First. Why do I say “so-called” leader? It is not a horrible jibe; it is because he will not actually be in the country to be the leader of New Zealand First. So we have to ask ourselves who will be the leader of New Zealand First. For obvious reasons it will not be Peter Brown. [Interruption] Absolutely, I was the deputy leader, and I got out. I saw the writing on the wall, and even within 87 days I thought to myself: “If I want to have a career, if I want to look after myself, and if I want my children to get a good education and get ahead in life, I had better join the National Party.” The one lesson that I learnt from New Zealand First was to watch my back, because those members will throw knives—they will throw the kitchen sink at a member. [Interruption] I say to “Andre Agassi” that he should pipe down.

This Government motion is nothing other than a threat to a Western democracy. Not since the days of World War II have we had fewer sitting days in the House. On average, there are 106—[Interruption] That is right, and most of those members opposite were here during the Crimean War, apart from my good whanaunga Shane Jones. He is most probably—and I am hard-pressed to say this—the beautiful light out of the darkness.

There is a word—and I am not sure whether I am allowed to say it—[Interruption] No, it is not the one that starts with an “h”; it starts with a “d”. This Government is nothing more than a dictatorship that Stalin, Mussolini, or even Robert Mugabe would be proud of. It is a complete and utter threat to the democracy that this country has been brought up on. I say shame on the Government, shame on Winston Peters, shame on United Future—I was going to say United First.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Who?

Hon TAU HENARE: Exactly. Who cares? New Zealand First and the Labour Party have got into bed. I never thought I would see the day when Doug Woolerton got up and supported David Benson-Pope.

Hon Maurice Williamson: He hasn’t done it yet.

Hon TAU HENARE: He has done it.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Well, he doesn’t seem comfortable.

Hon TAU HENARE: Peter Brown is absolutely comfortable knowing that his leader has the only bauble in town. They are all comfortable in that fact. I saw the leader of New Zealand First on the telly last night. He hopped out of a BMW 7 Series. That is what I call a bauble of power. [Interruption] It was not red; it was silver.

The irony of all of this is that when Governments are formed, and democracies are loved and cherished by the citizens of a nation, the citizens expect their Government to be under scrutiny for longer than 87 days. The rigours of question time have already taken their toll on the Government. How do I know this? All we have to do is look at the number of sitting days that it has planned for 2006. There are 365 days in a year, and all it can do is meet for 87 days. It is no wonder New Zealand First wants to support the motion. It does not want to be here, because every time it is here this great Opposition party will make sure that it asks the hard questions.

As I said, there is nothing more to this Government than its being an anti-democratic dictatorship. But I have heard it before. Several socialist speakers, several communist speakers, have always talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat. They have all talked about it at one stage of their union lives. Well, ladies and gentleman, that is what we have in this House. The Government does not care about the foreshore and seabed. It does not care about the United Nations coming down here to visit us. Eighty-seven days is not long enough for the Government to be under scrutiny. It shirks its responsibilities at its own peril. National members are here doing the job and making sure that this Government is put to the test every single day.

Michael Cullen said that select committees are able to meet during adjournments. Well, today the Māori Affairs Committee, which is ruled by the Labour Party, said: “Oh no, guys and girls. We are not going to meet in the adjournment.” The only person who stood up for democracy was the person on his feet at the moment. It is recorded in the minutes that I said we should meet during the adjournment, because I love democracy, and I am a defender of democracy. That lot opposite are not defenders of what should be held close to somebody’s heart—that is, democracy.

Finally, I say that National members are here, and we are willing to do the job to make sure this country does not slip down that slippery slope.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I am delighted to take a call on this Government motion regarding the sitting hours for next year. The first point I would like to make to the Government is that it has had 6 of the best years, economically, that this country has ever enjoyed—through no benefit or fault of its own, but just because of international commodity prices and conditions. But what do we face now? Everybody, and every economist, knows that times will get tough, and that we are in for quite a bumpy landing, economically.

What does one need to do when times get tough? One needs to man the tiller and start doing some things, because the boat sailed so comfortably only when things were going so smoothly. So what would we expect to see out of the sitting hours for next year, if we have a bumpy landing in the economy? We would expect to see a Government that has its nose to the grindstone, shoulders to the wheel, and back to the wall, and is getting on with things that will make the economy function.

But what do we see? We see a schedule of sitting days that is the weakest, limpest, lamest thing that I have ever seen in my 18 years in this Parliament. Why would that be? Because of the deals the Government has done, it has to be a do-nothing Government. David Lange would testify from his grave about what having a cup of tea and a breather does to a Government. Having a cup of tea and a breather finishes it. If a reformist Government wants to do something, it has to keep ahead of the play. But this is not a cup of tea and a breather. For the Labour Government, this is a whole morning tea and afternoon tea shoved together. It is a picnic lunch wrapped into a whole range of other days off, and we will sit for only 87 days. Members of the public would be outraged if any of them were ever listening to this—which I know they are not. But if they were listening, they would be outraged to think that this Parliament will sit for 87 days.

But let us go further and ask why. The reason is simple, and my colleague Tau Henare touched on it: it is the leader of one of the coalition partners. He does not even admit to being a coalition partner, but his name is Winston Peters and he is the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this Government. [Interruption] Oh yes, he is. He is the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this Government. Let me tell members what he did as the deal, because this is magic. Members will love this. He went to Rotorua during the election campaign and said: “New Zealand First will stand out from the Government. We will not be a coalition partner for either of the two tired old parties, National or Labour. We will stand out from that.” That seemed a fantastically altruistic view of the world, but obviously Winston Peters had New Zealand’s best interests at heart. It was great stuff. He had something better. Listen to this quote: “It’s a small price that my caucus is prepared to pay.” Listen to those words carefully. He did not say “I and my caucus”, or “me and my caucus”, or “myself”—he just said “a small price that my caucus is prepared to pay.”

Let me give New Zealand First a lesson about business mergers. If a small company and quite a large company merge, the shareholding and board representation should be in proportion to the companies’ size. Labour has 50 members of Parliament and 26 of them got to be Ministers. For those members who are not good at mathematics, 26 out of 50 is more than 50 percent. More than half the Labour members got to be Ministers. So someone in the small company called New Zealand First that was about to go into this merger would have said that its members were in great shape there—at least 50 percent of them would be Ministers. Barbara Stewart would be a Minister; Peter Brown, Ron Mark, and Brian Donnelly would all say: “Hey, this is great. If we do this deal, just on a straight pro rata basis alone, we’ll make it.”

But it gets better. New Zealand First members should listen to this. If a small company is needed to make the merger work, and if it will not happen without that company, the company can negotiate even more. It could actually say: “Without us, you don’t exist, so we’re not going to go for the 52 percent that you guys have got; we’re going to go for more.” I know that some of the members would be worried about the commitment about the baubles. But let me tell members an old adage: It is better to be hanged for a sheep than for a lamb. Well, I tell members it is better to be hanged for a lot of baubles than for just one. They would be much better to be hanged for a whole string of baubles than for one.

What did Winston Peters go in and negotiate for in this coalition? It was just the one bauble. I want to test members of this House. Members should guess who got the bauble. Did Barbara Stewart get the bauble? No, she did not. Did Peter Brown, the deputy leader, get it? No. Winston Peters went in there, and members should remember what he said: “This is a small sacrifice that I know my colleagues are prepared to make.” Did they know that what he meant at Rotorua was that those guys were out of there, but he was it—that he got the first-class travel, the aeroplane, the hotels, and the silver BMW 7 Series taking him around? No, they did not.

It is no wonder Labour comes with a sitting schedule that is the thinnest and weakest I have ever seen in my 18 years here. There are two reasons for this. The Government will have Winston travelling the whole time—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I mean the Rt Hon Winston Peters—and I can tell members that he is “right honourable”. He is a man who sticks by his word! He told the public he was not in it for the baubles! He told the public he would not be part of a coalition! He was not going to have any bar of that!

What is the one thing this Government cannot afford to have? It cannot afford to have Winston Peters in the House to answer questions. I predict that the Vote Foreign Affairs overseas travel budget in the next Budget will be huge. It will more than double, so that Mr Peters, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, will be overseas all the time. He will not be representing the Government, because—as members should remember—he does not represent the Government. In fact, if New Zealand First members had had the chance to say where they would sit, they would sit on the Opposition benches.

My final points are made to Ron Mark and Brian Donnelly. I pick those two out because I actually think both are very good members of this House. I think Brian Donnelly’s contribution to education over the years has been stunning. I compare him with the current Minister of Education, Steve Maharey. There is no contest! In fact, John Tamihere’s view about “Smarmy Maharey” says it all. Brian Donnelly knows the education system better than any member of this House and would have been a great Minister. Did they negotiate anything for him? “No, sorry, Brian, you are on your own, pal; you’re out of here.”

Simon Power: Cheers, Brian!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Cheers, Brian! And Ron Mark, who has so desperately craved the honorific—“the Hon Ron Mark”—ain’t gonna get it, and why? Because Winston Peters did not even ask for it. I tell Mrs Stewart that that is the actual issue. She should have a think about it. He did not even ask during the coalition talks. He went in there and said: “What’s in this for me?”. Labour, which was so desperate to get a deal done that it would have sold its soul at the company store, said: “Here’s the deal.”

The next thing one would ask is what Winston has been famous for here?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: What has Mr Peters been famous for? He has been famous for immigration issues; he has fought those long and hard. He has been famous for scandals with regard to transport issues. He remembers when the Cook Strait ferry scraped its bottom when Richard Prebble was Minister of Transport. He has been famous for TVNZ scandals. Has any member of this House ever heard him talk about foreign affairs? Have members heard him talk about it ever? No. So what does one make him?

I tell members why Labour made him Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is the one portfolio that means a Minister is out of the country all the time. “How do we get rid of this guy? How do we keep him out?” asked Helen Clark and her coterie. “We’ll give him the biggest bauble there is. In fact, it will have the bangles and the beads dangling from it as well.” The baubles, bangles, and beads were for Winston Peters to have the overseas travel and the overseas first-class trips. Poor old Ron Mark and Brian Donnelly—about four of New Zealand First members—should have got a position, if anything was in proportion. Would any member tell me that Brian Donnelly does not know more about education than David “Tennis Ball” Benson-Pope knew when he was there?

Darren Hughes: Come on, Maurice.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No, I am deadly serious. If Mr Hughes does not think Brian Donnelly does not know more about education than that man, then he is wrong. But did Mr Donnelly get a role? No, he is out in the cold, and so is Ron Mark. It is an absolute disgrace, and these sitting dates are an absolute sham.

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

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I want to bring some decorum to this debate and to bring members back to what we are actually debating.

Simon Power: Stand tall!

LINDSAY TISCH: Stand tall—right. This debate is about the hours that Parliament will sit for the rest of this year and for next year. But do members know of any occupation where one has to ask Parliament the number of hours one will work? Do members know of any occupation where people have to talk about how many hours they will have to work in whatever industry they are in? I bet Mr Clarkson would not say to his staff: “I wonder how many hours we should work to achieve what we want to do.”

Bob Clarkson: We’d go broke!

LINDSAY TISCH: The member would go broke. But this Government is saying here tonight that it will limit the opportunities to pass some legislation—that it will have to front-foot the hard decisions that have to be made—because things are going to get tough and the economy is going to turn on it.

What do we have? Instead of being here to debate those very issues—the fundamental things that we all came here for—instead of being able to debate what is good for the country and to be able to hold the Government to account, Government members are saying that no, they will limit the number of days that we will have that opportunity. When we look at the programme for the rest of this year that is in the Government motion, we notice only about 55 hours of parliamentary time are left this year. That is time in the Chamber. It is only 55 hours because one of those days will be a members’ day. By the time we take out the Government orders of the day and we look at the members’ days, we see we have only 55 hours left of parliamentary time.

But, mark my words, I bet that on Thursday, 15 December this House will rise early. It will rise early because Government members will want to be home for Christmas. They will want to be home to do the Christmas shopping; they will not be here. I bet that Government members will not be here after about 4 o’clock on Thursday, 15 December; they will have their planes booked. They will be out of here, and everyone should know that there are only 55 hours in total left this year in which the Government should be passing some legislation.

Let us look at next year. Here is the programme, which has 87 days. But we can take out the members’ days. Everyone has talked about there being 29 weeks left, but what about the members’ days that are included in that list? Well, there are about another 10 of those, so we are down to about 77 days. I did some numbers, and do members know that there will be about 500 hours of debating time in this Chamber? That is all. There will be 500 hours of time, yet we all want to be paid for 40 hours a week times 52 weeks of the year, which is 2,080 hours if my maths is right. But we will spend about 500 hours in the House. That cover 29 weeks, but if we divide that 500 hours by 40 hours a week, it is 12 weeks. That is only 12 weeks of House time next year.

This Government is shonky, it is shabby, and it is absolutely lazy. Its legislative programme is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace! I am looking through the Order Paper at some of the bills we should be debating—for example, the Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Bill. It is a ripper, that one. We probably will not see the first reading of that bill before Christmas, and it is the sort of legislation that should be in the House before Christmas. But, here we are, with only a few days left, and we know that within those few days there will be an adjournment. We had 6 weeks of parliamentary time from the time that the House started through to 15 December—6 weeks. Out of those 6 weeks, 2 weeks have been taken up with protocol, we have 1 sitting week next week, and then there is an adjournment. I would have thought that we could not afford to have that sort of downtime, and that any business would have thought—Mr Clarkson’s business, for instance—it could not afford such downtime. But, no, we have an adjournment coming up in a week’s time, and then we will have 2 more sitting weeks in the House. Mark my words, we will be out of here on Thursday, 15 December by 4 o’clock.

I would have loved to debate bills like the Geographical Indications (Wines and Spirits) Registration Bill. What about the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill? I think it will be a ripper, as well. It is a good one, I know, but when will it come up? It probably will not come up for months, looking at this Order Paper. Then we have the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. Well, I do not know what that one is about. Those are first readings. We cannot progress anything until we get rid of those first readings. Yet there they are, sitting on the Order Paper, and this Government says that it will have a week’s adjournment coming up shortly, and that those bills are not important. If they are not important, why are they on the Order Paper? Why is legislation introduced if it is not important? Is it put there just to fill up the blanks? I do not think so. I think that those bills are important enough to be given serious consideration, and that we should take them seriously.

Looking at No. 12 on the Order Paper, I see it is a classic: the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—the waka-jumping bill. Now, we know what that one is about. My team would love to see that one debated before Christmas. We would love to see it debated before Christmas because it will really ring-fence some of the parties, including a party that now sits on the Government benches. That bill is designed to ring-fence and put in a little catchment because that party’s leader is very scared that someone in that party will walk. That legislation lapsed at election time, but here it is at No. 12 on the Order Paper, solely for New Zealand First’s benefit—the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. [Interruption] I know that Barbara Stewart is keen on that one. I know that she will take off. She will get into the debate when it happens, and I look forward to hearing Barbara Stewart make her maiden speech on that point.

I said that I would bring some decorum to this debate, because it is important. At No. 26 on the Order Paper is the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. That will probably be about the Kyoto Protocol, which is the $1 billion blunder this Government has made. I cannot wait for that bill to be here, but where is it sitting? Its second reading is down at No. 26. We know the reason there will be so many adjournments. The new Minister of Energy, David Parker, will need all those adjournments to regain his energy, because he will get a hard time in the House at question time. That is the other reason why there will not be a full programme. With our seven questions—six questions on 2 days and seven on the third day—and a hundred supplementary questions a week, this Government will be under so much pressure that it will wish it was not sitting at all.

This Government is lazy and shonky, and this legislative programme is an absolute disgrace. I do not know of any other occupation that has to come to Parliament to find out how many days and hours it will work. I know what Government members are after. They do not have a full legislative programme, and it is an absolute insult to the integrity of New Zealanders to think that this is a part-time Parliament, because that is what this motion is really about.

A number of bills are worthy of comment. There is the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill, concerning the protection of community standards. It should be debated and it should be out there, but, unfortunately, it is at No. 31—that is not counting members’ orders of the day, and there are certainly a few of those: for example, the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill and the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill. Those ones are out there, but, unfortunately, because this Government does not have the capacity or the will to have a full legislative programme, they will be delayed. Members should be here in the House and being paid for what they do—that is what New Zealanders put us here for—but this Government wants to limit those opportunities. It is an absolute disgrace that that should happen, and we will be voting against this motion.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 48.

Motion agreed to.

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

Ayes 72

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 48.

Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State): I stand to make a contribution, and it is a privilege to make a contribution to the Address in Reply debate. Te mea tuatahi māku e te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare, kei te mihi atu ki a koe te rangatira, kua hoki nei koe ki te tūranga tino teitei tuarua mō te whakahaere kaupapa i roto i te Whare. Kei te mihi hoki ki tō tātau Kaiwhakahaere tuatahi a Margaret Wilson me wō hoa tokorua, a Anne Hartley me Ross Robertson.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[The first thing for me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker, is to congratulate you on becoming Deputy Speaker of the House. It is a great honour indeed, as well. I congratulate our Speaker, Margaret Wilson, also, as well as your Assistant Speakers, both Ann Hartley and Ross Robertson.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it was with generosity that one of your Assistant Speakers, Ross Robertson gave—I thought for a while that he was making a Speech from the Throne—a bilingual and multicultural interpretation of his responsibilities to this House, and I think it was appreciated by everybody here.

But I just want to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is indeed interesting to hear contributions from members across on the other side of the House who have been recycled and reincarnated back to this Chamber. I find it mind-boggling that some of them have had some sort of memory loss about their contributions and where they stood in this House several years ago. Who was it who said: “I will never sit at the same Cabinet table as Jenny Shipley.”? I need to be reminded because I myself am suffering some sort of memory loss. Who was it? Who was the chief of the waka-jumpers? That very legislation is coming before this House again. Who was the chief? Who sat side by side with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, now the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Who held his hand? Who got up and praised Winston Peters some time ago? Who was it who sat in the same Cabinet as Jenny Shipley and other members of the Tory National Party? Who was it? I am at a loss to understand the credibility or the memory of some of the members who are making a contribution to this debate tonight. I am mind-boggled.

I am proud of Winston Peters, and I think he will make a good Minister of Foreign Affairs. I know that sticks in the craw of a number of Tory members. It sticks in their craw. Why? Because they are bad losers. They have not touched the ground yet. They have not realised that in fact they are not the Government. They lost the election and they lost the negotiations with the leader of New Zealand First to form a coalition. The time will come when Winston Peters spills the beans and tells this House exactly what happened and why he opted to enter an agreement with the Labour Party, which led to a Labour Government. Is not sour grapes a thing of the past?

I listened to the contributions that have been made by the so-called front bench of the National Party, and I heard them putting down the Minister of Foreign Affairs in all sorts of ways. Yet I wonder what they would say if the same member had decided to go with National. I heard the honourable member Simon Power criticising Winston Peters. I wonder, if National members had succeeded in forming some sort of ragtag coalition with Winston Peters, what—[Interruption] Come on! What would they be saying now? They would be saying: “Winston Peters is a good fella. He’s my mate. He’s my whanaunga. He’s a good guy. Don’t you criticise Winston Peters; he’s part of the National Party now.” But because he did not go with the National Party, and because he had the wisdom and the vision to come to an arrangement with Labour—and with Peter Dunne—all of a sudden there is gnashing of teeth and frothing at the mouth from the Tories on the other side of the House.

But I want to talk about something that makes me proud to be a Māori. The Speech from the Throne, which acknowledged the need to recognise the emergence of a new, dynamic Māori nation was, I think, unprecedented in the history of this House. Further, I want to compliment my colleague from Te Tai Tokerau, Shane Jones, on his visionary speech and his hopes for this nation and the Māori people. That is the type of leadership that is needed in the new Māori generation—not the type of leadership that locks us into the Stone Age, into the grievance mode, forever. The type of leadership we need should be based on the economic future and the ability and the energies that our Māori nation has to move forward in a new direction in a new generation. We need to unlock the energies and the potential of our young people—not have them look backwards all the time, locked into the grievance mode, the Stone Age mode. I came from the Stone Age mode, and I tell members that I am glad I moved out of it. It is inspiring to see Māori leaders who get up and look to the future. Their vision is for a united nation, a united New Zealand, where both Māori and Pākehā stand tall in this country together, moving forward.

I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect, that there is something happening in our country that politics will never control, and that is sex. Go forth and multiply! That has been said in the wisdom of the Gospels—go forth and multiply—and New Zealanders know how to do that. If members have a look in our schools and go out on our streets, they will see a new generation of New Zealanders moving around with aspirations and looking forward. That new generation recognises the value of education, recognises the value of being respected, and recognises the value of employment. Those young people are moving forward without any baggage of grievance hanging over their heads, without any of the clouds of negativity associated with that. Every Māori has the capacity, and is proud to be able to stand beside anybody else and achieve and succeed in this country of ours.

But I want to put a challenge to some of those other leaders across on the other side of the House who want to lock us into some sort of grievance mode, into the Stone Age, into going backwards. I say to them that they should look to the future for our people and our young people. They should give them a go, and should unshackle the chains of grievance and victimhood. They should unshackle those chains and give our young people and the Māori nation an opportunity to move forward together with the rest of New Zealand so that we can achieve the potential of our young people and can have a new and dynamic Māori nation. This is the call from Māoridom. This is the call we can achieve. We do not need the platitudes I hear all the time. We can achieve, we stand tall in our country, and we can move forward. We are as good as anybody else. We can achieve in the education field, we can achieve in higher education, we can achieve in business, and we are doing it now. That was the emphasis that Shane Jones put in his speech yesterday—exactly that. Those are the opportunities for our people, and for the emergence of a new Māori nation.

Nō reira, e te Kaiwhakahaere kei te mihi whānui atu ki a koe me ngā mema, tātau katoa e noho nei i raro i te tuanui o tēnei Whare huri ana, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, kia ora mai anō tātou katoa.

[And so, Mr Deputy Speaker, I extend a huge greeting to you, to the members, and indeed to all of us seated under the roof of this House: greetings, and greetings to you right around, and thank you to all of us.]

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair in an elevated position compared with the one you held previously. I would like to congratulate you on that. Frankly, it is disappointing to me that you are not in an even more elevated position. Nevertheless, I offer my congratulations to your colleagues, as well.

This week, for our country, the competition just became a lot tougher. Australia is passing innovative industrial law, and it already has productivity growth that is higher than New Zealand’s. Australia has 2 percent annual productivity growth; we have about 1.5 percent or 1 percent. The Prime Minister said in her speech that that is the big challenge. Well, I have to ask the Government what kind of plan it has to address it. The reality is that the Government ignores the advice of the OECD. The OECD has said that one of the major blockages to growth in this country is our sclerotic industrial law. This Labour Party, in Government, has held our nation back. That is the truth of it.

I challenge Parliament: under this new regime, Labour, United Future, New Zealand First, the Greens, the Māori Party, and ACT can change that. I will be introducing a member’s bill that will provide for a 90-day probation period. I have heard New Zealand First say that that is what it wants. Mr Peter Brown has said he supports that. Well, he will have the opportunity to actually vote for it. It is the same for United Future, which will also have the opportunity to vote for it. With this bill we will find out whether those parties are the lapdogs of the Government or whether they have independent minds. That will be the real test. The Māori Party knows the challenge of growing the economy, as many of its members are involved in small business. They know the challenge of getting young people into their first job. They also will have the opportunity to give people a chance.

That is what the 90-day probation period is actually about—it is about giving people a chance. It is not some kind of radical measure, as the Labour Party would have the country believe. New Zealand is one of only two countries in the OECD that do not have any form of probation period. I say to the Government that if it is serious about productivity growth, it will unshackle the economy where it counts. Where it counts is in making extra jobs for people who need a break. That will be the acid test for those parties when my legislation is presented to this House.

It will not surprise members to know that over the past few weeks I have received literally hundreds of emails, letters, and phone calls from people up and down our country. And there is a common thread: people are fed up with this Government’s political correctness. They are fed up with this Government’s excessive intrusion into their lives. Actually, Labour may want to reflect on why this position has attracted so much attention. The reason is that people know that political correctness is a real issue. I heard some members, in their maiden speeches, totally misconstrue what it is about. The public knows that this Government would sooner be engaged in social engineering than in anything else. For heaven’s sake, that is exactly why the Prime Minister came to this Parliament! She wants to remake this country. Has she ever given New Zealanders the chance to vote directly on prostitution? Did any New Zealander get the direct opportunity to vote on that issue? The answer is no. Did any New Zealander get the direct opportunity to vote on civil unions? The answer is no. Poll after poll indicated that New Zealanders did not want those changes.

People are sick and tired of social engineering, because it is all about trying to control the way they think and the way they lead their lives. Labour has presided over a project that is intended to fundamentally change this country. That is why I am receiving all of those emails, letters, and phone calls. People know that the issue is real.

The education sector is particularly prone to trying to embark on the social engineering project. It is part of the sisterhood Helen Clark has put together for that purpose. It is not surprising that education would be the focus of social engineering. Why? Because the Government wishes to change the views and attitudes of young people. How does it do it? It promotes things that may seem innocuous, like sports games with no scores. What could be wrong with that? It helps people to participate. That is the idea of the Labour Government. Who gets fooled? No child gets fooled. Children know who won, who lost, and what the score was. [Interruption] The Government junior whip might ask why scores matter. Actually, games are about lessons in life. When people sometimes do not win or succeed, they have the incentive to try harder in the future in order to better themselves. That is actually what competition and success are all about. It is about building on things that do not go quite right and about doing them better next time. But Labour does not understand that.

Of course, primary school is only where political correctness started. The next step was the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Dr Lockwood Smith has advised me that it was intended that NCEA would be competitive and that people would know whether they had passed or failed. But under Labour and the teachers unions, the idea of failure has gone out the window. People do not know whether they fail a subject under the NCEA. It is not recorded. An achievement pass is given to those scoring between 45 and 60 percent. I have to ask the Government whether such people have passed or failed—whether they knew more of the subject or less of it. Let me tell members that on that basis NCEA is not a preparation for life, for work, or for university. I have taught at university, and I can tell members that in the universities people do pass or fail. That is an important lesson. The people who fail their exams re-sit them in order to do better and improve themselves. That is the reality of the situation.

So political correctness is about changing the culture. It is actually about destroying aspiration. It is about destroying the values of this country, and the public knows that. Labour, of course, is deeply attached to political correctness, because it wants to control people’s lives. Why did my colleague have to assist people in her community to clear mangroves? The reason was that the Resource Management Act, as Bob Clarkson mentioned today in Parliament, has strangled the community concerned. Actually, in that particular case it has strangled the harbour. The community could not get a consent for that work. So what did the people do? They took direct action. They had no choice about that, because this Government thinks it knows what is best for them. The whole project against political correctness is about restoring power back to the people. It is about giving choice to people, and it is about valuing aspiration and success.

I want to close by returning to my initial theme. This country is in a competition. Our closest competitor is Australia. Australia is doing better than we are. It is passing laws that mean it will do better than us in the future. Australia achieves a 2 percent productivity gain each year, which is way better than us. If the Government wants to know the reason why New Zealanders are going to Australia, it is that people have better prospects there. The Government’s plan, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, will not address that. That is why its project is doomed to failure, and that is why New Zealand First and United Future will rue the day they sheeted their fortunes to a failing Government. It is a huge mistake, and they will regret it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): If Wayne Mapp is the answer, what was the question? He is the eradicator—the Arnold Schwarzenegger of the National Party; the throbbing cerebral cortex of the National middle bench. He is a man whose highest calling—on display again tonight—is to take New Zealand away from the values that Kiwis have for a long time held dear. Kiwis want there to be a fair shake of the sav. They want the great Kiwi egalitarian tradition, reflected in the idea that every New Zealander, no matter what his or her race, creed, gender, or orientation, deserves to have fair opportunities in life. If that is what that member seeks to eradicate in the name of political correctness, it is he, and not this Government, that is doomed to fail.

The theme of my remarks tonight is in support of the Speech from the Throne, which affirmed that New Zealand’s future will be built upon the passion, innovation, and tenacity that we see in New Zealand’s past and present achievements in every aspect of our people’s endeavour. On the sports field, in the science laboratory, in space exploration, in film making, in fashion design, in the arts, in technology, and in business, New Zealanders are creating history for themselves and for us all. Today, Kiwis can be found hidden in the underbrush just about anywhere in the world. No fewer than 16 percent of our people are dispersed, but they add value when they are prepared to play their part in our future.

Our Speech from the Throne covered two key issues: it reaffirmed the Government’s aim of lifting productivity so that we can secure a prosperous future, and of transforming New Zealand’s business base so that we can lift output and value per hour worked through capital and technology. That is our core economic mission, and much of the Government’s programme of the next 3 years will be in support of that. I want to touch on just two themes. Firstly, I will address the skills shortage—

Darren Hughes: Over there.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE:—like the one opposite—and, secondly, I will address the lifting of productivity through technology.

Let me turn to the first issue. It is my honour and privilege to be the Minister of Immigration in this Government. My aim is to build consensus throughout this House and the community around several key propositions. The first is that immigration is a no-brainer for our economic development. In a country where 56 percent of our firms tell us that skills shortages—the shortage of skilled labour—are a constraint, and where one in three firms tell us that it is their No. 1 problem, we cannot build a future that is prosperous without addressing that shortfall. We can get skills in one of three ways. We can train people, and we are doing that. We can bring back New Zealanders who have gained skills overseas, and we are doing that. The New Zealand Now website that we launched 2 weeks ago had 1.7 million hits in its first 2 days. It has had nearly 4 million hits in 2 weeks from Kiwis overseas who say that New Zealand is humming, and that it is time to come home. They want to look at that website, want to think about how New Zealand has changed, and want to come home. That is one thing we can do.

Another thing we can do is to shift from a passive approach to migration to an active one. We can go out and search for the best talent the world has to offer, and we can bring it home to add value to our economy. Under this Government, our migration system will be overwhelmingly built around the search for talent. We will make migration work in New Zealand’s national interest by adding value to our economy and our society. In order to do that we must rewrite the legislation, which, frankly, after many years of changes across both sides of the House, is now a complex mess. We will align our policy with the drive for skills and talent, and we will fundamentally rebuild the New Zealand Immigration Service through a baseline review. Yes, there will be some mistakes. Yes, there will be gaps in the information that the service holds on individual cases. It will be of no surprise to anybody if we have a few more of those over the coming years, but, frankly, that is not the issue. The issue is not whether there will be the odd hiccup; the issue is whether we can fundamentally redesign a system that suits New Zealand’s national interests. My commitment to the House is that, under this Government, we will achieve that transformation as part of a larger calling to rebuild this nation.

The second thing I want to talk about is our technology infrastructure. We live in a world where our children are millennials. They are born digital, they live online, they have iPods and podcasting, they live with multimedia, and they do not talk to their friends by ringing them up but by texting them instead. That is how they get dates and that is how they get jobs—that is life; it is online. Those kids cannot and will not stay in a country that is not enabled with world-class broadband. Our businesses, seeking to build global channels to markets or to a network of suppliers, will not be able to conduct business if their competitors have fast, cheap broadband but they do not. That is once again why the Speech from the Throne stated that building a competitive, world-class information and communications technology infrastructure around accessible broadband is a must-have for the New Zealand economy.

The Government is making two key contributions to that aim. The first is called the Digital Strategy. It is a short, crisp, punchy road map of $400 million worth of programmes that we are implementing systematically over the next 4 years. The aim is to boost the demand for information and communications technology by addressing connectivity, user capability, and content, and we are rolling that programme out progressively over the next 4 years. It is a win-win situation. It is a good news story—the business sector loves it, the community sector loves it, and it is coming to a town or a city near people. There are contestable funds that individual Kiwi communities and Kiwi groups can apply for support from, in order to do cool new stuff in information and communications technology that they could not do before. We will be laying open-access fibre and open-access highband with microwave, and we will be doing that to ensure that we break some of the old bottlenecks and get bandwidth to Kiwis who need it.

But that will not be enough. It will not be enough to do that without giving some serious attention to the regulatory framework. We have the most expensive mobile phones in the OECD. We are 30th out of 30 OECD countries. That is a travesty. That is why, when the Telecommunications Commissioner reports back on mobile phone termination rates early in the new year, this Government will take those recommendations extremely seriously. I will boil it down. The customer is paying 27c a minute for termination, when it should cost 12c to 14c. People are being gouged, and that has to stop.

We have one of the lowest uptake rates in the Western World for broadband Internet. Why is that? It is not just because we have free local calls. It is not just because we have a long, skinny country with mountains in the middle. It is because some companies are defending a 20th century business model in the face of 21st century demand. The Government’s message to them is to get with the programme. If companies want to invest for the future and build a world-class infrastructure, we will support them. But if they want to starve this country of the highways of tomorrow and isolate our millennial children so that they leave our shores in order to live digital lives, then we will not stand for that. That is too important to ignore.

This country must move forward in the 21st century. This Government is on a historic mission to lift our productivity, and we will achieve that. We will bring this House and the people of New Zealand with us, because there is, at the end of the day, no alternative. It is a no-brainer to say that we need skilled migrants to fill our labour shortages and boost our talent pool, and it is just as much a no-brainer to say that we need cheap, fast available broadband in order to do business and connect with Kiwis around the world. Those are just two of the hundreds of programmes this Government will roll out in the next 3 years, in support of the vision that the Governor-General laid out in the Speech from the Throne.

In conclusion, I say this Government is in a hurry. Business as usual will not get us there. This Government is prepared to take the odd risk in order to deliver every New Zealand child the future he or she deserves, and I and my colleagues are proud to be part of it.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin my speech in this Address in Reply debate I would like to congratulate you on your role, and the Speaker, Margaret Wilson, and the Assistant Speakers on their roles. It is great to know we are in safe pairs of hands.

I would like to congratulate new members in the House—this is an exciting place and they will enjoy the cut and thrust—those returning to the House, and the new party. I think it is exciting to see more diversity coming into our House. I welcome back Nandor Tanczos.

What did this election deal to us? It dealt a very strange hand, but I know that a Government under the leadership of Helen Clark was voted for by the people of New Zealand. They voted for a Labour-led Government, and that is what we have. It is a victory for the type of country that the majority of people in this country want. We have leadership that is intelligent, experienced, and highly visible both nationally and internationally.

We have got vision in this Government. I have heard people ask what the vision is, and the Speech from the Throne delivered the vision of the sort of society that I came into the House to build, and that is one that is inclusive, tolerant, creative, and proud. That is the sort of society we are proud of, one that we love, one that values excellence and hard work. We have policies that address need, not back-pocket greed, which nearly was the success of the day. I was deeply disturbed to hear on the campaign trail “What’s in it for me?”, not “What’s best for mine and for those in the generations to come?”. We have a proud country—telling our stories, singing our songs, and making our movies. We have a front bench to be proud of: strength, diversity, hard work, women, experience, and ownership of policies—and it is policies that I will go on to talk about.

It is not a group of old hacks who believe they are the natural Government of this country. National members are already baying for a leadership change, asking why Don Brash did not take them there. Certainly, out in the regions of New Zealand there was a definite sniff for change, and I felt it very much all around me in Rotorua. But it did not happen, so the Opposition will be baying for a change of leadership. I must say, from our region, that the look of Mr Brash with Judith Collins beside him was a very frightening look for New Zealand. It was a very anti-woman, anti-family look that I personally found very frightening. The campaign was a campaign driven by wedge politics, and I had not felt that before in the last two campaigns. A National Government would have damaged the New Zealand that we have worked so hard over the last 6 years to build. The public sector, which now has confidence and leadership, and is a public sector to be proud of, would have been absolutely slashed and burned.

But I want to talk as well about policy, that came out of the Speech from the Throne, and health policy in particular. That is my love and I am sorry to have left it behind, really, but I have gone on to a new and exciting challenge. We have actually consolidated the health sector after the terrible so-called health reforms of the 1990s. We value practitioners. We have learnt the art of valuing health practitioners, and we would never privatise in the health sector. I want just to mention midwives, in relation to valuing practitioners. I am afraid that Garry Evans, a coroner, came out with some very damaging and not constructive recommendations when he looked at midwifery practice. That is what primary health organisations are all about, and the ministry is already getting general practitioners and midwives together to work more closely in the primary health organisation environment. This Government also settled the nurses’ award, which had been left in abeyance for 9 years. We are getting on with valuing those people in the health sector.

But there are two new pieces of policy that I think were missed in the election and that we are particularly proud of. The first is the Universal Newborn Hearing Screening programme. Now that we have got that, and also school-ready checks for every New Zealand child, we will prevent children falling through the gaps in their learning and skill acquisition. We will have resilient children who are ready to learn, to soak up what is there for them, to grab opportunities with two hands.

Wherever was the Opposition’s health policy? In the entire campaign I never heard it mention one piece of constructive health policy. Perhaps we have to wait 3 more years to hear what it was.

Our social policy is something to be proud of. The Working for Families package of structural benefit reform will assist 350,000 New Zealanders, including those in work. It will raise the bar for low and middle income New Zealanders, so that they too can take part with every opportunity to add to productivity in our country. The focus on youth is also something I can see we will move into in the next 3 years, with youth transition programmes helping children move from school into work, with the Gateway programme, and with youth justice facilities to help turn our kids round. Youth restoration programmes help young people go back into communities and grab skills and learning.

The focus on apprenticeships and skills-based training is incredibly exciting. Our employment statistics are an example of something we can be so proud of. The number of people on the domestic purposes benefit dropped by 3,329 in 1 year. When I hear some of the speeches in this debate refer to beneficiary dependency it makes me mad and sad, because beneficiaries are getting back into the workforce, just as we expected them to do.

In conclusion, I do not ever want to be involved again in such an ugly, mean-spirited campaign that did not talk about policy. The allegations made were mean and untrue. There was questionable funding of campaigns—that was so overt—the media withdrew from informing the public properly, and there was wedge politics of the worst kind, scoring on the backs of minorities. I come from Rotorua, and our community has been ripped apart by an Opposition that pitted Māori against Pākehā in a way such as I have never seen before. Thank goodness I am there to help mend that gap in the next 3 years! If PC stands for political conviction to make a difference for the families and the people of this country, then Labour and I will be there.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.