Thursday, 24 November 2005

Thursday, 24 November 2005

Thursday, 24 November 2005

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 6 December, priority will be given to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5), and the second readings of the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill and the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. Priority will also be given to first readings on the Order Paper. Wednesday, of course, will be a members’ day.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of business, and I ask him whether he expects the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill to pass because of coalition agreements or because of a general will in the House for that to happen.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): There are no coalition agreements that refer to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Reporting Dates

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Following discussion at the Business Committee, I seek leave for the following matters relating to the business of the House and select committees. I seek leave that the date by which the Finance and Expenditure Committee must finally report the annual financial statements of the Government for the year ended 30 June 2005 be extended to 31 March 2006.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Standing Orders—Sessional

Standing Orders—Sessional

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave that bills introduced before 18 October 1999—the date of the dissolution of the forty-fifth Parliament—be set down for consideration of report following report back from select committees, and that the same rules for the debate on the consideration of the report be followed as apply to the second reading of a bill.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I seek leave that the Clerk of the House of Representatives, when reprinting bills at any stage during their passage through the House or when preparing them for the royal assent, after consultation with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel or, as the case may be, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, may make amendments to bills currently before the House or its committees—

so that they conform to the Standing Orders as amended on 8 September 1999, and

to incorporate other changes relating to the format of legislation effective from 1 January 2000—

but not so as to alter the meaning of the provisions of those bills.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I seek leave that members who are absent on official parliamentary travel funded by the Office of the Clerk be regarded as present within the precincts of Parliament for the purposes of casting party votes.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I seek leave that the Abortion Supervisory Committee, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, and Air New Zealand Ltd be public organisations for the purposes of the Standing Orders. Briefly, just so perhaps new members understand, this is so that they can be examined by select committees.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Finally, I seek leave that, in addition to the members able to comment on a ministerial statement under Standing Order 349, the leaders of each party with fewer than six members, or a member authorised by the leader, may comment on a ministerial statement for up to 2 minutes.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Student Loans —Voluntary Repayments

1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: When he told the House last week that, in relation to his interest-free student loan policy, “The actual costing will be $202 million a year by 2008-09 in terms of the impact on the operating provisions.”, what assumption was he making about the rate at which voluntary repayments would occur?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): None, because the assumptions underlying that statement were made by officials.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Minister consider the assumptions made by officials to be still realistic, given that many people are already reducing the payments on their student loans to the bare minimum, and in some cases withdrawing payments they have already made; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In terms of the first element, the assumption is that the level of voluntary repayments fell from that, to make the level fall from 18 percent of the value of compulsory repayments to 2.25 percent of compulsory repayments. That is already built in to the estimate. As to the second, of course, anybody who is silly enough to do that, such as the gentleman referred to yesterday—[Interruption] Well, yes, because people are paying interest at the moment on their new increased student loan, and, unless they are earning at least 11 percent beyond the 39 percent tax rate, they are actually losing on the deal.

Dr Don Brash: Does he accept that even the modest changes in the rate of voluntary repayments would significantly increase the cost of his interest-free student loan policy, given the fact that a third of total student loan repayments are currently voluntary?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The last statement is incorrect according to my information, but I think the member perhaps missed my secondary answer. There has already been an assumption of a large reduction in the level of voluntary repayments built into the estimate I gave him—from 18 percent of the value of compulsory repayments down to 2.25 percent of the value of compulsory repayments.

Dr Don Brash: Would the Minister be so kind as to table for the benefit of the House the assumptions underlying his $202 million estimate for 2008-09, given that the original assumptions made by Treasury on 22 June this year estimated a cost of some $390 million on the basis of very low voluntary repayments, and we now have a figure of $202 million on similarly low assumptions of voluntary repayments?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will try to get that information for the member as quickly as I can in that respect. Of course, updated information will be included in the December Economic and Fiscal Update, and I will be happy to release all that at that time. But what the member is probably continuing to do is to repeat Mr Key’s mistake of not allowing for the fact that there is already a substantial interest rate write-off under the current scheme—not just because people who are students are not paying interest, but also because of the way in which the compulsory repayments are structured to ensure that 50 percent goes towards the repayment of capital.

Exports—Asian Markets

2. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: What steps is the Government taking to promote New Zealand product exports to Asian markets?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): The world’s first New Zealand concept centre, New Zealand Focus, has recently opened in Hong Kong. The centre operates out of a 6,800-square-foot property in the heart of Causeway Bay, Hong Kong. The centre is a great platform for New Zealand exporters to reach Hong Kong and Greater China markets.

Georgina Beyer: Can the Minister enlighten the House on what New Zealand products and services are featured at New Zealand Focus?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The ground floor of the centre is home to a retail area showcasing New Zealand food, beverages, and natural health products. The mezzanine floor provides a showcase for New Zealand education and travel, and the top floor offers an area for exhibitions, business presentations, functions, and other promotional opportunities.

Gerry Brownlee: Why has it been so hard to get space, then?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I agree that some people who were being promoted by a back-bench member in his party were found not to be of suitable standard to go there, but a company like Fisher and Paykel has a fully functioning kitchen to show off its products, and it is a great opportunity to grow the $2.2 billion worth of exports we already make annually to China and Hong Kong.

Question No. 3 to Minister

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I note that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon David Benson-Pope, is not here to answer the question today. I seek leave of the House to have the question held over until he is able to answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. Would the member please ask the question.

JUDITH COLLINS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will the Minister who will be answering on behalf of the Hon David Benson-Pope be offering his or her opinion, or an answer on behalf of him as such?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a matter for the Speaker to deal with. The member, of course, has the option of not asking the question at this time, if she so chooses.

Social Development, Ministry—Childhood Experiences

3. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What specific evidence was the Ministry of Social Development referring to on page 22 of its latest annual report, which stated: “Evidence shows that positive adult outcomes are built on positive childhood experiences, and poor child outcomes can be difficult to overcome as children become adults.”?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I have been advised that the evidence referred to in the Ministry of Social Development’s annual report includes findings from both New Zealand and international studies. They include the development and evaluation of the Early Start programme, Professor David Fergusson’s 25-year longitudinal study, the Krueger study from Princeton University in New Jersey, and the Leonard Masse and Barnett study from New Brunswick.

Judith Collins: Is it Government policy that abuse against children is still abuse and totally repugnant, whether it occurred today or many years ago; and does he support that policy?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes and yes.

Lynne Pillay: Does the Minister have any evidence of any New Zealand programmes that have had success in building good child outcomes?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I have been advised that the evaluation of the Early Start programme in Christchurch shows that it has been very successful in lowering the incidence of behavioural problems, raising early childhood attendance, and reducing the numbers of Child, Youth and Family Services notifications.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister think the police finding that there is a prima facie case that he assaulted at least two boys in his care might undermine his ability to be the Minister for Social Development and Employment, which has amongst its central purposes to ensure the protection and safety of children?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As the member should be aware, it is entirely inappropriate for any Minister to comment on police findings in that way.

Tariana Turia: How will this Minister address the fact that 250,000 children who are living in poverty will not get any direct benefit from the Government’s in-work payment, nor will they benefit from the raising of the threshold for family support and the reduction in the rate at which it abates?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member raises a very valid issue, and I am personally—and I am sure I am joined by my colleagues—very proud of the significant reduction in child poverty that we have made in New Zealand over the last 6 years, and am committed to continuing those policies.

Judy Turner: Does the Minister agree that grandparents who are lovingly raising their grandchildren in an effort to provide positive childhood experiences are important; if so, why does the State fail to support those families by refusing kinship caregivers the same financial support as foster-caregivers currently receive?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I most certainly agree with and share the value that the member, as indicated in her question, places on grandparents who are raising their grandchildren when the children’s own parents are not able to do that. However, for a long time New Zealand society has not accepted the fact that family members should be paid in the same way as non - family members for providing that sort of support. But we have made significant progress, and will continue to make progress, in providing more appropriate support for grandparents in that position.

Judith Collins: Is he aware in his role as Minister for Social Development and Employment that, often, children who are victims of violence do not tell trusted adults at the time of the abuse, because of the trauma, fear, guilt, and embarrassment associated with abuse; if so, would he now like to take this opportunity to apologise to his former students?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes and no.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister Trevor Mallard should not call his fellow Minister a scumbag, and he should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry but I did not hear any comment of that sort, because of the amount and level of noise in the House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: My colleague did use an unparliamentary term. It was not about the Minister, obviously, but about the member. He should be required to withdraw and apologise for it.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

Judith Collins: Might a poor child outcome result from taking a motherless 14-year-old child, who is living in a troubled home that is affected by family violence, then subjecting that child to having his hands tied to a desk and jamming a tennis ball like this into that child’s mouth, while a classroom of other children look on; if so, would he now like to take another opportunity to apologise to his victim?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you know what the point of order is going to be. The question assumed that the Minister was guilty of that offence. The member might care to demonstrate whether it is a physical possibility by putting the tennis ball in her mouth right now—it is one of the bigger ones around the House.

Judith Collins: The Acting Prime Minister has asked that I demonstrate that this ball can be put in a mouth. Here is the ball. He might like to show us by putting it in his mouth. It is a deflated tennis ball. It can be done, and it was done.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That is utterly outrageous, particularly from somebody who ripped off the Casino Control Authority in respect of her expenses overseas. The Minister is entitled—[Interruption] We can always make accusations in the House, can we not, under parliamentary privilege.

Madam SPEAKER: As you know, there are meant to be no interruptions during anyone’s points of order, and there were interruptions when members from both parties were making their points of order. The members have raised very valid points of order in terms of the nature of the question. I rule, however, that the member can ask the Minister that question. Just to clarify, I rule that a hypothetical question can be put to a Minister.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question asked the Minister to apologise to the victim. That assumes that the matter occurred.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The hypothetical question has been put. There is an assumption in that question. The member has made that assumption. That can be addressed in the answer.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you explain to me what is hypothetical about the assumption that the Minister was actually guilty of the offence? I know there was an “if” at the start, but if the question was: “If the Minister of Finance had taken $5 million out of the public accounts and put the money into his private account, would he now care to apologise for that action?’’, well, I have not done it, which is pretty obvious given the nature of my clothes.

Rodney Hide: I actually rise in support of the Hon Michael Cullen. Of course, a hypothetical question cannot be asked in this House, but the question actually was not put as a hypothetical question. Michael Cullen was making the point that it is not possible to put a tennis ball in a student’s mouth. That is actually not true; it is not easy, but 19 students—in fact, the entire class of that day—told the police that it did happen. The question was not hypothetical; it was an actual question.

Hon Bill English: Madam Speaker, you have now ruled on this question twice. You have given your ruling, and the Leader of the House keeps challenging it, and that is challenging your authority and the objectivity of the Chair.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his assistance in this matter. A question can be phrased in hypothetical terms. It cannot be stated, however, as a question of fact. I ask the member, so that we have total clarity on this in the House, to re-ask her question in those terms.

Judith Collins: Might a poor child outcome result from taking a motherless 14-year-old child, who is living in a troubled home that is affected by family violence, then subjecting that child to having his hands tied to a desk and jamming a tennis ball into that child’s mouth, while a classroom of other children look on?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I would like to make two points in relation to that question. The first is that the member should know, had she read the relevant police report, that those alleged events are the subject of—and I quote the words of the district commander—“conflicting evidence”. The second point is that poor outcomes for children and adults are contributed to by a number of factors, including poverty, insecurity in housing, and lack of access to primary health care. That is why it has been a priority for our Government to reduce those factors, and to support children, young people, and families to develop the resilience to overcome such situations.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Might a poor outcome also result from suddenly being subjected to continual bullying at school, as, for example, a number of people were by Aaron Tasker, Phil Weaver, and, most of all, Gordon Anderson—three of the people who were responsible for those accusations against the Hon David Benson-Pope?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I can absolutely confirm that that is correct.

Madam SPEAKER: Question No. 4, Jeanette Fitzsimons. [Interruption] I remind members that, if they wish to remain in the House for the rest of the session, when a question is called it is heard in silence, please.

Fisheries, Minister—Bottom Trawling

4. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Fisheries: Has he taken any steps since becoming Minister of Fisheries, or does he plan to take any steps, to advance the policy that the Progressive party committed to, in the 2005 Vote Environment survey, to “Support and actively promote a global moratorium on bottom trawling on the high seas.”; if so, what steps?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): Upon becoming Minister of Fisheries I asked officials to further examine the issue of bottom trawling on the high seas. I have concluded that action to better protect the ocean floor environment is both necessary and urgent. New Zealand would be prepared to support, in principle, the concept of a global moratorium, if such a proposal had sufficient support from States to be a practical and enforceable option. However, indications from the United Nations in just the last few weeks make it very clear that such conditions do not exist. In the absence of international support for a moratorium, New Zealand is seeking support, through a United Nations General Assembly resolution, for targeted bans on bottom trawling in vulnerable areas while effective management frameworks are being developed.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister acknowledge that international consensus on a matter requires some leadership to get it going, and will he ensure that, when the issue comes up at the United Nations General Assembly next week, New Zealand will speak strongly in favour of a moratorium on all parts of the high seas where there are no rules protecting vulnerable ecosystems, until such rules are in place?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: New Zealand has expressed and will express its concern about unregulated bottom trawling. But I want to point out to the member that no nation, including this one, can do that on its own. To unilaterally close high-seas fisheries to our own industry only opens the way for others to exploit the fisheries. So we are working with other fishing nations to develop an effective regional fisheries management organisation in our part of the world with stringent controls over bottom trawling. We believe that a regional fisheries management organisation will be the best way of dealing with this matter. Today, while members are sitting here in Parliament, officials from New Zealand, Chile, and Australia are meeting in Wellington to progress discussions for a regional fisheries management organisation, and a full meeting of nations in this region will be held in Wellington in February next year.

Phil Heatley: If the Minister does promote a blanket moratorium on bottom trawling on the high seas, will he also promote a global moratorium on oil, gas, and mineral mining, and on the laying of communication and electricity cables on the seabed, and would that be a practical and achievable option?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I made it very clear that the only way in which a moratorium on this matter of fisheries, or on any other matter, would be workable was for all nations to agree. If they will not, then it is not a practical option, and anyone with a reasonable mind would agree with that.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he acknowledge that regional fisheries management organisations—and I welcome the news that we are proceeding with that development, because it is a good idea—take years to negotiate, more years to set up, and still more years to implement rules, and does he agree that, until those rules are in place, if there is to be anything left at the end that is worth protecting, we do need an overall control?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes, I agree that international agreements—even regional ones—take time. But the alternative is to try to get a majority decision through the United Nations General Assembly. That decision has to pass with a significant majority. When it has passed with a significant majority, then one has to get all States to ratify it, and if anyone thinks that is an instant process, he or she should have a good look at history. In reality, the regional organisation is the best way we can progress this, and New Zealand and this Government have taken a number of steps in terms of protecting sea mounts and so on. We will continue to work with the industry to have it cooperate in that regard. I am happy to send the member information about the steps that New Zealand is taking and the progress that is being made.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has he inquired of his colleagues and officials as to why New Zealand did not support Palau’s call at the Pacific Islands Forum in October for a moratorium on high-seas bottom trawling in areas where no effective protection exists, in line with the Government’s stated position as well as that of the United Kingdom, France, and others?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I have not had a report on that matter. I will get one and provide information to the member, but again I say that New Zealand is at the forefront of management of its fisheries. It is recognised internationally as one of the leaders in this area, and it will continue to be so on my watch in this Government’s term of office. I do not think we need to take a backwards step or be compared negatively to any nation in the world in terms of our protections of our fishery environment.

Police Decision—David Benson-Pope MP

5. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Police: Will she assure the House that in relation to the police decision not to prosecute the Hon David Benson-Pope, Mr Benson-Pope was treated in the same way as any other New Zealander would have been treated; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Police: I am advised that the decision not to prosecute the Hon David Benson-Pope was made by the Southern Police District commander, Superintendent George Fraser, in line with normal police procedure. To quote Superintendent Fraser: “Mr Benson-Pope is being treated no differently from any other person who might have similar matters raised about them.”

Hon Tony Ryall: In making their decision not to prosecute, despite a prima facie case, did the police consult the Solicitor-General, a man who recommended against prosecution of the Prime Minister but for the prosecution of a National MP?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding was that certainly consultation took place with the Crown solicitor in Dunedin. I am not aware whether there was consultation further up the line in Crown Law.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it now police policy that they will no longer prosecute child abuse cases where they happened a long time ago and the child was too scared to complain about it at the time?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No.

Hon Tony Ryall: Was it not clear to the Minister of Police, from reading reports, that her police staff thought there was enough evidence that Mr Benson-Pope did abuse those children?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In this Government the Minister of Police plays no role in questions around police prosecutions. I hope that that will be a tradition continued by all future New Zealand Governments.

Hone Harawira: Ko te take kāhore koe e hāmenehia i a David Benson-Pope he tohu mō taua kōrero, arā, kotahi anake te ture mō te katoa, ā, mēnā e kore koe e whakaae ki tērā, ko tēnei pea te tohu hōnore mō rātou e mā ana wā rātou kiri?

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

[Is the decision not to prosecute the Hon. David Benson-Pope an example of “one law for all”; or is this what we understand to be white privilege?]

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, my understanding is that police have made decisions not to prosecute some similar events in the far north in the past.

Hon Tony Ryall: When we consider the list of Labour Ministers investigated by the police—Helen Clark, John Tamihere, Dover Samuels, and now David Benson-Pope—why is it that there is always enough evidence to prosecute everyone else but them?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I repeat, the prosecutions are decisions taken by the police—[Interruption] Well, if members opposite want to call Superintendent Fraser a liar, they can do so, but I suggest they do it outside.

Hon Tony Ryall: Will the full police report be released; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the police receive an Official Information Act request they will consider that request under the statutory provisions. They will make that decision.

Rodney Hide: Can the Minister confirm that the conflicting evidence that the police had before them was 19 students who were there on the day, independently all confirming that David Benson-Pope tied a student’s hands to the desk and jammed a tennis ball in his mouth, as against David Benson-Pope denying that it happened, and can he also confirm that the police were considering charging David Benson-Pope, not just with assault, but also with making a false statement to the police and attempting to pervert the course of justice?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm that other students have recalled that the principal accuser repeatedly hit out at students, pulled students’ ears until the webbing bled, regularly kicked students in the spine, hung a student out of an upper storey window, repeatedly broke a boy’s glasses, and physically assaulted teachers. If that is what Mr Hide is relying on, good luck to him!

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that the Minister just before, in answer to one of the questions from the Hon Tony Ryall, said that the report would not be released. Was that right?

Madam SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary question? Does the member want to clarify what—

Hon Tony Ryall: It is an important point.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sure it is, and a question should be asked.

Hon Tony Ryall: The report on “paintergate” was released by the police at the time they made the announcement of their decision. The report on the Benson-Pope case has not been released at that time, and it should be released.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but if the member wants to ask a supplementary question, please do so.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The difficulty we have is that Ruth Dyson, during the course of her answer to my colleague, said that the member would know if she had read the police report. How can my colleague know what was in the police report if the Minister will not release it? That is why I would challenge the Minister. To be consistent with what Ruth Dyson said, why does the Government not release the police report so that the public can see the truth?

Madam SPEAKER: That may well be, but it is not a point of order.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It would be terribly helpful if the point of order actually related to what I said. What I said was that if people apply for the report from the police, the police will deal with that request under the Official Information Act. It is a matter for the police, not the Minister.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A moment ago the Minister appeared to be quoting from the police report. If that was the case, I ask that he table the police report.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, I was not; I was quoting from a summary of a range of evidence sent to Mr Benson-Pope about the accusers. I am happy to table that document, with leave.

Madam SPEAKER: Is leave being sought—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why not the police report?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I do not have it. The police have the report. The National Party seems to be under the impression that Ministers of Police read the actual, original police reports. Those are matters for the police. This is not a police State.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I have heard enough. The point of order has been ruled on. I understand that the current matter before the House is to seek leave to table that document. Is there any objection to that? [Interruption] I will take one point of order at a time. [Interruption] I am sorry, but obviously—as members have raised this issue two or three times—there is some difficulty in hearing in the Chamber. On occasion I also have had difficulty in hearing. I ask members to please not talk when others are asking questions, and I also ask that they keep the level of noise down when Ministers are answering them; otherwise, we will not make progress. I ask the Minister once again, finally, to describe the document.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The document I have in my hand is a summary, in particular, of a range of submissions sent to Mr Benson-Pope by ex-students, relating particularly to the people who have made the accusations. I am happy to table the entire document.

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. While Dr Cullen was attempting to table the document the first time, a barrage of interjections was coming from Nick Smith, and that is the reason members could not hear what was being described. He was doing that while Dr Cullen was on his feet making a point of order. You have ruled very clearly on what happens in these matters.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I have. I know that it is a Thursday, but all members are now on their last warnings. We like to have a bit of give and take in the House, but unfortunately that has been abused.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In answering that question, the Minister named three individuals and made very serious allegations against them. Unfortunately, the Minister has mixed up the three individuals with another student. I suggest to him that he be very careful with his evidence, and I invite him to stand on the steps of Parliament and say that he stands by what he just said in the House today.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, as the member knows.

Avian Influenza—Preparation

6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: In the event of a bird flu pandemic, who will treat the sick being cared for in their homes?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): The answer is pretty much all of us. It will be family members first, of course, because in a worst-case scenario endless flying squads of health professionals simply will not be available. So it will be family, friends, neighbours, volunteers, plus those who staff any community-based assessment centres and those who staff any mobile responses that emanate from those centres.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Influenza Pandemic Action Plan envisage medical workers calling on sick people in their homes who need medical treatment, or will critically ill people be required to travel to assessment centres, thus spreading the disease and putting themselves under further stress?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I think the answer will depend on the stage of phase 4 that we are in. At the beginning of the pandemic we will attempt to keep people away from hospital and treat them at home with the ambulatory services that are available. Should the pandemic worsen, then it is inevitable that people will go to hospital and be admitted—at least until hospitals cannot cope any further, at which point they will cease to cope.

Ann Hartley: At this early stage what can families in their homes best do to prepare themselves?

Hon PETE HODGSON: In the event of a pandemic, hand-washing and drying will be the most important measure to prevent the spread of infection—I stress, the most important. Families who teach their children this now will be best prepared when a pandemic comes. The information that went out on Monday or Tuesday morning—about 10,000 copies of this leaflet have gone out to pharmacies, general practitioners, and so on—is a way of beginning to raise further the awareness as to the importance of basic measures such as hand-washing and drying.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is he aware that this decision about whether to treat people at home could be made right now and that it is fundamental to saving lives in a pandemic?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member makes a mistake in his logic, and it is this: it is a good idea to keep a few options open in order that we do not head down cul-de-sacs. But current thinking, and it will, I think, persist somewhat for some time anyway, is that community-based assessment centres and mobile response teams emanating from them will be the best way of augmenting assistance given to victims in the first instance by their families, friends, and neighbours.

Dr Jackie Blue: Is the Minister comfortable with the situation he described on radio this morning—that no one is in charge of our preparations for a pandemic?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member misrepresents the position. I was asked whether it was a good idea to have one Minister in charge of pandemic planning, which was an idea that came from the United Nations, and I said “No”. In this country we are sufficiently good at whole-of-Government planning for that to be a better way for us to manage it. And I might say there has not been a Cabinet meeting since the election that has not discussed the pandemic.

Dr Jackie Blue: Why will the Government not increase the national supply of antibiotics, which have a shelf life of up to 3 years and which are necessary for the treatment of secondary infections, when most other countries are already doing so?

Hon PETE HODGSON: We will. What we will not do is stockpile those antibiotics, as we have stockpiled Tamiflu under lock and key, because if one does that, then the chances of running into expiry dates are too high.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister relying on district health boards to organise medical care for those suffering at home, and is he prepared to accept those plans, including this document I have in front of me from the Bay of Plenty District Health Board and Lakes District Health Board, which have not one mention of actually treating anybody who is ill during the pandemic?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It might be helpful if I remind the member that his questioning is entirely about halfway through phase 4 of a pandemic, and we are part-way through phase 1. But since the member raises the issue of the preparedness of district health boards, he may be interested to learn that district health boards have all sent their plans in to the ministry, that the response to those plans back out to the district health boards is happening on Monday or Tuesday, and about 2 weeks after that every district health board’s emergency planner will be gathered in Wellington to take it to the next step. Planning is in progress, planning will continue, and planning began 2 years before that member decided to ask questions about it.

Environment Court—Case Management

7. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister for Courts: What initiatives has the Government put in place to improve case management in the Environment Court?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): I have implemented several initiatives, including a new case management regime, extra judicial and administrative resources, and contemporaneous digital evidence recording. There is also now a stand-alone Environment Court with three registries in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, devolved from a central registry based in Wellington.

Steve Chadwick: How effective have those initiatives been?

Hon RICK BARKER: Very effective. The court has dealt with a significant backlog of matters arising out of the notification of district plans throughout the early 1990s. The caseload in the Environment Court has been more than halved, from 3,137 cases at the end of June 2001 to 1,566 cases as at June 2005. Hearings are now being held within 6 months, generally, compared with up to 24 months in 2001.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—Immigration Briefing

8. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Has his department provided a briefing to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Government immigration policy; if so, when?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): Not to my knowledge. My department works closely with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. However, the Minister is briefed by his own officials.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned then about reports that his colleague the Rt Hon Winston Peters is likely to lead a major debate on immigration at the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers meeting in Malta today; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Any questions about the statements made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs should be directed to that Minister.

H V Ross Robertson: What communication is there between his staff and the staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Department of Labour immigration officials have close working relationships with their Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade colleagues in New Zealand and offshore. They share information and work together on matters of joint interest. These include free trade, security, and the facilitation of genuine travellers to New Zealand. In some parts of the world Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade posts issue temporary visas.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister confident that Mr Peters will accurately reflect the immigration policies of the Government, in light of Mr Peters’ frequent accusations of Labour’s ministerial incompetence and failures in the area of immigration, and why has he taken no measures to ensure that Mr Peters does reflect Government policy?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have no ministerial responsibility for that member’s past comments, but I am confident in the whole-of-Government processes that underlie international meetings.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand First negotiated within the confidence and supply agreement a provision to review all of our immigration laws with a view to fixing up what the previous Minister of Immigration Paul Swain described as a dog’s breakfast?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can confirm that, in part because of discussions with New Zealand First but in part because of our own views, a comprehensive review of the Immigration Act is under way, and I will be releasing a discussion document to that effect shortly.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If, as has just been revealed by the New Zealand First member, the Minister of Foreign Affairs considers our immigration policies to be a dog’s breakfast, what—

Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to take the opportunity to point out that it was Paul Swain, the previous Minister of Immigration, whom I referred to as saying that the laws were a dog’s breakfast.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. That is not a point of order; it is a point of information.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Has the Minister taken the trouble to seek any assurances at all from Mr Peters that he will accurately reflect the Government’s immigration policies, given the New Zealand First support agreement that requires Mr Peters to support Government policy only in his ministerial portfolio of foreign affairs, and does he now think that perhaps he should have sought some assurance from Mr Peters?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I repeat that I have confidence in the whole-of-Government processes that underlie international meetings, and, as is my usual practice, I will continue conversations with my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Has the Minister taken the trouble to advise Mr Peters that repeating his publicly stated view that Asian immigrants are responsible for “theft, fraud, fighting, assault, intimidation, vehicle crashes, disorder, domestic stabbings, and a sideline of extortion and weapon-carrying” may not be helpful to New Zealand’s standing with Asian members of the Commonwealth; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I repeat that I have no responsibility as a Minister for that member’s historical statements.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does this new, inexperienced Minister of Immigration take any responsibility for his portfolio at all, or does he wipe his hands of what is going on in his portfolio area in Malta today?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Of course I take responsibility for the actions of my department, and I am confident in the whole-of-Government processes that underlie international meetings.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just ask you whether you have a view on how soon this Parliament should be acquainted with the complexities of the arrangements that the Government now has. We have had the Prime Minister making it very clear that Mr Peters and Mr Dunne have no responsibility for any Government action outside of their portfolio responsibilities. Now we have the junior Minister Mr Cunliffe standing up and saying that he is comfortable with the whole-of-Government approach, which clearly encompasses Mr Peters representing issues other than his portfolio responsibilities in the international forum.

We have a role—and while Michael Cullen might want to say that the constitution is evolving, the role of the Opposition in scrutinising the Government is not going to change constitutionally—and we have to have clear and concise understandings of who is responsible for what in order to be able to discharge that duty. I suggest that the Speaker has a role in ensuring that Parliament knows what the Government arrangements are, so that that scrutiny can take place.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments. It is not for the Speaker to express a view on those matters. That was not a point of order, but I thank the member for his contribution, and perhaps we can now move on.

Information Technology—Broadband Capacity

9. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Information Technology: What is the Government doing to improve high-speed capacity broadband in New Zealand towns and cities?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Information Technology): On 1 November we launched a contestable $24 million Broadband Challenge fund. It will stimulate partnerships with the community and the private sector in order to provide very-high-speed, open-access broadband to towns and cities around New Zealand, and to extend the reach of broadband into underserved areas.

Moana Mackey: What interest has been shown by communities in the Broadband Challenge fund?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It has been very pleasing. Yesterday I spoke at the Digital Cities and Regional Networks conference in Wellington, which was attended by around 150 mayors, local government officials, community organisations, and entrepreneurs. They were interested in taking advantage of the new fund, and I expect that levels of interest in partnerships to lay open-access fibre around New Zealand will be high.

Apples—Australian Market Access

10. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister for Trade Negotiations: Has he taken any action to gain access to the Australian apple market for New Zealand growers, or is he waiting for the Australian import risk assessment, which Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer assured the New Zealand Government 4 months ago would be “weeks, not months” away?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations): I have taken every opportunity for that, including at this month’s APEC meeting, where I discussed the issue with Foreign Minister Downer. He told me the import risk assessment will be released imminently. Since June, when we took the unprecedented step of formally inscribing the Australian apple issue on the agenda of the World Trade Organization’s Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the web of World Trade Organization precedents has been closing ever more tightly around Australia in this matter.

Chris Tremain: Has the Minister received any reports on the number of orchardists who will exit the industry within 12 months if this Government does not make any progress on this issue?

Hon JIM SUTTON: No. As Minister for Trade Negotiations, I have received no such reports. I could suggest to the member he may care to put down a question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Nathan Guy: What communication has he, or any other Minister inside or outside of Cabinet, had with the Australian officials about apple access since the election?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I have just advised the House about the discussions I have had with Alexander Downer on this matter this month. In that capacity, he was standing in for the Australian Minister of Trade, Mark Vaile, who was indisposed. My colleague Phil Goff was also present and participated in that meeting. Aside from that, I have no doubt that every New Zealand Minister who has had official contact with our Australian counterparts in recent times would have referred to this matter.

Jill Pettis: Can the Minister advise the House why New Zealand does not take retaliatory action against Australian imports of agricultural produce?

Hon JIM SUTTON: It would not be in New Zealand’s interest to engage in a tit-for-tat policy on market access. Such an approach would not be in accord with New Zealand’s commitment to fair rules - based trade and, in fact, would put us in breach of the very obligations we are asking the Australian Government to honour. We do have a robust and scientific quarantine system, which we apply without fear or favour on the basis of science—not, I may say, political science.

Craig Foss: How many more orchardists need to see their livelihoods disappear while we wait, before this Government initiates full World Trade Organization action?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The industry got very used to waiting while the previous National Government was in power and did not do a blind thing about this matter. Since then, however, the pressure has been reapplied and Australia is slowly, but surely, being dragged down by the weight of international law in this matter.

Hon David Carter: Will the Minister take this opportunity to assure the House that over the next few months, before the Prime Minister puts that man out to pasture, he will give this matter his most urgent attention?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I am flattered that the member should think that this would be the last opportunity to resolve that question. I can assure the House yet again that the Government is continuing, and will continue, to do everything within its power to advance our interests in this case. Of course, we have very much in mind the interests of every single New Zealand pipfruit producer.

Hon David Carter: Does the Minister stand by his comments in the House on 31 May this year, when he referred to New Zealand First’s trade policy as “shonky protectionism”; if not, why not?

Hon JIM SUTTON: I am sure my comments would have been totally apt at that time, but New Zealand First has come a long way since then.

Wages—Initiatives

11. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: What initiatives, if any, is the Government planning to undertake to improve real wages for New Zealand workers?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Real wages have increased about 10 or 11 percent so far, but the Government is seeking to increase them further by raising labour productivity. There is a whole range of initiatives, including such matters as the business tax package in the 2005 Budget, substantially increased funding for workplace training, the development of an overall strategy in terms of foundation skills in the workplace, the refocusing of tertiary education on quality and relevance, and, of course, the review of corporate taxation that Mr Dunne and I are beginning at this time.

R Doug Woolerton: Will the average New Zealand worker benefit more in real terms by cutting the highest personal tax rate from 39c to 33c in the dollar, or from increasing the minimum wage to $12 an hour, as outlined in the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: To be honest, I do not think that I can actually do that sum in my head as quickly as this. I can say that the increase to the minimum wage obviously helps those at the bottom end of the labour force in terms of incomes. A reduction in the top marginal rate helps those at the top end, by definition.

Craig Foss: What economic conditions, as referenced in the Labour - New Zealand First confidence and supply agreement, need to be in place in order to permit the minimum wage to be increased to $12 an hour; and when does he expect those conditions to be in place?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Those will be conditions particularly around the ability of employers to withstand a reasonably strong growth in the minimum wage. Of course, the Government has a role to play in that, because quite a significant proportion of people on low wages are indirectly paid by the Government—for example, those in the aged care area. I think the member will find that by the time Mr Barker beats him next time around, we will be pretty close to that $12-an-hour level.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister believe that initiatives to grow our exports, such as the dedicated export year and a more competitive company tax rate, will in the long term produce higher wages and greater productivity than simply cutting personal tax rates?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I do think that that is true. But, of course, the Government has also signalled that it is looking to think in terms of a major structural review of the corporate taxation area, not a mere tinkering around its edges.

Craig Foss: Is it an objective of this Government to narrow the difference between the real after-tax wages of New Zealanders and Australians?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That certainly is a long-term ambition. I note that the largest growth in the difference between those incomes occurred between approximately1983 and 1993.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Which would be better for workers such as those in the elder-care sector, who are currently earning as little as $9.50 an hour, and those working in the lowly paid fast-food industry: cutting tax rates from 39c to 33c in the dollar, or raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, for those people it is raising the minimum wage, since the top tax rate, which cuts in at $60,000 a year, has absolutely no impact upon them, at all. Even for those who believe in the trickledown theory, an awful lot of drips would have to go an awfully long way before they got down to those people.

Fisheries—Sustainability

12. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Fisheries: Has he been advised of Forest and Bird’s Best Fish Guide, which states that no New Zealand fishery is sustainable and no commercial fisheries have a management plan; if so, what, if anything, does he plan to do to address those assertions, given his Ministry’s role of ensuring fisheries are sustainably managed?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): Yes, I have seen the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s Best Fish Guide, and I dispute its assertion that no New Zealand fishery is sustainable. New Zealand leads the world in its fisheries management. That is not to say, of course, that we have always got it right, or that there have not been mistakes. But there have been some very real successes in fisheries management, and every day we continue to know more about our fish stock, and increasingly do a better job of managing it. I can advise the House today that the Ministry of Fisheries has prepared the first of three pilot fisheries management plans—for the southern blue whiting, Coromandel scallop, and Foveaux Strait oyster fisheries. Those will be released publicly next week. If they prove to be a success—and I encourage all stakeholders to engage in their implementation—then I hope we can extend those plans through the quota management system, to ensure that a long-term approach is taken to the sustainability of our fisheries for future generations.

Phil Heatley: Is the Minister concerned at all that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society will undermine the domestic seafood market with its irresponsible comments—that there are no fish that consumers should eat; if so, what direct action will he take to put the record straight so that the domestic seafood market is not damaged?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have been encouraging all stakeholders in the fishing industry, both commercial fishers and non-governmental organisations, to meet with me and exchange views. I am certainly encouraging the fishing industry and the non-governmental organisation area to work more cooperatively together to improve the environment for fisheries in this country—and that includes the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society.

Phil Heatley: Will the Minister actively assure the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society that contrary to its Best Fish Guide, the over $30 million in fishery management and conservation levies his ministry collects from Kiwi fishers is well spent by his ministry in managing the fishery?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I think there will always be contention about how well spent Government revenue is. But by and large, in my short experience so far of looking carefully at what is being done by the Ministry of Fisheries, I think the ministry does a very good job with the funds it has. It is managing our fishing and marine environment and resources extraordinarily well.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister not agree that organisations like the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society that provide a critical service to this country in encouraging consumers to take responsibility for the effects of their consumption of our natural resources, such as fish, are right to raise these issues for the public to give consideration to; and will he ensure that in the strategy for managing the environmental effects of fishing that was proposed before the election there are clear standards and rules to protect the fishing industry and the fisheries themselves from exploitation, and to protect the further unnecessary death of animals caught in by-catch?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Of course, it is a free country, and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society is entitled to its view. The idea of a guide to properly inform people about the status of fisheries in New Zealand is a good one, provided that it is produced as a result of robust scientific process, as is the case in other parts of the world. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, in my view and in view of the advice I have received, has not used robust scientific process to make its assessments.

Phil Heatley: So can the Minister then clearly confirm that he opposes and disagrees with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s claim, and does support his ministry’s spending of the $30 million in levies that is collected from Kiwi fishers?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The levies collected from the fisheries industry are used for the research and development of the fishery resource in New Zealand. It is my considered opinion that we probably—almost certainly—need to spend more than that, but that is a matter that the Minister of Finance and I will have discussions on at a later date.

Phil Heatley: Why, then, did the Minister remain silent over the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s media beat-up about the Best Fish Guide over a fortnight ago that asserted that over 69 seafood species are poorly managed by his ministry, when it spends $30 million of fisheries management levies, and will the Minister remain silent now?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I do not imagine that the criticism I have given in a public forum like Parliament is exactly remaining silent.

Phil Heatley: That’s today; what happened a fortnight ago?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The member might like to listen. On the day that that release was made, there was a discussion between the fisheries management and myself, and it was determined that we would put the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Fisheries, who is not only well qualified in fisheries management but is a marine biologist with very senior qualifications, into the public arena to debate that issue with those from the environmental non-governmental organisations who wanted to do that. I watched that exchange very carefully, and I think that the Government and the ministry were represented very, very well by the chief executive officer in that debate.

Imprest Supply Debate

Imprest Supply Debate

Debate on the Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill resumed from 23 November.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): It is my understanding that Mr Flavell will give his maiden speech as part of this debate. My colleague Mr Anderton has indicated that he will not take the 5-minute call that he is entitled to, and I seek leave for Mr Flavell’s speech to be extended to 15 minutes, which will bring it into line with other maiden speeches given in the House.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville): I move, That all the words after the word “That” be omitted, and the following substituted: “the House declines to give a second reading to the bill because it has no confidence in this Labour minority Government since it has no conviction and purpose and is ignoring the economic challenges New Zealand faces; and calls on the Government to resign immediately.”

It has not been a good week for the Government, has it. It started as it normally does. Michael Cullen has had his normal, regular weekly meltdown. He has been very unhappy. Pete Hodgson has proven to the public that he was not just a fool and out of his depth on climate control and climate change; he has moved nicely into the health portfolio and proven that he knows absolutely nothing about it, too. Despite the fact that the Minister has all the officials at his disposal, it took Tony Ryall, on his own, to prove that the Minister knows absolutely nothing.

Gerry Brownlee: He’s suffering from Tamiflu.

JOHN KEY: I think Pete Hodgson needs to take blood pressure control pills, not Tamiflu.

This Government is not on top of its game. Its members were tired and really lost for direction during the entire election campaign. Their only policy during the campaign was not to let National get on to the Treasury benches. They were devoid of ideas when they started their campaign, and it is the same now. That is probably reflected in the fact that the Dominion Post took the opportunity this week to score Michael Cullen at zero out of 10 for his performance. I know that Michael Cullen is not very happy about that, but the good news is he can only go up from zero.

Very interestingly, in the Speech from the Throne the Government stated once again that getting into the top half of the OECD was one of New Zealand’s primary goals. Well, it is no wonder that the Government did not like it when Treasury, in its briefing note to the incoming Minister, made the point that for New Zealand to get into the top half of the OECD we would have to grow at a rate of around 4 percent. That is double the 2 percent growth rate that we have had.

I took a moment to reflect on New Zealand’s position in the OECD. We are, as members are probably aware, 21st out of the 30 wealthy countries in the OECD. But that does not tell the story that is worth our having a discussion about today. We should look at New Zealand’s ranking in per capita terms in comparison with the world, because it is not just the OECD that we need to think about. One of the things we note in this regard is that Australia is ranked as the 17th wealthiest country in the developed world—with average income at about $30,000. I note that countries with a low tax regime, which is advocated by Treasury—Ireland and Hong Kong—ranked well above Australia, at fifth and ninth. Countries that have had the good sense to build offshore banking entities, like Luxembourg, Jersey, and others, rank well above us. So members can imagine my surprise when I took the opportunity to note that New Zealand is ranked 40th—and the Government says it wants to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD! That sort of shocked me until I found out that we are behind the Falkland Islands, which is 36th, behind Liechtenstein, behind Brunei, and behind Spain. We are two places ahead of the Faeroe Islands, which are coming our way, three places ahead of Guam, and four places ahead of Slovenia. So if anyone thinks this country is on the right path, he or she need only look at the list. In fact, we are further behind Australia than Puerto Rico is behind New Zealand. This country needs a change of Government. Another election cannot come soon enough.

It is no wonder that the Government is a little down in the mouth this week. Not only are its Ministers performing extremely badly; poor Michael Cullen is Acting Prime Minister, and when Helen Clark comes back to New Zealand Michael Cullen will become “Acting Minister of Finance”, because he does not actually make any of the policies that go through the Government any more—he just parrots whatever Helen Clark tells him.

When, a couple of weeks ago, Michael Cullen did get a chance to do a little meddling—and he quite enjoys that—he came out with a doozy: he intends to look at intervention in the housing market. New Zealanders will be concerned, because most of us know that our most substantial asset is our house. I was a little bit surprised to find out that, he said, the terms and conditions for this review had been set by Mr Alan Bollard and Treasury. The only problem is that in 2004 Alan Bollard gave a speech where he detailed the exact same terms and references, and he rejected them. He went through the list of things that Michael Cullen is asking him to report back on—he will report to Michael Cullen in just a few weeks’ time—and he rejected all of them. All of them were likely to send New Zealand in the wrong direction. Many of them had very large risks indeed, and were likely to backfire.

That is the economic leadership that is coming from this country. I think Michael Cullen is really lost for ideas in this economy, and that is why he did not like it when Treasury came out and told him the way things were. That is why he did not like the way things were going.

I want to make reference to the part about the growing State sector wages bill and the growing size of the State sector, because if anything differentiated Labour and National in the last election, it was this. National had a view that New Zealanders knew how they wanted to spend their money. National had a view that New Zealanders could get further ahead. National had a view that New Zealanders could build a strong economy. But Labour members do not have that view. That is how we saw it, because after 5 years in office the Government has doubled the size of the State sector wages bill—from $2.2 billion to $4 billion in 5 years. I know that business confidence is at an 18-year low, but that is not the case in Wellington, and I will tell the House why: because it is the only part of the country that is growing above about 3 percent now, and that is because the Government is fuelling the boom in Wellington. The Government is out there hiring people and paying them more than they would get in the private sector.

All of that might be OK if we got value for money, but Michael Cullen does not seem to be too worried about that. Treasury has a whole different view. The first thing it said was that for all of the bureaucrats and all of the money being spent, there was not any information of note coming out of the State sector on how things were going, and that what little information there was frequently gave Ministers and the public a surprise, because they were surprised by such poor performance.

So why is Michael Cullen intent on lifting Government spending to a level that it is way out of control and way beyond what this country can afford? Why is he prepared to do that? Because Michael Cullen thinks he knows best. That is the future for New Zealand under Michael Cullen. It is a future where he knows best, a future where he realises that intervention in the housing market will be the best thing—in the same way as he told the country that intervention in the currency market would be such a good thing. We may remember that only about a year ago Michael Cullen convinced the Reserve Bank that it was a great idea to intervene in the currency market.

Hon Maurice Williamson: How did that go?

JOHN KEY: Well, he gave the Reserve Bank billions of extra dollars, and the moment he did so Alan Bollard got up and said that never, in the 18 years since the currency had been floated, had the bank used the exchange rate provisions. We have now had an all-time high for the New Zealand dollar—just under US75c—the export sector is on its knees, and the intervention provision has never been used. And now Michael Cullen wants to intervene in the property market! That is the leadership coming out of the Labour Government. It is no great surprise at all that we are on an 18-year low for business confidence.

The one thing that came out of this report, loud and clear, was that Treasury is under no illusion that growth will occur in New Zealand only when we have a competitive tax regime, and only when we are prepared to give New Zealanders the right incentives to get ahead, and the right belief that they can make a difference to their lives.

Hon Pete Hodgson: We’re backing Bill!

JOHN KEY: I say: “Take the Tamiflu, Pete; you’ll do all right.” I assume he is on the list for Tamiflu.

Treasury quite rightly pointed out that when New Zealanders face effective marginal tax rates of 60, 70, and 80 percent they cannot get ahead in life, and they cannot make a difference to their own lives. When they face those tax rates and are on less than the average wage, they cannot get ahead. I am not surprised that business confidence is on a slow, I am not surprised that Treasury has slated the policies of this Government, and I am not surprised that this Government is down in the mouth, and happy that an adjournment is coming next week. This Government performs worse and worse, and it is desperate to head away with its tail between its legs. It is not enjoying its current position, and its Ministers do not turn up in the House—there are only a couple of them here, and their combined IQ is not very high. It is a tragedy that this country is looking to these people for leadership. It is no wonder that business confidence is on a slow. It is no wonder that this Government is falling in the polls. It is no wonder that it is all over for the Labour Party.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Madam Speaker, tēnā koe. Kia mōhio mai koe kua pā mai te āhuatanga o te mate ki a au tonu o Ngāti Rangiwewehi, kua tae anō tōna ringa ki a Ngāti Manawa, ka Ngāti Tūwharetoa, ki ētahi anō hoki o te rohe o Te Waiariki i te wiki kua hipa ake nei. Nō reira, tukua ahau kia tangi i aku tangi.

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

Madam Speaker, greetings. I bring to your attention the bereavements that are upon me of Ngāti Rangiwewehi specifically, as well as those who have been touched by the hand of death at Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, and other parts of the Waiariki constituency in the week just past. Therefore I seek your indulgence to allow me to lament my grief.]

E Niho, Hōhepa, Te Whakapūmautanga, moe mai rā!

E-te hu-nga kua moe, takoto mai rā ee – eeei,

I-te moenga roa, i-te moenga ma-kariri ee – eeei;

Kei-te hotu-hotu rā, ko-te ngau o-te mamae ee – eeei,

Mō ko-uto-u te hu-nga ma-te, kua nga-ro rā ee – eeei,

Nei rā te maioha, nei hoki te aro-ha ee –eeei.

Nā ko-uto-u au i āwhina, i ngā tau ee – eeei,

Kia eke-mai Te Tō-ranga-pū Māori, ki-ngā paki-tara o-te Whare nei ee – eeei.

Ki tōna tāhu iri ake, wā tātou kōrero ee – eeei.

Kua e-ke pānuku, kua eke Tanga-roa ee – eeei,

Kua e-ke ki te tau-mata, e kui mā, e koro mā i te pō-o ee – eeei!

[I say to you Niho, Hōhepa, and Te Whakapūmautanga, slumber on!

Those of you who have passed on, lie upon the altar of the departed,

Sleep the long sleep, the sleep that knows not the cold;

We weep as the pain of your passing gnaws deep,

For you the departed lost to us forever,

Here is the farewell, made with affection.

You who for years have supported me,

So that the voice of the Māori Party will reverberate from the walls of this House.

Words which will resound from its ridgepole.

You have made your journey;

You have reached the ultimate of life, which is death itself!]

My family and my tribe of Ngāti Rangiwewehi have just these last few days buried one of our identities, the people of Ngāti Manawa in Murupara last week buried one of their key speakers, and before that Ngāti Tūwharetoa farewelled one of the key speakers of the house of te Heuheu. I bring them and the other mate o Waiariki to this House to join with those who have been mourned by us these last few weeks, and, in particular, Tahu Asher, David Lange, and Rod Donald. Haere koutou ki tua o te pae o maumahara.

[To you collectively, depart beyond the horizon of remembrance.]

Te whai i te kōrero means “to follow the talk”. It is acknowledged that once the speech has opened, the job of the last speaker is to ensure that the mauri of the pae, the essence of the speech-making, returns to the tangata whenua. I note that Shane Jones, son of the north, opened the debate, and I have great pleasure in closing.

I am pleased that the movement on tikanga Māori in this House is taking place, planned or otherwise. Tēnā tātou katoa. I acknowledge the appointment of the Hon Margaret Wilson as Speaker, that of Clem Simich as Deputy Speaker, and that, of course, of yourself, Madam Assistant Speaker. I wish you luck; I am sure that we in the Māori Party will do our best, with humour and respect, to make your job easier. Where there are issues of tikanga Māori, we will be more than willing to offer you some advice, in a spirit of good will and a willingness to share, as well as in recognition of the role tangata whenua can make in shaping how we can behave in this House. Tangata whenua do have a place in this country, just as Pākehā tauiwi have. The challenge of this House is to acknowledge the tangata whenua presence, rather than to refer to that as being too PC—or, as some might say, “Pākehā-Centred”.

Today I welcomed members of the tribes of the Waiariki, the electorate I was chosen to represent. These tribes include my own, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, and the confederation of Te Arawa, as well as the people of Mātaatua, Tākitimu, and Tainui waka who reside within the Bay of Plenty. Just getting here to Parliament was a huge effort on their part, and I thank them all for their efforts on my behalf. This is their day, not mine.

Waiariki is a land of many hapū and marae. These hapū and iwi are associated with places such as Te Kaha, pōtiki, Te Uruwera, Murupara, Whakatāne, Te Teko, Te Waimana, Taupō, Tauranga, Rotorua, and Maketū. The people of these tribes maintain a long and proud history that carries with it treasures of tradition, customs, values, and beliefs.

Large numbers of my electorate give generously and freely to community service. Few groups can compare with the hours these people collectively give to maintaining their marae, their lands, their sacred places, their customs and traditions, their wānanga, kura kaupapa Māori, and kōhanga reo, their tribal authorities, land trusts, and incorporations. This collective effort results in the maintenance of bonds of kinship. They give, not for themselves, but for their people. It is with humility that I pledge myself to work for them in this House. Ko au tonu tēnei.

[This, then, is me.]

My wife and children are here as well. Should I return to Rotorua having failed to persuade this House that I have been right on points of order, or having observed the delicate sidestep as a Minister fudges a response to my well-thought-out and researched questions, I am sure they will share my frustration but also offer unconditional support. Ka nui taku aroha ki a koutou tae ra anō ki a koe Moeahu.

[My affection for all of you, including you, Moeahu, is immense.]

There are many people I want to acknowledge, but I will not compromise my tikanga by naming them for fear that I will offend those who are not named and who themselves have made sacrifices to ensure my presence in this House. You know who you are; I know who you are; we all know who you are.

I come here mindful of a huge responsibility our people have placed on me and the Māori Party. I feel inspired that I am a part of a movement of people who are keen and enthusiastic about the opportunities that lie ahead of this party. I feel proud to sit in this team, small as it is at present—but stunningly good-looking and sharp too! Kātahi te hunga huatau!

[What a stunningly good-looking lot!]

Mokomoko o Te Whakatōhea made a statement before being hanged for a crime he did not commit. He has since been pardoned. Mokomoko said: “Tangohia te taura i taku kakī, kia waiata au i taku waiata.”—“Take the rope from my throat so that I may sing my song.” This, I believe, was a reference to his desire to let the world know the truth about his conviction. I feel like that today. Here we are, the Māori Party, freely able to sing our song without concern for being told to get in behind or be quiet. We are here, proud of our role, defending Māori rights and advancing the aspirations of our people for the betterment of the whole country. As a party, we seek to give voice to the voiceless in a Parliament in which the voices of the tangata whenua are listened to and heard.

It is a special honour to serve as a representative for Waiariki when, for the first time in over 100 years, Māori have a party in this House that is an independent voice for the Māori people. I follow in the footsteps of others from my rohe who have served in this House: Paraone Reweti, Sir Peter Tapsell, the Hon Tuariki Delamere, and the two current members, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, of the Manunui family, and Mita Ririnui. In mentioning them, I acknowledge their families and the generations that preceded them. Tēnā kōrua.

I cannot say that I have ever aspired to be a parliamentarian. Who would have known, when I was elected bell-ringer at Ngongotaha Primary School, that that was my apprenticeship for election to Parliament!

I have been guided by the following mentors who have all passed on: Hiko Hōhepa, Irirangi Tiakiawa, Hohua Tutengaehe, John Tapiata, Tuaiwa Rickard, Te Hiko and Mona Riini, my uncle Pākake, and my mother. I cannot recall too many conversations with any of them about Te Ao Māori without a reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its importance to us as Māori in affirming our rights here in Aotearoa. These lessons have stuck with me. Then there are the others who inspire me. They are my Māori Party colleagues whom I sit with in this House. I am in extraordinary company.

Coming to grips with parliamentary life has been rather eventful. I realised I had actually made it when, a few weeks back, I was donged on the head by a film crew’s sound man as it was chasing me down the corridor. I remain in absolute awe of Matangireia, where Tā Apirana Ngati, Tā Māui Pōmare, Te Rangi Hiroa Buck, Timi Kara, Eruera Tirikātene, and Matiu Rata watch over us. These men and their achievements are celebrated in waiata and haka, and were so in my old school of St Stephen’s, at Te Aute College, and in their tribal areas. They are legends. To be here tracing the footsteps of the Young Māori Party, as it was, is truly an honour.

It is worth noting that Shane Jones, Hone Harawira, Mahara Okeroa, Pita Sharples, and myself are products of Māori boarding schools. What better endorsement! These schools have struggled in the current environment. I am convinced that their ongoing potential to produce leaders of tomorrow remains, and they should be given the support they need to survive, and even be resurrected.

I have often wondered what parliamentary life might have been like for those early Māori MPs. Every story I have ever heard is that they were honourable politicians steeped in tikanga and mātauranga Māori, as well as equipped in te ao Pākehā. Yet they would have been in an environment that may well have been hostile to, and intolerant of, a Māori world view. That is perhaps why our people over the years have referred to Parliament as te ana o te raiona, the den of the lion; te mura o te ahi, a reference to the flash of fire that comes from the battlefield; and te waha o te taniwha, the mouth of the taniwha. These references imply battle, fighting, conflict, and struggle.

I am here inspired by those within the Māori activist and protest movement who dared to challenge. Their call to honour the Treaty resonates in this House today. I am here, also, with Hone Heke, Te Kooti a Rikirangi, Te Whiti o Rongomai, Tohu Kākahi, Tītokowaru, Tahupōtiki Rātana, Te Puea, Whina Cooper, and Apirana Ngata. I am here because our people have used the law in every other possible avenue to express our reality and live as Māori. Our tīpuna have died in the defence of what was theirs. The blood soaks the land.

I have sought to promote revolution by education, and, along with others, have been involved in teaching workshops on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, decolonisation, and the country’s history. If we were to educate our people—indeed, the nation—about our history and the rights inherent in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, about why things are as they are, then perhaps we could start making positive changes for all of us. I never considered being a parliamentarian, because, as a long-time teacher about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Aotearoa history, I have punished myself for years teaching about laws made against our people over time. And here I am now, part of that lawmaking machine. I have always wondered why any Māori would want to come here to this place, which screams “nationhood” yet bleats like Shrek when part of that nationhood includes us tangata whenua.

Do people know what it is like to face the people of Parihaka, and talk about the 1880 Maori Prisoners Act, when over 200 Taranaki people were placed in prison without trial? The people of Parihaka still talk about the soldiers coming into their village, while the children played on the road, and the women took food to the soldiers as a gesture of manaakitanga. They also talk about their people being taken away, and the villages being burnt to the ground. They remember those events through sayings like “E tū tamawāhine i te wā o te kore.”—a reference to encourage women to stand and speak because all of the men had been taken away to prison—and in song, like “Piki mai Pungarehu, ka Tangi mai te Piukura”,

[“Rise up, Pungarehu, at the Sound of the Bugle”]

which refers to the bugle call at the army camp at Pungarehu. It signals the final stage in the process of loss.

Do people know what it is like to talk to the Tūhoe people about confiscation? A line has been placed on the current road to mark the confiscated area. That place is called manemanerau. And people wonder why Māori vent their anger and shed tears.

If members believe that these are the sorts of stories that are from way back in the dim, dark ages, the process used over the seabed and foreshore legislation tells us that those colonial attitudes are still with us now. Know that our people hurt. They hurt then; they hurt now. Know and understand that the foreshore and seabed legislation, driven by the Labour Government and supported by others, will live in the hearts of future generations of Māori.

I am a fair-minded person, as I believe most thinking New Zealanders are. It is because of this that I struggle to understand how injustices that are right in front of our eyes seem to go unnoticed. Fact: the Māori language is an official language of this country. One would think, then, that having simultaneous translation of that language, to assist members in this House, was a given. Fact: I ask my colleagues of this House to consider that one Māori electorate MP covers an area that is filled with possibly up to 10 general seats—same resources and money. It certainly makes it difficult for Māori to participate in the democratic process. Some 10 years ago I led a protest at one of the many hui where the National Government was told where it could put its plan to settle all compensation claims for $1 billion. It was told that around 12 times, and still it did not get it. Worse, that fiscal envelope remains in place now.

Consider also one of the most important matters affecting Māori today, including most of my electorate. The tribes are engaged in a process of rebuilding their tribal institutions in ways that are consistent with their tikanga, in order to meet Crown requirements for the settlement of Treaty claims. But the State currently sets and controls the process by which iwi representatives are selected to settle the claims and to establish the governing bodies. The State has a paternalistic, hands-on involvement in deciding who speaks for the tribe in negotiations with the State itself. It appoints the person who will conduct the selection process, whether or not the tribe has a structure or a process of its own in place. Iwi were not involved in designing the process. The record shows that it has not been debated in any committee of this House nor in the House as a whole. As it is not provided for by any Act of this Parliament, the integrity of the process cannot be tested in the courts.

I come to this House committed to two goals. The first is to advance the progress of Māori cosmology—our own values of love, respect, dignity, kinship, and integrity. Those values are enduring. The second, but not the least, is to advance the interests of all New Zealanders in building a society in which we can all live in harmony, not in spite of the Māori presence but because of it. Time has proven that Māori must have a truly independent voice in this House, if the issues that affect us are to be raised and our rights are to be respected. It is still the case that those rights are frequently overlooked, and that some old colonial attitudes continue to constrain Māori in the management and development of our own affairs. We believe that our connections across and between the distinctive cultural communities of Aotearoa are what binds us together. Those rights are not hard to identify. They are set out in the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Pivotal to this declaration is article 3, where indigenous peoples have the right to determination.

I close by saying that having listened to a number of the maiden speeches in this House over the last week or so, I am inspired by many. Maybe we do have that chance to build a future that does respect me, Māori. I live in hope. I sense the passion and honesty. I sense that all of us, Māori and Pākehā, want similar things: our children to be well-educated and healthy, citizens of the world, speaking both English and Māori. Māori now have a party that can raise those issues without fear of compromising their party loyalty and their people. I will ensure that the issues of justice and fair play are exposed and debated, freely and openly, by all of us. I believe that it is only in that way that we will develop that true understanding of our respective traditions and values that will enable us to move forward as a united people, sharing common goals.

David Lange said in his maiden speech in 1977: “I see Parliament as a talking shop where ideas are bandied about, where the Executive is held to account for its actions; I see it as a place where the nation can be inspired, where lofty ideals can be generated and disseminated. I see Parliament as the place that leads the country, and moulds the country, so that it goes on to better times.” That is where I want to be! Tēnā koutou katoa.

Dirge

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): It is extraordinarily difficult to compete with such a beautiful waiata. In speaking to the Imprest Supply Bill, I would like to signal—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to clarify that the member’s speech is starting from now and not from when she was called.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Yes, it is.

HEATHER ROY: I thank Mr Mallard very much for making that point. I stand to outline the ACT party’s lack of confidence in this Government. It is very sad that the debate on the Imprest Supply Bill has been dogged by trivial speeches—in particular, speeches made by members on the other side of the House—whereas, there are matters of great importance for us to debate in this forty-eighth Parliament. The ACT party sees these issues in three categories: firstly, the need for tax cuts; secondly, the Labour Party’s denying of them in favour of welfare for families, sometimes referred to as Working for Families; and, thirdly, the huge and considerable problem that welfare is in this country.

At the moment Wellington is abuzz with rumours that company tax rates are about to drop.

Hon Member: Are they really!

HEATHER ROY: Yes, apparently. ACT campaigned hard on that issue—[Interruption] I hope it is not, I say to Mr Henare, and I hope it is the truth. Treasury briefing papers to the incoming Minister recommended cuts to the 39c and 33c rates of income tax, but I do not think we are about to see that happen. ACT campaigned for those rates to drop, and it was the only party to do so. Average families in New Zealand are no better off today than they were in 1999. Any increase in wages has been offset by legislation put in place by this greedy Labour Government. What would really help New Zealand families significantly today—and would have helped them for every day of the last 6 years—are tax cuts for every Kiwi worker.

ACT will continue to campaign, as will other parties on this side of the House, to lower company tax rates and personal tax rates. The House should note seriously that 60 percent of voters in the election supported parties that promised lower taxes. Instead, we have a Labour Government that steadfastly refuses to budge the personal taxation rate and, at this point, the company tax rate. What do we have instead of tax cuts? The Labour Government has to introduce legislation to accommodate interest-free student loans, which will make more people dependent on the State, and to institute an expanded welfare for families package—sometimes referred to as Working for Families. In effect, instead of making people less reliant on the State, this will turn another 350,000 families into State beneficiaries. When the Working for Families package was first instituted, the Labour Government turned an extra 150,000 families into State beneficiaries. The expansion of the Working for Families package, as promised by the Labour Government and about to be put in place by legislation, will turn another 350,000 families into State beneficiaries.

Welfare in this country is already a huge problem. We have seen steadily increasing numbers of sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit. Unemployment may be dropping, but we know that the number of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit has increased steadily over the last 5 years. Over the last 5 years the number of people on the sickness benefit has increased by 35 percent and on the invalids benefit by 41 percent. The question is: have we suddenly become a very sick nation? No, we have not. What we are seeing is a movement of people, a massaging of statistics, from the unemployment benefit directly on to sickness benefit and invalids benefit. We need to do something about it. Welfare does nobody any good—not the Government, and not the taxpayer who has to fork out money to provide welfare for people. We should have a safety net; instead, we have a safety hammock—a hammock that has become so distended that we cannot tell the truly vulnerable trapped within it from the people who are there because the incentives that have been put in place allow those people to take advantage of them—people who are able-bodied and should be moving into the workforce and contributing to New Zealand, to the New Zealand economy, and to New Zealand society in the meaningful way that many of those people would like to do.

So this is about incentives—incentives that the Government should be encouraging, and that the Government has the obligation to provide for New Zealanders. We should be encouraging hard work, and we should be encouraging independence from Government. We know that most people want to work, and we know that we have some very vulnerable people in our society. But, by making people dependent on the Government, we take away their independence—and their ability, ultimately—to provide for themselves and their families. Yet we know that children who grow up in families that have one or two parents working are ultimately much better off. The reason that ACT does not support the incentives and initiatives the Government has put in place is that they are not the right ones. We want the Government to put the right ones in place. We want initiatives that encourage hard work, we want people to be led by example, and we want people to be independent of the Government. That is what is best for New Zealanders and that is what is best for each and every one of us. The Government has the ability and the responsibility to provide that for New Zealanders. The best way of starting that process is to provide tax cuts for New Zealanders. The surplus we have is absolutely outrageous. The only thing that the huge surplus we have at the moment should tell New Zealanders is that this Government is incapable of sorting out its Budget properly. It is taking more from New Zealanders than it needs to.

Chris Auchinvole: It’s not theirs.

HEATHER ROY: The member is quite right. It is not the Government’s money. It is taxpayers’ money that is being spent for them. Instead of being able to use that money themselves, as they should, that ability has been taken away from them. The people who know how to spend that money best themselves are New Zealand working families. That ability should be given to them, and it is not at present.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): What decent New Zealanders would not have felt sick today when they heard the Acting Prime Minister answer questions about David Benson-Pope? My colleague Judith Collins asked legitimate questions about a man who is legally the guardian of all those New Zealand children who do not have fit parents of their own. In response to those questions the Acting Prime Minister, Dr Cullen, introduced into this House a series of allegations regarding the activities of victims of Mr Benson-Pope some 22 years ago. That is the best Labour can do. Is it not an incredible inversion of who is strong and who is weak? Here we have a Minister of the Crown, one of the more powerful positions to hold in this country, being defended by Labour with allegations that cannot be answered against what a kid did when he was 13 or 14.

Hon Trevor Mallard: And 15, and 16, and 17.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: So it goes on. I want to say to that young man, whose name I do not know, that Labour members are out to get him. They are out to get him because they think that is a fair price that that young man should pay to save the career of David Benson-Pope. What has that young man done to deserve this? Well, he might have done some things that are wrong. Many young teenagers have. What we do know for sure is that David Benson-Pope, in a position of adult and professional responsibility, did do something wrong. We have the police to tell us he did.

So let us think about what might amount to a fair go here. Trevor Mallard and Dr Michael Cullen, two of Labour’s more vicious operators, are pursuing a young man who, 22 years after the incident, still felt compelled to complain to the police. Of course it mattered to him. That is the red corner—No. 2 and No. 4 in the Government. And in the other corner is the victim, who, after 22 years, still felt so disturbed that he sought—

Hon Trevor Mallard: A million-dollar diary.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Trevor Mallard’s “dirt file” is full again. We have heard about the “dirt file” in this House before.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s Tuku Morgan’s diary.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All that is going on here is the intimidation by senior Labour Ministers of some young New Zealander. He is now getting three warnings from Trevor Mallard today. The reference to Tuku Morgan simply reinforces that this young man can expect the same kind of public exposure, kicking, and vicious compassion that only those two Ministers can hand out, and it is a disgrace. It is the crowning disgrace on a very bad start to the history of this Government and its term.

Chris Auchinvole: It’s scary.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is scary. Let us bear in mind the position that David Benson-Pope holds. I understand that legally Ruth Dyson is the Minister in charge of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, but David Benson-Pope is the Minister for Social Development and Employment and he actually has equivalent legal powers. When we look at the Ministry of Social Development briefing—which is rotten with meaningless “Mahareyisms”—a few of the words that stick out are about violence. Actually, the Ministry of Social Development identifies, as the top social priority for Government policy, lifting the level of achievement of those children who are underachieving in school. That is the briefing that was put on David Benson-Pope’s desk.

Is Labour so bereft of political and administrative talent that that man should stay in charge of the department that looks after New Zealand’s vulnerable people? The answer to that is yes; that is why he has to stay there. He is only the fourth to be investigated by the police. The Government cannot put the other three in there.

Is this Parliament so bereft of compassion for those young New Zealanders who were victims that we will stand by and let that happen? The answer to that is no. The Government can expect more questions on this matter. David Benson-Pope should show up and answer. He should come out of hiding and take responsibility. As Rodney Hide pointed out, the conflicting evidence in front of the police consists of one piece of conflict, and that is David Benson-Pope maintaining that he never did it. He told this Parliament he never did it, and that is serious. Parliament takes that very seriously. If members say they never sped or missed the plane, that does not matter, but if the Minister says he never beat up the kids, but all the other kids say he did, and the police say he has a case to answer, then he absolutely has a case to answer in this Parliament. He will struggle mightily to answer the case to the public; he will try to hide from it. But he must answer the case in this House. He absolutely must do so, because he said on his word in this House that he did not do it.

Actually the dishonesty—if that is what it is—is only the secondary consideration. The primary one is that he maintains a position of responsibility at the grace and favour of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who of course knows all about prima facie evidence of criminal activity. It is the deep empathy between the two that keeps him there.

Who is left to answer the questions on it? It is Dr Cullen. I might say that I think Dr Cullen’s misjudgments today reflect the pressure that Helen Clark and the Labour Government are putting on that man. He is now “Mr Fix-it” for everything. Tertiary education is his next one, and I will tell him now that it will be more difficult than the foreshore, even if it is less controversial. He is the man who had to answer all the questions about the stupid arrangement between Winston Peters and Helen Clark. He is the man who will have to answer more questions if David Benson-Pope does not come to this House. I say to Dr Cullen that he is being taken for granted. He is the last credible Minister in this Government, and, given the way pressure is being put on him, that credibility will not last if he keeps giving the kinds of answers he did today.

Occasionally this Parliament must take seriously what MPs say in here. David Benson-Pope said that he did not abuse young children. He is in charge of a department whose fundamental responsibility is for exactly the most vulnerable of our young people. He must come here, he must explain himself, then he must go.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): My colleague Bill English has rightly questioned the people who make up this rotten, tired Government. This is the Government—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is this the man who beat up John Carter?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I used to call Mr Mallard the No. 1 bully in the Labour Government. I now have to call him the No. 2 bully. He has definitely been out-bullied by David Benson-Pope. It is not just the individuals who make up this Government and the parties that make up this Government, but it is also the policies that make up this Government that are seriously lacking in credibility.

I have before me here the Speech from the Throne, which refers to the wonderful shape the New Zealand economy is in after 6 years of this Labour Government. It discusses a thriving, knowledge-based economy and society underpinned, would one believe, by values of fairness. I ask Mr Mallard what sort of fairness we saw this afternoon from the Attorney-General, when he attacked one of the victims of the David Benson-Pope tennis ball exercise.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to point out to the member that the Deputy Prime Minister is not the Attorney-General. He should catch up with the facts.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is not a point of order. It is just a desperate tactic by a desperate Minister to try to interrupt this speech, because he is trying to defend the indefensible. [Interruption] Can the Minister who is shouting and interjecting explain this for me: why did the Speech from the Throne refer to a booming, wonderful economy in exactly the same week in which a business survey showed the lowest level of business confidence in 17 years? Is it, I ask Mr Mallard, that the business sector does not understand? Is it that somehow the survey has got it all wrong? Or is it simply that the Minister cannot explain it? The Speech from the Throne has no credibility.

And then we have the issue of—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Everyone knows you’re hopeless!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Mallard, the man who has been sacked as Minister of Education—every portfolio he touches ends up in trouble—tries to interrupt the debate. I would like the Minister—the former Minister of Energy—to explain this. Meridian Energy’s Chief Executive, Keith Turner, has stated that: “The New Zealand electricity grid is so overworked that lines cannot be taken out of action for servicing. That is unheard of in the Western developed world.” Who was the Minister who was in charge of our energy sector? It was Mr Mallard. So Mr Mallard, according to Dr Keith Turner, has been in charge of a system that is involved in things that are unheard of in the Western World. [Interruption]

The Associate Minister of Energy, Harry Duynhoven, interjects and says we should not believe Dr Keith Turner.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: That’s not what I said at all. Once again, you’ve misled the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, what did the member say? He should tell us what he said.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: What did National do in the 9 years it was in Government about infrastructure?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, he did not say that at all. Dr Keith Turner is being paid $1.3 million a year by this Government. He happens to have a PhD in transmission, yet he says to Mr Harry Duynhoven and Mr Mallard, the responsible Ministers, that our grid is so overworked that some lines—

Hon Trevor Mallard: He did not say that at all. Why don’t you tell the truth?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me quote: “The New Zealand electricity grid is so overworked that lines cannot be taken out of action for servicing. That is unheard of in the Western developed world.” That is a disgrace. That Minister there is responsible for that mess, and it is highlighted in one briefing after another.

I have a briefing here from Treasury, which states that our electricity networks are seriously under-invested in. Well, who has been responsible for the investment? Who has made the decisions for the last 6 years that have led Treasury to state that the Government is guilty of serious under-investment?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: There were 9 years of under-investment.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Harry Duynhoven interjects and wants to roll the clock back. I say to Mr Duynhoven that power consumption has gone up by 20 percent since he has been in Government, and the network has not changed since then. So a basic bit of engineering mathematics would suggest that Mr Duynhoven had about a 20 percent freeload or surplus when National left office that has been undermined during his time in this Government—he has failed.

But, even further, the Government has also under-invested in the area of transport—another area where Harry Duynhoven has failed. The briefings from Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development again highlight roading as an area where this Government has failed. The briefings state that, in that area, current Government policy is not working. Even more interesting is what Treasury has to say about roading policies under this Government. It states that we need a clean, transparent system for funding. Well, that is a code for saying it is not clean and transparent at the moment. Treasury is stating that the system has become one of pork-barrel politics, and that was even before the dirty deals that this Government has done with regard to United Future and New Zealand First over roading in Ohariu-Belmont and in Tauranga. One even has the Treasury stating that there is a confused mess of policies in respect of roading.

Then one comes to the Treasury briefing on the Resource Management Act. If there is any issue that members on the Opposition side of the House have given so many speeches on as almost to bore themselves with, it is the need to reform the Resource Management Act. And what does Treasury state? It states that National is absolutely right. It states that the Resource Management Act represents a significant impediment to dealing with the roading and electricity issues that this nation faces. It goes even further, and I quote: “There is a need to review the balance between development and protection in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act.” And what does Labour say? Labour says that it will not change it. It refuses to make any amendments to the Resource Management Act, and particularly to Part 2, in direct contradiction to the recommendations of Treasury. That is a recipe for guaranteeing ongoing difficulties with the basic items of infrastructure, such as roading and electricity, that New Zealanders are waiting for.

But even in terms of the little issues that annoy New Zealanders—it is one of the reasons that there are 24 new National colleagues sitting in this Parliament—I say New Zealanders have had a gutsful of the petty, silly regulation that comes from this Government. No better is that illustrated than in the ruling that the “bra fence” in Otago requires a resource consent under the Resource Management Act. Does Harry Duynhoven think that is sensible law?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: No.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh well, good! I now have an admission from a Minister in the Government that he does not think it is sensible law, under this Government’s policies, that a resource consent is needed for a “bra fence”. So I ask Mr Duynhoven what he is going to do about it. Well, the response is deafening.

Hon Bill English: Is he going to wear that one?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague asks whether Mr Duynhoven is going to wear that one. I simply ask Mr Duynhoven whether he is committed to the reform of the Resource Management Act.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: We have already.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, it is interesting, is it not? We have all sorts of weasel words from Harry Duynhoven, and the simple view is—[Interruption] Well, the Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act says that it will not be reformed, yet that member says it has been.

Hon Bill English: Harry who?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Harry who, indeed! We have so many different views—confusion within the Government. We have no clear view, even about a policy as fundamental as the Resource Management Act, and the need for reform in that area.

It is little wonder that that tired, decrepit Government looks, with each day of the House, more and more as though it is on death row. Whether it is the machinations of Trevor Mallard or the whimpering from Harry Duynhoven, with each day that goes by the Government looks more and more decrepit. Whether it is individuals like David Benson-Pope—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: You really are a low form of parliamentary life.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh—can Mr Harry Duynhoven explain why we would have—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member’s time has expired.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): We are now fewer than 2 hours away from the end of the first sitting of this new Parliament, and we see a Government in disarray. [Interruption] I can tell members that the last time I saw that—and Trevor Mallard was in the House at the time—was in the period 1987-89, when we saw a Labour Government collapsing. And that is what we have seen this week. When we looked around this House today, we saw Labour Ministers with their mouths down, and their faces long. This Government has the smell of death about it. I know it, because I smelt it in 1989 when that Labour Government went out then, just as this one is going out now.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is the case in this House, I think, that when members quote people—and the member is quoting Simon Upton—they should at least give them credit for their words.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, no. The member knows—[Interruption] I am on my feet. I am dealing with a point of order. The member is lucky still to be here. The member knows that when I am dealing with a point of order, there will be silence—and that includes him. That is not a point of order. The member will please continue.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a tactic of Mr Trevor Mallard, every time the Government is on the ropes and in trouble, to take non – points of order. Previous Speakers have taken the view that repeated nonsensical points of order are dealt with by asking the member to leave the Chamber. I simply ask you, as the Assistant Speaker, to keep up the rulings that if members deliberately break up a very competent speech—like that of my colleague Lockwood Smith—the Speaker ensures that tradition of dealing appropriately with members who take irrelevant points of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): All matters that need to be dealt with will be dealt with by the presiding officers, and they will make those decisions. It is not acceptable to break up a member’s speech, as the member has said, and it will be dealt with.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Do members know the other great parallel with that Lange Labour Government that met its death throes in the late 1980s? Business confidence this week hit the deepest low since 1987. That is the great parallel. A headline in today’s Independent states: “Business in crisis”. Business confidence is now as low as it was when the Lange-led Labour Government was in its death throes in the late 1980s, and this Clark-Peters Government looks sick this week. It has come to us today wanting this Parliament to vote it another $4.8 billion in this Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill, at a time when Treasury is saying to the Government in its briefing papers that one of the biggest issues facing this Government is the “challenge of containing the recent growth in Government spending.” In fact, in the executive summary, Treasury said: “Future budgets must”—it did not say should—“involve less new spending than in recent years, to stabilise the size of Government expenditure in the economy and to free up resources for growth-promoting initiatives.”

At a time when Treasury is saying that Government spending is out of control, this Government, this Labour bunch, comes back here and wants us to vote them another $4.8 billion of extra spending. That is something this Parliament should not approve of. Of course, Dr Cullen says that he knows better than Treasury. He said its stuff was a 3-yearly ideological burp, and in this House gave the derogatory comment that the 1980s lives on, on The Terrace. But I would say to Dr Cullen that he is just like an alcoholic denying he is still on the bottle. Dr Cullen seems not to be able to face up to the fact that this Government’s spending is totally out of control. Three times in the last 3 weeks he has claimed to be running a prudent fiscal strategy. When the Reserve Bank gave its briefing, Dr Cullen said: “Oh, no. We are running a prudent fiscal strategy.” He used the same words when Treasury gave its briefing. But there is nothing prudent about this Government’s massive increase in spending—$4.8 billion in this bill for interest-free student loans, and for expanding the Working for Families package that the ACT speaker said would bring another few hundred thousand into the benefit system, and another billion for capital expenditure.

No one can describe that as anything other than spending that is totally out of control. In fact, we know that State sector spending has doubled in the last few years, and as we look ahead we see that the increased requirement for spending just on the State sector wage bill is a billion dollars a year. This Parliament should say, as we are now within an hour and a half of the end of this first sitting week, that it will not grant this Government this money. Labour has to prove to this House that spending is coming under control. Business is in crisis—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Of course, Clayton Cosgrove would not know, because he has nothing to do with business. I say to Clayton Cosgrove that he should listen to what business people are saying. He should look at what the survey of business confidence has shown—that business confidence is at the lowest level since the last Labour Government. It is the lowest since the terminal days of the Lange-led Labour Government. Business confidence is in crisis, and we are now seeing this Clark - Peters Labour Government in its death throes.

The Government says that it spends to help people. I have heard Dr Cullen say previously in this House that this money is needed to help families, through the expansion of the Working for Families package. I put a challenge in front of some of the Labour members sitting opposite. If they care about low-income people, I want them to explain to me about low-income working families who stay off the benefit—families who do not go cap in hand to the Government to ask it for money but who actually try to earn their own living. There are 5,000 of those families in New Zealand, and if they try to work a bit harder to earn another dollar, do members know what tax they pay on that extra dollar? I will tell members. I will make it easy and say that on each extra $100 that those 5,000 families might earn, they pay $101.20 in tax. They lose more money in tax than they earn. They are poor families—their income is only $10,000 to $20,000 per year. They are not on benefits. There are 5,000 of those families in New Zealand, and those Labour members opposite do not give a stuff about them. They are the forgotten families of New Zealand. They are poor families, and this money—if we vote for this imprest supply legislation—will not go towards helping them.

Labour’s election bribe in the Working for Families package will not help one of those 5,000 families. That is a disgrace. We should not pass this bill until those Labour members opposite go away and come back with policy that will help those poor families and their children. However, we have seen today that Labour members do not care one jot about children. David Benson-Pope is a Minister protected by Helen Clark. He has the same integrity and values as Helen Clark, who fraudulently signs paintings. He has proven to this House today that he does not care about poor children. Clearly, this Government, with its Working for Families package, does not care about children from poor families either, because 5,000 families in this country have been forgotten about. They face a marginal tax rate of over 100 percent. This bill should not be passed.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance): I rise to support the Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill. I start off by pointing out a couple of home truths to Dr Smith. Dr Smith quoted, I believe, from the Treasury briefing to incoming Ministers, when he advocated that future Budgets must involve less spending.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It’s what Treasury said.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed, I accept the member’s word on that; I am aware of what Treasury said. But I also ask the member whether he is suffering from déjà vu and advise him to get some treatment for it. If we look at the National Party’s spending package that it went to the country on not a couple of months ago, and would have implemented—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Spending isn’t tax. The member’s confused.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The member has gone troppo; he should just calm down and relax. The National Party’s proposed campaign platform—we will deal with spending in a moment—in essence, promised a $4 billion tax cut, of which most New Zealanders would get zip and most members in this House would get about 100 bucks per week. If we add to that $5 billion worth of spending promises, which I will get to in a moment, and $3.7 billion worth of borrowing, does that suggest that National members have any credibility to be able to get up in this House and talk about fiscal prudence? This was the Opposition that, in the dying days of the last election campaign, wanted to drop petrol by 5c—not for any ethical, philosophical, ideological, proper, right, or professional motive, but because it wanted to. It would have done that for, what, 6 months, just to try to scrape over the line with a few extra percentage points of the vote. Well, people found National out. People know that National has no credibility when it comes to spending.

After having heard that pious, vein-popping speech from Dr Smith, who talked about pious fiscal prudence, let us look at what National would have done had it become the Government. National’s transport policy involved an extra two hundred million bucks per year. A National Government would have spent an extra $1.864 billion on defence, $300 million on law and order, $124 million on hard labour, $20 million on compulsory DNA testing, and $319 million on the environment. It made spending promises totalling $5.27 billion, combined with the promise of a $4 billion tax cut for its mates. We on this side of the Chamber, however, are not single-issue obsessives. We choose to back working families, not many of whom would vote for that mob over there. I talked in the Address in Reply debate and was stopped—this is telling—by the Mother Teresa of the New Zealand Parliament, Judith Collins, who yawned when I talked about reductions in child poverty. That lot over there do not give a rats about reducing child poverty. Those members do not give a damn about helping those who are in need. National proposed—and it has the audacity to talk about fiscal prudence—$5.27 billion of spending. Maybe Dr Smith was doing an audition to become finance spokesperson again, I do not know. But he had the audacity to lecture this House about prudent fiscal management after having promised a $4 billion tax cut and $5 billion of expenditure based on $3.5 billion of borrowing.

Then there is Dr Brash, the carcass with a coat and tie on. If any member in this Chamber has a smell of death about him, to use Dr Smith’s words, it is that gentleman—although, judging by John Key’s speech, Bill English looks good after today’s effort. If anybody has the smell of rigor mortis around him, in a political sense, it is Dr Brash after that awesome Address in Reply speech. That crew over there should pull out its own manifesto and reflect on it, and on its own campaign promises, and consider how fiscally prudent it would have been had it got into Government. There are two propositions to be advanced from that. The first is that it would have spent the lot, as it proposed to do, and financed its tax cuts through borrowing, as it proposed to do—and as some of its members did throughout the campaign when they went around the country contradicting John Key, who admitted time and time again that National would borrow for tax cuts. In order to replace the revenue it would lose, it would then either cut expenditure or sell assets. Well, it did a lot of the latter last time.

So the question is: would National have honoured its election promises? Maybe it would not have. Maybe Dr Smith is being honest and telling us today that National went to the country telling porkies and that had it got to the Treasury benches it would have backed down on every bribe and every commitment it had made. Well, I thank Dr Smith. He is an honourable person, he has told the truth, and now the people know: they cannot trust that crew—the National Party—either way. What would National have been forced to cut? It would not talk about that during the election. In fact, the biggest thing I remember about the general election campaign is that when we fronted up to meetings and asked National candidates what they would do in education, they stood up and said, for instance: “I believe in high-quality education.” Nobody disagrees with that. But the problem was that they would not finish the sentence. They would sit down, because there was nothing—not a shell of a policy or a framework of a policy. It was hollowed out and there was nothing to it.

I too remember past elections. I remember the 1990 election when Labour did lose. The truth is it went down the gurgler. But I also remember the National Party tactic in that election of promising anything—anything went. If we put out a policy, involving, say, $100 million, National would run it off the Xerox promising $200 million. It would not give any detail on its policy, because it takes the community for granted and believes it is stupid. It is not stupid. The community is smarter than that, and in the last election it saw through National. Either National is prepared to stand up in the House and honour its promises, and say that it would have spent $5.27 billion, that it would have been fiscally imprudent, that it would have given $4 or $5 billion in tax cuts, that it would have borrowed $3.5 billion to do it, and that it would have cut expenditure, or it has to stand up today and say: “We hoodwinked you. We told you what you might have wanted to hear, but had we got on to the Treasury benches we would have sold you out like we did the last time we were in Government.”

National cannot have it both ways; it cannot stand up in this House and pontificate about fiscal prudence and suddenly have amnesia and forget its own manifesto, its own spending promises, its own hoodwinking over petrol tax, and in other areas—it cannot forget that. Suddenly, there is a bit of silence on the other side of the House. Is that not telling? Suddenly the truth has rubbed in. I invite National members to go back and make the same explanation that Dr Smith attempted to make, and to go back to the stump and to the communities and tell them what they would have done. They either would have sold the people out or would have kept their promises and spent the lot. They cannot have it both ways.

This Government is about backing working families. This Government is about backing our teachers. I remember in the election campaign when National members got up and said they wanted to get rid of all those public servants. They stopped saying that after we calculated that the public servants who had been employed—the vast majority of them; not the policy wonks—were police, teachers, and nurses. They were front-line people who look after those in most need. I ask them again about that, because they would not front up on that. I remember that wonderful statement by Dr Brash: “Not one teacher will lose his or her job. Not one nurse will lose her job.” Rubbish! It does not add up. If National cannot add up, and if it does not know the difference in terms of depleting revenue and how one has to make revenue up either through spending cuts or selling assets, then it has no credibility in this House.

I support this Imprest Supply Bill. We will build on what we have done in the last 6 years. We have the lowest unemployment in the OECD, which is 3.4 percent. We have seen 100,000 people come off welfare and go into jobs. We have created 300,000 jobs. National hates it when we say that, because then we compare that with National’s legacy. We created 300,000 more jobs than that crew, and we have been in Government for just on 6 years. National had 9 years. It needs to stump up, get real, and demonstrate some credibility, instead of continuing with the spin and the smoke and mirrors it is using today.

A party vote was called for on the question, That all words after the word “That” be omitted, and the following substituted: “the House declines to give a second reading to the bill because it has no confidence in this Labour minority Government since it has no conviction and purpose and is ignoring the economic challenges New Zealand faces; and calls on the Government to resign immediately.”

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 66

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Imprest Supply (Third for 2005/06) Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4)

First Reading

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): I move, That the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a first time. I shall be recommending later that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration. The fundamental principle behind the child support scheme is, and remains, that parents are financially responsible for their children. The main purpose of this bill is to increase the compliance of parents who, for whatever reason, are presently failing to meet that responsibility by not paying child support, because it is only by bringing non-payers back into the system that their children will receive the support they are entitled to. Having said that, any changes to the child support scheme must also take careful account of individual parents’ ability to meet their obligations, without wringing them out financially and at levels they cannot afford to pay. For that reason, this bill proposes a number of balanced solutions rather than a short-term, punitive approach to getting lapsed payers back into the system.

The first one of these solutions addresses one of the major obstacles to liable parents re-entering the child support system. I am referring to the penalties that quickly escalate as soon as a parent defaults on child support payments. Under the current child support penalty rules, a liable parent’s underlying child support arrears increase by 36.8 percent in the first year and by 28.8 percent in subsequent years. That means that within just 3 years the penalties owed exceed the child support payable. As at 30 September this year, the total child debt payable by liable parents was $427 million in child support arrears, but $584 million in penalties on those arrears. Total penalties have actually exceeded child support arrears since September 2001. This bill will provide limited relief to encourage lapsed parents to re-enter the system without punitive action being taken against them.

It proposes writing off debt penalties—not arrears—as an incentive for non-paying parents to reactivate their payments. But that arrangement will be subject to a number of conditions. When non-payers enter into an agreement with the Inland Revenue Department to make payments on their current liability and their arrears, the incremental penalties they have previously accrued will be written off at 6-monthly review points, but only if they keep to the agreement. That write-off will be based on a pro rata percentage of their core child support arrears, including the 10 percent penalties that have been paid. For liable parents who default on their payment agreement, there will be no write-off at the next review point. Instead, they will have to negotiate a new agreement with the department and comply with that before they again qualify for a write-off.

Because liable parents will not be able to have all their penalties written off, they will still be better off if they pay on time and do not incur penalties, at all. Liable parents who are already complying with the payment arrangement for paying off arrears, or who make regular deductions for their arrears, will also be eligible for the write-offs for payments they make from when the legislation comes into effect. For liable parents who owe penalty debt only, the department will have the discretion to take a case by case approach on whether a write-off should be allowed.

The incentives I have just mentioned are intended to encourage liable parents who have lapsed in their child support payments to reassume financial responsibility for their children’s welfare. The bill also introduces a complementary measure to counter the practice of those parents who deliberately structure their financial affairs to minimise the child support they should be paying. That measure will allow the department to initiate an investigation of liable parents’ financial affairs when it suspects they are paying less child support than they should be. If that investigation establishes that the liability for child support does not accurately reflect a parent’s ability to provide financial support, the department will be able to initiate an administrative review. At present, only the custodial parent can initiate such a review.

A further measure—the introduction of a new appeal right—will provide greater fairness between applicants and respondents following an administrative review. Under the current provisions, unsuccessful applicants can have their case reconsidered by the Family Court, but respondents who are dissatisfied with the results of an administrative review have recourse only through judicial review in the High Court. The new appeal right will allow respondents to also have their case reconsidered in the Family Court. These measures form the principle focus of this bill, but, in addition, it introduces two exemptions from liability for child support.

Under the current provisions, exemptions from paying child support are available to long-term hospital patients and prisoners. This bill will extend that recognition by providing a temporary exemption to young parents under the age of 16 and providing a permanent exemption to the victims of sex offences. The purpose of offering young people of compulsory school age temporary exemption from child support payments is simply to allow them to concentrate on furthering their own education for their long-term benefit and for that of their child. As such, it is a practical recognition of the consequences for young people who become liable for child support at an age when their attendance at school is compulsory. If, however, they undertake part-time or casual employment, they will be required to make a contribution towards the support of their child.

As I have said, the bill also introduces a permanent exemption from child support payments for the victims of sexual offences, and there are two likely scenarios for the application of this exemption. The first is where a male fathers a child as a result of sexual abuse by an older female. The second is where a female who, as a result of sexual abuse, gives birth to a child who is placed in foster care. Under current law, a mother in this latter situation would become liable for child support. Victims should not be further victimised by being required to pay child support for a child born as a result of a sexual crime. That is the thinking behind the new provision, which will permanently exempt these people from any child support obligations upon conviction of the offenders.

Finally, the bill introduces a number of minor remedial amendments of a pragmatic nature. They include a proposal to allow Inland Revenue to accept documentation such as birth certificates from other countries as proof of parentage for the purposes of establishing child support liability. When arrears of child support are collected, priority will be given to payments of child support owed to custodians for periods when they were not receiving a social security benefit over a payment owed to the Crown. The purpose of this change is again driven by the need to protect the welfare of children adversely affected by their parents’ financial actions.

These are the main features of the bill. They will work in tandem with new administrative measures designed to tighten the collection system, such as increased border enforcement. Taken together, the administrative changes and the proposals outlined in the bill make up a balanced package of incentives and controls to ensure that liable parents meet their obligations to their children. Quite simply, for those who do want to comply, we will ensure that they are able to. For those who will not meet their obligations, Inland Revenue will use its full powers for collecting outstanding child support under the existing legislation. The choice is clear and this strategy, together with the specific measures contained in the bill, will make the child support scheme work better for all who are involved in it. I commend the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): Following on from the Minister’s speech, I can say that there is no greater obligation for any parent than the obligation to protect and look after his or her child. One of the points that the Minister has very correctly made is that, unfortunately, some people—mostly men, but some women—do not support their children financially. That is, of course, a form of child abuse. The same people contact members of Parliament like me and other members of this House and talk consistently about their rights of access, etc., to their children, but do not ever talk about their own responsibility to be financially obliged towards their children.

Some people think this matter is not very important, because they think that every parent who should be a liable parent is paying money to the Inland Revenue Department, which comes into the Government coffers. But, of course, that is not right. Certainly, many of those people are doing that—and I think this is a good opportunity to congratulate and thank the people who do meet their liable-parent contribution. Frankly, I think that those people are really good people and that we should thank them for doing that.

Unfortunately, as the Minister has said, there is over a billion dollars in arrears and penalties altogether, and this proposal has a certain amount of writing off of those arrears. I have some concerns about that. Those concerns are—and perhaps I can enunciate them quietly—that if anyone else owes money to the Inland Revenue Department, those people do not normally have their arrears written off. For instance, in the case of a mother who is not on the domestic purposes benefit, but who is working to look after her child and is, hopefully, receiving some money from the liable parent, nobody pays her arrears if she goes to pay for groceries at the supermarket and finds that there is no money in the account because the child’s father has not put the liable-parent contribution in, or that the liable parent has not paid the Inland Revenue Department, which has then not paid the mother. There is nothing to help that woman, who is shamed, humiliated, and unable to do anything much about it.

It is no wonder that sometimes mums and dads who are normally good and responsible mums and dads say things to their children that they should not say about the other parent. Sometimes they do point out that a parent who, for instance, has a significant farm, a significant property, or other things held in trust, is paying only the minimum rate of liable-parent contribution of around $11 a week. Sometimes mothers and fathers do get angry and say things that they should not say because, at the end of the day, they are only human. They are the ones who have to tell the children that they cannot go to the school ball, have the things they want, go on holiday while everyone is on holiday, or be part of the holiday programme at school because there is no money. The parent does not want to say: “No, because Dad is not paying up.”, or “Mum is not paying up.”

I have just about zip sympathy for parents who do not meet their obligations to their children, because I come from a family where that happened. I have also seen it happen in my generation, when one of my sisters was left in that situation. While she was working on the minimum wage, her former husband paid only the minimum amount, even though he had a farm—he still has farms—and properties. To me that is a disgusting state of affairs. Unfortunately, this bill will not necessarily deal very well with that situation.

I accept that the Minister of Revenue has taken over this bill from the former Minister, and I am sure that the current Minister would like to toughen it up. I hope that he will talk to the National Party members on the Social Services Committee about how that can be done, because I am sure we would be very happy to assist him.

A couple of things in this bill are good, and I think we should acknowledge them. One is the review that can be initiated by the Inland Revenue Department. I tell the House that where, for instance, a custodial mother or father is working in a full-time job, as many are, and is running around trying to look after one, two, or three kids and carting them to music lessons, school events, and everything else by themselves—many of us in this House have had that experience; fortunately, touch wood, I have not been in that situation, but one never knows because these things do happen to people—they do not have the time or the money to institute reviews. They do not have the time to deal with the Inland Revenue Department. They do not have the time to deal with those things and they need someone else to do it. I ask the Minister to please make sure that in his time as Minister of Revenue, he makes this matter a priority for the Inland Revenue Department, because the people in this situation are often those who work for minimum wages and who often do not have any spare time or cash. We must help those people.

Another good thing in this bill is the exemption for victims of sex abuse having to pay the liable-parent contribution. I was trying to work out just how this could happen, but I guess it could. A victim of rape could end up as a mother and perhaps have a family member or someone else look after the child, or even—hopefully not, but I suppose it could happen occasionally—the perpetrator of the rape themselves, although why one would want to put a child under the care of a rapist is beyond me. For instance, the mother could end up experiencing further abuse.

At the moment, unfortunately, the bill is not in a state where we think we can support it going to a select committee. We know, of course, that the Government will have the numbers to do it, otherwise it would not be putting it before the House as one of its first bills. So we will be very happy to work to try to toughen up the bill and make it better.

We would really like to look at the whole area of child support, which has, in many ways, become very much a cross-party issue. I do not think too many of us would want to make too much political capital out of the fact that some people do not pay for their own children, but we do want to see the Government take some steps so that people are not rewarded or, in fact, let off for not paying their obligations towards their children. I know of many people—as, I am sure, do other members of the House—who do, as liable parents, contribute in a huge way towards their children, not only in terms of the liable-parent contribution but also in terms of time, of not fighting with their former spouse or other parent, and of spending time and money on their children. Children eat money, particularly teenage children. They eat it like it is going out of fashion—and I see members of the House who are parents are agreeing with me.

Unfortunately, this bill is a bit too soft for us to support. We really want to toughen up this area, because, as the Minister has correctly said, too many liable parents are arranging their affairs to avoid paying anything more than the basic amount towards their children’s upkeep.

Too many parents receiving the domestic purposes benefit are not claiming for the liable-parent contribution. In doing that they are letting an awful lot of fathers—and mothers, in some cases—get away without contributing to what taxpayers are paying. That is important, because rich people are not the only taxpayers; taxpayers are also people who earn $10, $11, or $12 an hour. It is therefore absolutely one of the obligations of members of Parliament to make sure that every single cent of that money is well-spent, and that the people who must contribute do contribute. We will be voting against the bill at this stage.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I acknowledge the member who has just resumed her seat, and I thank the Minister for bringing this important bill to the House. It is certainly true, as the previous speaker has said, that there is no easy way to deal with families in crisis. One of the most difficult things about child support is that the Government is involved in matters of family affairs at exactly the time a family is most vulnerable; where the parents are not speaking to one another, where the children’s relationship with one or other of the parents is often strained, and where, because of the economic lose-lose of a separation, the resources that were once there to go around do not go around. In such circumstances it is hard to objectively ascribe fault. Lord knows, in any relationship fault is shared. Or sometimes it is just strain, or just circumstances, that drive families to the brink.

What we do know is that most often it is the fathers who leave the family home and enter a period of estrangement from the family and from the children. Sometimes it takes people a long time to get their lives back in order, and sometimes people who have got themselves outside their necessary and legitimate child-support obligations to their children realise after a period that they need to do the right thing. Unfortunately, the law as it stands does not support that kind of turn-round, because the sad fact is that when people first get behind in their payments they incur a 10 percent penalty on their child support debt, then 2 percent a month.

I can relate to the House a story about a constituent of mine who, with an initial debt of a couple of tens of thousands of dollars, ended up owing a total debt and penalty mount that was closer to a quarter of a million dollars. The person was on, I think, less than the average wage. The Inland Revenue Department naturally sought to recover what was owed. The person lost their house and is still estranged from their family. The debt penalties have still to be repaid. Nobody won, in that regard. So we have an unresolved problem. Yes, the full force of the law must be used against parents of no conscience who deliberately refuse to support their children. This bill is a balanced package of sticks and carrots that includes some very tough measures to catch people like that.

The previous speaker mentioned the very legitimate case of a parent with assets but perhaps disguised income who is not fully caught by the current rules. This bill makes it easier for the Inland Revenue Department to get a fair deal for the children in a case of that kind, because it gives the commissioner the power to initiate an administrative review that takes into full account the assets—perhaps trust funds, perhaps property—that that parent has. Who would argue? I do not think the previous speaker would argue with that. On the other hand, if the person wants to go a step further and tries to leave the country with a massive child support debt owing, this bill goes alongside administrative measures that will help the Inland Revenue Department toughen up in the area of border security and prevent so-called deadbeat dads from leaving their kids in the lurch, as they leave New Zealand. It also goes alongside something like $17 million in extra resources for the department, which will strengthen case management and investigations on parents who have got behind.

What is balance in such a difficult, personal, and delicate circumstance? To me it is something actually that most parties in this House ought to agree on: it is about coming down hard on those who deliberately seek to deceive and starve their children of the support they deserve; it is about putting kids first, in every circumstance; but it is also about acknowledging that sometimes people want to turn their lives round and get right with their kids, and that the system, as it currently stands, prevents them from doing that by freezing them out under such a mountain of debt and penalties that it is absolutely financially and physically impossible for a dad who wants to get back to his children and be a parent again, albeit an estranged one, to pay his way back. How does someone pay off a quarter of a million dollars of penalties on 30 grand a year? It cannot be done—and there is no incentive to. The only incentive is to go bankrupt or leave New Zealand, and that is how we got the penalty mountain.

Under this bill, if the parent is prepared in good conscience to enter into a binding arrangement to pay off the debt, a part, but not all, of the penalties can be reduced pro rata as one does so. That gives the parent a way back in; it gives him or her an incentive to get back in. But it is not—I repeat, not—a soft option. It is always best to pay on time, and then there are no penalties, and this bill does not remove them all.

What we, I think, would all share—and I agree with the previous speaker—is that there is no greater obligation than being a good parent. All members of this House, I am sure, would want the select committee to work together to craft this legislation so that it achieves the goal of assisting that process, in truly being a balanced package of sticks and carrots that lets repentant or intending supportive parents to discharge that obligation but holds a very hard line against those who do not wish to.

This bill is only part of an ongoing reform in the child support area. It matches additional resources provided in the last Budget. It matches a crackdown on border security, including expedited processes for catching deserting parents, and better information-sharing between authorities. This bill is a necessary step forward. Is child support ever going to be perfect? I do not think so, because I do not think this House or any other House has the capacity to write any kind of law that can take account of every individual family circumstance, and we know that at times of family break-up the law is called to intervene and mediate in the most difficult, sometimes desperate, often tragic, circumstances. The role of the law here is to support families that want to do the best for their children. It is to put the interests of the child first, not the interests of the parent. It is to support those parents, even estranged parents, who want to get back on the right side of the law and do the right thing by their children, and it is part of a very hard line on those who do not.

I hope that the National Party, through the select committee process, will show good faith with this bill. The lives of our children are too important. I call upon members opposite to work constructively at the select committee to consider the evidence, propose amendments, and come back to this House with a supportive vote for passing this bill. I call on other parties. I call on the members of the Māori Party, who see far too many broken families in the Māori community—the same way as there are in the Pākehā community—to give this bill their support for the sake of Māori children. I call on the Green Party to reiterate its support. I know that New Zealand First and United Future will be supporting the bill in its passage through the House.

This bill—about our children and our families—is too important for politics. Let this House rise above politics, just this once. Let us pass this bill, let us do the right thing for our children, and let us give some parents who genuinely want it, a way back while at the same time holding a hard line against those who do not.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I certainly detected a touch of evangelism, if not biblicalism, from the previous speaker on this very concerning bill. It is a very concerning bill when one looks back to the original Child Support Act 1991, whose fundamental principle was to ensure that liable parents were held responsible. If one looks at the Briefing for the incoming Minister of Revenue—2005, and at child support and the way that this debt has mounted over the last 6 years of the Labour Government, then it becomes even more concerning. In 1999 the combined debt plus interest penalties amounted to about $300 million, but it now amounts to $1 billion. That is what this Labour Government has caused over the last 6 years—a mounting debt. The Government has not shown interest in ensuring that parents are indeed taking up the responsibility of their liabilities to their children. That is a disgrace.

Steve Chadwick: This bill will fix it.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I hear Steve Chadwick, the member from Rotorua, saying that this bill will fix that. It is absolutely the opposite. What this bill really does is encourage liable parents to do the very opposite, and the debt burden will mount only higher.

It was quite remarkable to hear David Cunliffe giving the evangelical Labour Party response, because, after all, this bill came into being only about 6 weeks before the election. Peter Dunne, the new Minister of Revenue, has to support it and, in effect, give away $500 million of taxpayers’ funds for a debt that should have been paid by liable parents who have been irresponsible. Instead, that debt will be paid by parents who are responsible. That is what is happening. On the one hand, $500 million of debt should have been paid by liable parents who have been irresponsible, and, on the other hand, United Future is basically twisted because of some confidence and supply agreement and has been put into the position of extracting $500 million from the responsible taxpayer. [Interruption] Is she saying I am too nice for that? It is absolutely vital that we make it clear to liable parents that they have a responsibility. I certainly heard David Cunliffe say that every parliamentarian cares for our children. That $500 million could have gone to child cancer or to child education. Instead, what is happening? It will be coming from responsible taxpayers. That is the real essence of this bill. It is a sop by United Future to the Labour Party.

I accept all of the points that my colleague Judith Collins made regarding the exceptions, but I just want to make a few other points. Firstly, the fundamental principle behind the Child Support Act 1991 is that parents have an obligation to provide financial support for their children, but that, indeed, is what this Labour Party is diluting.

Secondly, the introduction to that legislation made the point that the Government recognised the need for the State to supplement that support when the parents had insufficient income to provide an adequate level, but that in the first instance the parents had to meet their responsibility to the best of their ability. The essence of the Act was to provide a system for making the philosophy behind it practical and workable. But, once again, the Labour Government, under the guise of suggesting the system is practical and workable, is basically transferring the responsibility from those liable parents to hard-working New Zealand taxpayers.

Another point made in the original Act is that it is designed to reflect the ability of the non-custodial parent to provide financial support for that person’s child or children, and is based on the person’s income as declared for income tax purposes. That is exactly the principle that should apply here. But it goes on to state that when there are special circumstances that make the amount payable under the formula clearly inadequate or excessive, a custodian or a liable parent can apply to the Family Court for an order to depart from that formula. All those things are in the original Act. In most respects the Government is putting in with this bill a few clauses that may be quite reasonable—the ones that my colleague Judith Collins mentioned—but really, the major aspect is the transference of $500 million of debt to the hard-working New Zealand taxpayer, and that is just not good enough.

I note that when this bill was originally brought to Parliament there was considerable consultation around the country. In fact, the consultation went as far as this: the working group comprised not only officials from the Inland Revenue Department, which I am sure it has gone to, but also officials from the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Justice, the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Manatū Māori, Treasury, and the State Services Commission. The working group widely consulted special interest groups, including custodial parents, women’s groups, Birthright, Families Need Fathers, New Zealand Incorporated, academics, etc.

Firstly, I ask the Minister of Revenue how much consultation he or the Government undertook before introducing this bill.

Hon Peter Dunne: A lot.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Was it a lot? Well, I very much hope that he will explain to Parliament that there has been considerable consultation, because certainly it does not look like it.

Secondly, we ask the Minister how much this bill will cost hard-working New Zealand taxpayers, because there is no mention of that over and above the $500 million. The new Minister of Revenue is giving away half a billion dollars right at the beginning of his term.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You were going to give away $4 billion.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: We hear the Labour Party saying that we were going to give away something. It is giving away $2 billion in interest-free student loans. We know the Labour Party’s largesse prior to this election, and this is the icing on the gingerbread, whereby Labour is transferring half a billion dollars in debt from liable parents on to hard-working taxpayers. It is an absolute disgrace, and I hope that the majority of hard-working New Zealanders thoroughly realise exactly what the Labour Party is up to in this instance.

I note the provisions for ensuring that liable parents who are overseas are made to pay their liabilities. I absolutely agree with those, along with those small provisions that include the under-16-year-olds, but I would like the Minister to let us know how many such under-16-year-olds there are. What is wrong with some of those under-16-year-olds working on a Saturday morning in order to pay their liabilities?

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) going to the Social Services Committee. One of the bill’s purposes, as outlined in the explanatory note, is to improve compliance with financial support obligations, so that children receive the financial support to which they are entitled and so that the cost of State provision of financial support is reduced. As Judith Collins said earlier, that is basically a cross-party issue.

We all know that the actual costs of raising a child or children are huge. Children, particularly teenagers, are really expensive in today’s world. I know from first-hand experience that school trips, school fees, school books, and clothing are all very expensive. Of course, there is always the pressure for children to have labelled clothing, because they tend to be isolated these days if they do not, and it is very, very expensive to have. We also know that children can be totally disadvantaged in the short term and the long term if they do not receive financial support from both their parents. It is very unfortunate that in those cases it is the children who become the innocent victims. A father should always contribute to a child’s life financially as well as emotionally and, of course, with his time. There is no greater obligation for us than to be as good a parent as we can be. I know for a fact that parents often contribute financially right throughout a child’s life. Even then, as many parents, including many of us in this House, would say, we are never not responsible for our children, no matter how old they are and no matter how old we are, which is probably until the day that they become responsible for us in our old age and in our rest homes.

Last year in this House we passed legislation to ensure that solo parent beneficiaries applying for the domestic purposes benefit had to name the liable parents of their children before they could receive assistance from the State. As we see it, this bill is the second part of that legislation—to ensure that children receive what they are entitled to. Last year in the previous Parliament all parties stated on many occasions, and particularly throughout the debate on the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill, that the courts should hold accountable parents who abscond from their financial responsibilities, and that is exactly what this bill is attempting to do. Likewise, as members of Parliament we have all had cases referred to us where liable parents pay the absolute minimum for their children, yet those parents have funds tied up in ways that do not make them liable for a realistic amount. I think that the bottom level of $10 or $11 per week sometimes paid by a liable parent is absolutely outrageous. At the end of the day the child pays for that lack of responsibility. We are pleased to see that the parents’ child support liability will accurately reflect their ability to provide financial assistance for their child or children, because that is what should happen.

Quite often, we hear about cases where a woman finds that the responsible father has gone to Australia or somewhere else overseas. We have heard at various stages that attempts have been made to try to bring such men back into line. We know that those attempts happen, but mostly they appear to be too small and usually absolutely nothing happens, which is a real shame. In 2000 a reciprocal agreement was signed between New Zealand and Australia, and we all support that. For that agreement to be worth anything, though, it has to be enforced, so hopefully this legislation, particularly when it goes through the select committee, will be a positive step towards that enforcement. It is essential that as far as possible parents’ child support liability accurately reflects their ability to provide financial assistance for their children, whether they are overseas or here in New Zealand. It has been suggested on more than one occasion that there may be many more people than we know about who have absconded and are resident across the Tasman, and who are not paying child support. If we can ensure that the number of people doing that can be significantly reduced, or if those people can be tracked down, then that should be done.

One of the purposes of this bill is to provide flexibility in the legislative provisions for dealing with incremental penalties, so that those measures to improve the level of compliance with financial support obligations will be enforced. We know that that will be welcomed by all parties in this House. I note that the bill clearly states that the new provisions will be available to liable persons with existing repayments if they continue to comply with all their financial support obligations.

The new temporary exemption for young people under the age of 16 who do not have sufficient income to meet even the minimum liability is interesting, and that was raised by Dr Hutchison. While we can understand that that will allow young parents to focus on their education rather than on having to earn an income—even on the weekend—so that child support obligations can be met, we will be very interested to hear about it from the various submitters.

This bill does appear to be a solution to the problem that New Zealand has with arrears in child support. As the Minister has outlined, almost $1 billion is outstanding in arrears and penalties, and that is a significant sum. We support this bill going to the select committee. We want parents to be responsible for their financial liabilities in respect of their children. We want to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the child support scheme, so we will look forward to this bill returning from the select committee.

HONE HARAWIRA (Maōri Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I rise today on behalf of the Māori Party to address the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4), which intends to make the payment of child support fairer to those liable for paying for it. The bill reflects two key kaupapa that the Māori Party is determined that this Parliament should uphold: the kaupapa of justice and the kaupapa of whanaungatanga.

It is a matter of justice that the responsibilities and obligations that come with the privilege of parenting should be upheld. The Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) will make it easier for non-custodial parents to contribute to paying child support. The Māori Party supports that move as a matter of justice, and because it is also about the removal of penalties. The bill is proactive and it is positive. Currently, late payments of child support incur harsh penalties. It has been demonstrated that this has not led to any new payments. More than half of the total $1 billion in unpaid child support debt comes from late-penalty fees, and more than half of liable parents are already in arrears—a figure that has more than doubled since the year 2000. The speed with which penalties mount up actually works against the reduction of outstanding debt. Harsher penalties do not work, and this bill appears to recognise that. We must therefore resist all attempts to introduce punitive, soul-destroying penalties simply because some people think it is important to do so.

We must also be cautious that, although it seems this Government is introducing legislation that the Māori Party is in support of, we in the Māori Party are always aware that a drop in the popularity of a Government often leads to it dispensing with issues of justice while it goes for the baubles of power and office. This morning the Māori Party spent time with the special rapporteur on situations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. We discussed this very concept and, in particular, Māori rights. Justice is not just about the payment of money; it is also about ensuring that children keep their links to the people from whom they were born. I have met too many people from Te Tai Tokerau who are trying to reconnect with their own whānau, and, with few exceptions, nearly all of them have been State wards in some way, shape, or form.

This bill is also about kids, and I raise this here because I saw a letter from Cindy Kiro, the Children’s Commissioner, that really upset me. In it she said: “We know that most children who break the law have been abused and traumatised. These are the children who need to be rehabilitated. We need more youth facilities and other options in order to do this.” Now, I tell those members who do not know what youth facilities are like that they are basically prisons for kids. After the prisons for kids teach them to be even worse kids, they end up in the prisons for teenagers. Then, after that, they end up in the prisons for big people—for people our age.

What we are getting, of course, is a prison system that has totally collapsed. The Children’s Commissioner is recommending that we feed them in at the bottom end. She is feeding them in at the bottom end so that we end up in a situation where adults are going to jail because they know no other kind of lifestyle.

Now although I respect Ron Mark’s comments last night about parents having responsibility for kids, and how we should not do the crime, etc., a lot of it is also to do with how stupid some crimes are. Not too long ago, it used to be a crime to keep eggs in the fridge. Not too long ago people such as Ron Mark and Mahara Okeroa could get arrested at night for walking around, simply because the law said it was illegal to walk around with one’s face darkened.

Hon Mahara Okeroa: I never got arrested!

HONE HARAWIRA: No. Now those are the kinds of laws that this country has to deal with, because we have accepted our laws from somewhere that has nothing at all to do with this country, or the people of this country. They are talking about little kids running around in England and putting soot on their faces, to rob places.

There is something sick in a society where the Children’s Commissioner, whose primary responsibility is the protection of children, can say that we need to build more youth prisons. We are supportive of a bill that tries to reduce a sense of penalty, but we are against any attempt to use youth facilities, and increase the number of youth facilities, so that we are just feeding kids in at the bottom end and they come out as hardened criminals at the other end. What sort of justice does that represent? I suggest to the Children’s Commissioner, and to anybody else who thinks it is a great idea to send kids to youth facilities, to spend a couple of nights in those youth facilities. I made a statement a couple of weeks ago, that people from Child, Youth and Family Services who do not mind sending kids to jail should spend a couple of nights in jail themselves before they think about sending kids there. After they have spent a couple of nights in jail, and absolutely freaked out about what a scumbag place it is—and I know, because I have had some middling experience with it—they will then realise that it ain’t a good place for adults to be. After those Child, Youth and Family Services staff, and the Children’s Commissioner, have spent time in jail and realised what a hellhole it is, perhaps they should send their own kids in there after them. Once they realise that they would never ever contemplate sending their own kids to jail, maybe then they will know that jail is no place for our kids, or anybody else’s kids. It is a university of crime at the top end, and unfortunately the Children’s Commissioner wants to start them off at a preschool for crime—youth facilities. It does not work.

I support the view that we, as the Māori Party, and as Māori people, need to take up our own responsibility in telling our own whānau that we have to pay our dues in this society. If we create a situation where our kids are trapped into that kind of poverty, where our kids are trapped into a situation where they will end up going down that track, then we have to take responsibility as well for trying to lift them out of it. This bill goes some way towards addressing that; recommendations to send them to youth facilities or allow them to be held in jails does not.

The Māori Party supports the bill. Our party does not support any attempt to start our kids on a life of crime by simply increasing the number of youth facilities, so that kids can get to the position where they will end up going to jail, sleeping in vans outside prisons, or staying overnight in rugby clubs, and all those kinds of places. This is a big issue, and it is starting at the bottom end. I hope we can all do our bit, with cross-party stuff, to try to address those problems. I tell folk that harsh penalties do not work, but helping kids will. Kia ora tātou katoa.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise to speak to this first reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) with a certain sense of déjà vu. I think back to the very first bill that came before Parliament beyond the Address in Reply debates and the Imprest Supply Bills when I was a new MP 3 years ago. That bill was also a social welfare bill and the Minister responsible for it I think surprised everybody in the House by approving the ability of sole parents not to have to undergo work tests until their youngest child was 18. I felt at the time that that probably was not something he normally would have agreed with. In fact, in years gone by he probably would have voted against it.

I suspect that this child support amendment bill also falls into that category, and I reinforce the comments Judith Collins made in her speech when she said she suspected that Mr Dunne would like this bill to be toughened up at the select committee stage. I suspect it will pass this first reading, because the Government will have the numbers for that.

ACT will not be supporting the bill. We have several quite grave concerns about it, although there are some good points in it, too. But as a new member of the Social Services Committee I look forward to receiving this bill there, so that we can work on it and get the best possible outcome for our children.

There is certainly no doubt that because of the splitting up of families, children have to put up with and endure many tragic circumstances, for a large number of reasons. I think there certainly is widespread support for the legislation from every party in this House. No one would deny that our children must come first when we look at legislation being put in place, particularly with regard to welfare. However, the ACT party thinks that this bill only tinkers with many of the very real problems that many children in this country—too many children—face when it comes to issues of welfare and, specifically with regard to this bill, issues of child support.

The tinkering that I mentioned has been well spoken of, and the issues, I think, have already been pretty much addressed. It is disturbing to think that the proportion of financial support debt, as outlined in the commentary—and that includes child support debt represented by penalties—exceeds outstanding core liabilities, and continues to grow. I think that we, as legislators and parliamentarians, should be very concerned about that. As Dr Hutchison pointed out, we are talking here about $500 million of debt. That is a lot of debt; it is a lot of money in anybody’s book, and we should be very concerned about it.

I also note Dr Hutchison’s point about how much this bill being implemented in its current form—no doubt there will be changes at the select committee—will cost the country. I hope that we will have a regulatory impact statement made available to us at the select committee so we can look at those issues. I am afraid that in the 3 years I have been here already, we have had far too many bills before select committees where no regulatory impact statements have been done, so that we as legislators trying to do our best for New Zealanders, and particularly for vulnerable New Zealanders—in this case, children—have not known how much the legislation will actually cost. Only too often, regulatory impact statements have been promised, but never delivered. I hope that that will not happen in this case, although I fear it may well do.

It was also disturbing to read in the explanatory note that more than half of all liable persons are in arrears. That tells me that the system we have in place is failing. We have to ask ourselves now whether this legislation, this bill before us now, will alter that, at all. I fear the answer to that question is “No.” I think some big questions are being raised—in fact more questions are raised than answers are presented with this legislation.

I want to come back to a point that many others have touched on, which is the rights and responsibilities of parents. The first obligation of parents, of course, is to provide the support their children need to live in a safe and happy environment. There is an obligation and a responsibility, but this bill touches on only one of those. Responsibility, though, is across the board. It is most important in an emotional sense, but this bill touches on the financial aspects only. Far too many people, unfortunately—mostly fathers but also some mothers, as others have pointed out—are not taking up their responsibility of providing properly for their families and for their children.

I would like to raise a new point, though, that has not been mentioned, and I mention my colleague Dr Muriel Newman who, sadly, is no longer in this House. She fought long and hard for many welfare issues. In particular, one issue that is relevant here is that of shared parenting. She fought long and hard for shared parenting to be the norm unless there was a good reason that it should not be so, as opposed to the situation of having just one custodial parent. Her battle will continue, I am sure. But one thing we ignore in this bill when we concentrate on just the financial aspects is that many other options could be explored for the benefit of our children here in New Zealand.

I have been the social services spokesperson for ACT for only a very short time, but already I am inundated with many, many letters every week—as I suspect those on the select committee and other spokespeople for social welfare also are. A letter I got last week springs to mind. It was from somebody who felt that there were many unfairnesses when it came to child support. We should be trying to promote fairness in this bill too, of course.

The letter asked, where a non-custodial parent has provided support for his or her children for many years and the former partner has since remarried or joined with somebody else and is now on quite a significant income, how fair it was that the non-custodial parent is still obliged to support the children, although that parent may not be in good financial circumstances. The non-custodial parent still has a heavy and burdensome obligation to those children, despite the fact that he or she is denied access to them.

Issues like this must be raised. I am sure that they will be at the Social Services Committee. Submitters will tell us stories very like that one. Many people—particularly fathers—are denied access to their children but are paying their dues. They are taking responsibility. They want to take much more responsibility for their children. They accept financial responsibility, yet they are denied access to their children, and I do not think that in anybody’s mind that would be considered fair.

I will finish by talking about incentives. The incentives are one reason ACT will not support this bill. We feel that the incentives in this bill are wrong. When we talk about writing off funding, we provide a perverse sort of incentive. We give an incentive to those people who have not paid and who have got into arrears for whatever reason, but we then disadvantage the people who all along have been accepting their responsibility in good faith. The incentive suddenly becomes topsy-turvy when we talk of cutting off payments and of people not having to pay arrears.

Other ways to deal with that issue must be explored. Some of them are very simple. ACT has always heavily promoted mentoring. In some cases, people who get into arrears do so not because they do not have the money, but because the money they do earn has not been budgeted wisely. Areas like that could be explored. Tax cuts are another issue that I find myself coming back to just about every time I get to my feet in this House. If we put money back into people’s pockets because they have earned it, then people in that position would find that because they have more money in their pockets, they might well be able to budget their own money more effectively and to good cause in order to support their children.

There are many areas we could look at, and I certainly hope that the Social Services Committee, when it receives this bill—as I am sure it will—will explore them, rather than just look at a very narrow field of writing off money and providing perverse incentives that really do no one any good. Certainly, I have great confidence that the committee will take this bill very seriously and deal with it in a very constructive manner. Despite the fact that ACT will not support this bill going to the select committee—we will oppose the bill at this stage—I hope that it will be much more than just a tinkering tool and will benefit children in New Zealand who are vulnerable and dependent on the Government for their income. I hope we can toughen up the bill and make sure that the fairness I talk about exists and that the incentives are in the right place.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party will support this bill going to the select committee. We will listen closely to the submissions to the committee and decide on our final vote depending on the outcome of the submissions process.

We note that the liable-parent payment system was put in place to ensure that no parents could escape their responsibility to support their families financially. We need to remember that for many families the system has worked well, and that for many struggling employed solo parents in particular the money they receive through the scheme is critical to their survival. But, obviously, for many it has not worked well, at all. The fact that half of all liable parents are in arrears suggests, really, that we have to address a very, very serious problem. We could put our heads in the sand, jump up and down, wring our hands about how irresponsible parents are, and so on and so forth, but we really have to try to address this particular problem and be more flexible in our approach to it.

We particularly support the removal of the provisions for harsh penalties, and we support the greater flexibility. Overall, we think that the bill attempts to address positively a very serious problem in New Zealand, so we are happy to support it going to the select committee.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I rise to take a very quick call on this bill. I am delighted to support it. I am surprised that all parties in the House do not support it. Members who have been electorate MPs would have been visited by desperate parents—either men or women, but predominantly men—who simply could not afford to meet the penalties on their child support but were not saying that they did not want be responsible parents who pay their child support. This bill corrects that anomaly. It provides the right sticks and carrots for parents to be able to enter into a contract to pay their child support fairly but to be released from the burden of the penalties. I support this bill. It has been a long time coming. It will put things right and the money will flow to the children, and that is what matters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: National’s next call is split into two 5-minute calls.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): As this is the first time I speak in this House in this term of Parliament, I firstly give the Speaker my congratulations on her re-election, and I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and our Assistant Speakers, Ann Hartley and Ross Robertson, on your appointments. I wish you a very successful time in the House. I have to say that it is great to be back, and I thank the people of the East Coast, from Wairoa through to Whakatāne, for having the faith and confidence to elect me as their representative to this House.

We are here tonight to speak to the first reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4), and National stands opposed to this bill. The bill allows for more write-offs of penalty interest owing from liable parents. We know that more than 50 percent of liable parents are in arrears. That is an astonishing record. Let us look at the record of this lazy Labour Government. Over the last 6 years it has allowed that debt to grow from $300 million to over $1 billion. All sorts of heart-wrenching speeches in the House today have bemoaned the fate of those poor parents who are in arrears, yet the members of this Government have sat on their hands for 6 years and done nothing to help those parents out of that debt. The Government now brings to the House a bill that wipes that debt, in the name of helping those parents.

This bill actually strikes at the fundamentals of our community, and it makes a mark in the sand between the philosophies of Labour and United Future—and all the other ragtag parts of the Government—and the principles of the National Party. The National Party believes that the most fundamental responsibility of parents is to look after their children and to provide for their financial support. It is not the State’s responsibility to do so. The Labour Party says that the State will step in and look after them, and that the State will take over the half a billion dollar debt that those parents owe.

But the State is nothing more than other taxpayers; it is nothing more than some of those parents’ next-door neighbours, who are working hard to support their own families. Labour is saying to those liable parents—and I have to say it is unfortunate that most of them are dads—“Don’t worry. You don’t have to take any responsibility for the children that you might father, because if you don’t pay, we are going to wipe that debt. Everyone else will pick up the tab for your responsibilities.” Labour members have the temerity to stand in this House and to suggest that that will make more people take responsibility for their own children, but I have to say to the Labour Government that it just does not work that way.

How do we encourage people to take responsibility and pay their bills if we simply write off their debt? There is the same fuzzy thinking around student loans. Labour does not understand that smart people out there click on to the fact that the Government does not enforce the payment of their bills and debts, and that they can get away with not paying them. We see that in the courts with the write-off of millions of dollars worth of fines. Criminals know that if they do not pay their fines, then no one will chase them.

It is the same with this bill. We hear the Minister speak about the “burden of arrears”. The burden of arrears has been placed fairly and squarely, under this bill, back on to the parents who are working hard and supporting their children. I oppose those measures. I am in favour of getting tough on parents and making them understand that their greatest responsibility is to value their children and to support them financially, through thick and thin.

PAULA BENNETT (National): I speak on the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) 2005. I had sort of hoped that we would keep going with maiden speeches for the next 6 months, but I suppose we need to get down to the business of the day. The intention of the bill is actually quite good. It is to improve compliance with financial support obligations so that more children receive the financial support to which they are entitled. Who can disagree with that? As we have all said, it really is about the children. But where is the sense of responsibility? Where is the incentive for people to financially support their own children?

This bill sends the message that liable parents do not necessarily have to financially support their own. It gives them an out where there should be none. People should look after their own. We live in today’s world and we can all accept that relationships do not always work. But where children are involved, parents have a financial responsibility to support their own to the best of their ability.

The Government is almost saying that people are not paying currently, so we should soften the law and make it easier for them not to pay. The new section 135G, which is proposed to be inserted by clause 32(1) of the bill, provides that the commissioner may grant relief if all of the debt to which the penalties relate is paid, but he or she must be satisfied that recovery would involve an inefficient use of resources or would place the liable person in serious hardship. Can parents who depend on the support from the liable parent, who are working part-time or are on a benefit or the minimum wage, and who are doing the best they can to keep the family together, declare serious hardship and no longer be responsible for the debts they incur? No, they cannot.

It is said that more than half of all liable parents are in arrears. The Inland Revenue Department is struggling to get money out of those guys already, and the Government want to push through this amendment bill, which actually disincentivises those people even more. The bill gives the message that those people do not have to worry about paying the full amount or about paying on time. If they go into arrears or incur penalties, then there are a couple of good ways they can get out of paying those penalties back. There is no incentive to pay the correct amount on time.

This bill makes a mockery of those thousands of parents who are raising their children and struggling day to day to make ends meet. Those parents cannot afford to buy their kids new clothes with the swanky labels that we have been hearing about, and they worry about how they will pay their bills. They try their best, and go without what we would probably consider essentials, in order to scrape together a bit of money for the school fees, because they do not have that money. They still have a bit of pride, but for them to go to the school and say they are suffering from serious hardship would erode the last wee bit of respect that they have. Those parents are taking responsibility for their own, they have stalled their careers, and they have a right to have that liability paid. They do not ask for something for themselves; they ask only that they be given the support that is due to them by the law. Can anyone disagree that parents should take responsibility for their own? No—but this bill will disincentivise those parents.

I talk to those fathers, as well. But what about those fathers who do pay on time, who take responsibility, and who want to do the best by their kids? They feel frustrated. They feel that it is other fathers who are not living up to their responsibilities, who play relationship problems off through the kids, or who still try to have some level of control by withdrawing financial support, and it is those guys who give others the bad name. It is only the responsible fathers’ own sense of decency and sense of responsibility that sees them pay the full amount on time. But the Government says it wants to punish them, and give more to those who are not paying. It just seems incredibly wrong.

I oppose this law on behalf of mothers out there who rely on that financial assistance. I oppose it out of a sense of decency. We should be incentivising and not disincentivising those parents who need to be paying.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): I am very proud to support the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4), and I look forward to it coming before the Social Services Committee.

As this is only a brief call, I just have to express my disappointment, I guess, at the parties in this House that will not be supporting this bill even through this stage. Why does the National Party always seem to see the glass as being half empty? Why can those members not accept that an honest effort is being made here to enhance, we hope, at the end of the day, the lives of the very children whom this bill is wanting to support, and to make sure that those who are liable are, indeed, truly liable for what they do.

A number of members of the select committee have spoken today, and I can see that we will have a robust debate and a very interesting time during the hearing of submissions. We really look forward to it. This is a good bill to get our teeth into over the next wee while. I will certainly be there, chairing that select committee, and making sure we give the bill the best shot it can have. I support the bill.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I rise in opposition to the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4), in spite of the fact that I can see that it contains a number of clauses that are helpful and take account of some of the tensions that exist within society around this problem. I can remember a time when people who did not pay their maintenance were locked up—held in jail, did time—and their bills still accumulated. Thank goodness those days are over.

Some of the good parts of the bill revolve, for instance, round dealing with the responsibility for sexual abuse history and with negating the need for payments in respect of that history when they would re-victimise people. The bill also contains good points around dealing with young liable parents under the age of 16. But I can see the need for an incentive for people to make payments and not avoid responsibility. It is a shame that what we see from time to time right across our society is that when we provide an incentive that is too good to be true, people go about exploiting it. The honourable member Anne Tolley mentioned earlier the loophole in the student loan scheme, which was exploited in the past and will continue to be exploited. That will continue to happen when loopholes are provided. Given the opportunity, people will exploit a loophole to avoid a penalty payment.

I am only too aware of the tension around the fact that the people who suffer so often in these situations are children. But, at the same time, I believe there is a bigger picture, as well. What happens to those liable parents who have worked hard to clear their debt and to provide for their children, and who have taken responsibility for it? By allowing people to just negate their responsibility, we are not teaching them the way they should go while they are young so that in their age they do not depart from it.

It was interesting to hear the Hon David Cunliffe speaking earlier about the way in which the interest accumulates. To have a system under which the penalties amount to about $36,000 in the first year and about $27,000 in subsequent years is, to my mind, unjust, but that does not mean there should be no penalty payment. Why cannot those penalties be reduced by the Inland Revenue Department to something that is attainable and achievable? That would then provide an incentive for those people to pay the penalty, and also allow those who are making payments on time to reap the benefits of being productive and taking responsibility for their children. There needs to be an incentive for people to parent well and to look after their children.

I believe that in offering a way out, as this bill does, the relationships between parents and their children are actually cheapened, because the children then see themselves as simply being an encumbrance on their parents. If the mother complains because the money has not been paid by dad, or if whenever the child spends time with dad he bitches and moans about how much money he has to pay to mum, what does that say to the children about the relationship between their parents and them, and about how they themselves are valued?

It is my belief that maintaining a regime that allows people to walk away from their responsibilities does nothing to help in the long term. I have many friends on low incomes who have done their damnedest over the years to ensure that their children have money. The people who avoid those responsibilities have a big fear, and that is that the money they pay will support someone else’s kids or the step-parents of their own children. We need to provide a system where there is an incentive. That incentive could easily be addressed by reducing the penalty rate to something more in keeping with the debt that is owed, so we do not have the ridiculous system, which the Minister himself related, whereby a $20,000 debt results in a half-million-dollar penalty.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.