Wednesday, 22 February 2006

Volume 629

Sitting date: 22 February 2006

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Rulings

Questions for Oral Answer—Acceptability of Questions

Madam SPEAKER: I promised yesterday to reconsider the acceptability of questions to the Prime Minister relating to party matters. It does seem to me, reflecting on this, that the rules are in principle fairly clear, although their application in particular circumstances may give rise to difficulty.

The basic rule, in respect of questions to the Prime Minister and to other Ministers, is set out in Standing Order 369. Questions must relate to matters with which the Prime Minister is “officially connected”. The Prime Minister is not subject to the question process as a party leader any more than the Leader of the Opposition and the other party leaders are—see Speaker’s ruling 140/2. Where a question impinges on the Prime Minister’s official responsibilities as Prime Minister, it will not be out of order just because there is a party connection, but a question that does no more than request party information or seek a party opinion is not in order—see Speaker’s ruling 139/7.

These are well-established principles, and I will endeavour to apply them on a case by case basis.

Visitors

Sri Lanka—Delegation

Madam SPEAKER: Members, my attention has been drawn to the fact that a parliamentary delegation from Sri Lanka has just entered the gallery. I am sure members would like to acknowledge those in the delegation and give them a welcome.

Points of Order

Question No. 2 to Minister, 21 February—Acceptability of Questions

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your considered opinion today, but I wonder whether you would be prepared to tell us now how you view the question that was ruled out of order yesterday but the previous day had been declared in order, because it goes right to the heart of the matter. The question asked whether the Prime Minister was involved.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I am writing to him on that. I still have that matter under consideration. Hopefully, he will get my reply this afternoon or early tomorrow.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Transport, Minister—Confidence

1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Transport; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Dr Don Brash: What confidence can New Zealanders have in her Minister and in her Government, when today’s announcement from Transit shows that we will all be stuck sitting in traffic jams for a very long time to come because of Transit’s need to cancel a number of major roading projects all over the country?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition does not know the difference between a draft document and a final outcome, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition will be greatly disappointed at the news reports: “Government rejects Transit cuts to roading programme”.

Dr Don Brash: How on earth can the Prime Minister have any confidence at all in the Minister when an agency for which he is responsible produced an elaborate and expensive report dealing with a multibillion dollar programme over a full decade, only to have a more senior Minister advise, less than an hour after its release, that it was fit only for the dustbin?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That was like being slapped over the wrist by a wet hanky.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just answer the question!

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: They do not like it. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not want to hold the Minister of Transport responsible for the rise in oil prices, which has had an effect on the programme. I am happy to say that because this Government has not promised unaffordable tax cuts, it has room to move to address the issue.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Prime Minister any evidence to indicate whether the speed of the Leader of the Opposition in losing his grip on the Transit document was faster or slower than his speed in losing grip on the leadership?

Madam SPEAKER: I rule that question out of order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not think it is acceptable for you to say just that the question is out of order. This Minister has been right at the heart of all the difficulties that we have had in the House trying to work our way through Standing Orders in recent days. We have just had a ruling from you about the appropriateness of questions to the Prime Minister and the expanse of her responsibilities, and here he is—a senior Minister—standing up and taking your ruling apart. This man should be required to apologise to the House, if not asked to leave it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: We have had a tradition of Leaders of the Opposition throwing ballpoints, and now Transit reports, around the House. If they do that, they can expect a bit of retribution.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank both members. That was not a point of order. I had ruled the question out of order. I say to Mr Brownlee that it did not relate to my ruling. I had given that ruling, and that was the end of the matter. That was on a different point. The question was out of order. It was ruled out of order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I point out to you that Mr Mallard himself was the person on his feet yesterday calling the attention of the House to the use of ironic expressions and other such things in questions. That, I think, simply compounds the difficulty that he has got himself into.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. That is why that question was out of order.

Peter Brown: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Rt Hon Winston Peters, when Treasurer in 1998, transferred 2.1c per litre of petrol from the Crown account into the land transport account with a view that it would be an ongoing process, and does she recall also that that was stopped by the previous National Government immediately after the fall of the coalition; noting that, does she accept that had the funding process continued there would now be billions more dollars in roading investment, the country would be far better off economically, and many New Zealanders who have been killed would still be alive, and that the current temporary Leader of the Opposition would be lauding the Minister of Transport instead of questioning our confidence in him?

Madam SPEAKER: The member is to ask a question, not give a speech. That is a warning to everyone in this House.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am absolutely prepared to accept the member’s word on what happened, and what that meant for the roading programme. I am sure that had the former Treasurer, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, been able to continue as he had planned, the roading programme would not have been allowed to lapse the way it did under the previous Government.

Gerry Brownlee: What’s happened for 6 years?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have been asked by Mr Brownlee, who interjects constantly, what has happened in the last 6 years, I tell him that land transport funding is up 80 percent.

Dr Don Brash: What confidence can New Zealanders have in Labour’s so-called commitment to roading, when today’s announcement from Transit is so markedly different from its report issued only 6 months ago; and is it not true that over the last 6 years there has been a steady procession of commitments to build major road projects—almost none of which have been delivered on time?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If one were to compare the value of projects under way or just completed in 2004-05 with those between 1999-2000, one would find that they are ten times as great as those under the National Government at the latter time. That is a good record.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that there was a bill before Parliament in 1995 to ensure that all money collected for the purpose of road construction and maintenance, and road safety, would be used for those purposes, but it was voted against by the National Party and, secondly, does she have any reports that a party in this country has received significant funding from those seeking to have roads privatised—which would explain the speed at which National’s leader dropped the report on fuel-based funding but maintains in his secret closet privatised funding from sources outside this country?

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that in supplementary questions the Minister is required to answer only one question.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is quite clear that in the last 6 years there has been a huge increase in funding and activity on our roads and in our public transport system, because this Government has been prepared to invest in that. I know that New Zealand First is fully supportive of a greatly speeded-up roading programme, and that is what we have been providing. Where the National Party got its largesse from—who knows? But the truth will come out.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the commitment to increased funding for public passenger transport in the Government’s post-election agreements will not be sacrificed to make up the shortfall for Transit’s wish lists for even more new roads?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is certainly not the intention. I think where the member and I would agree is that there is no roading solution to the problems; there is a multimodal solution that covers alternatives to transport: roading, walking, cycling, and public passenger transport.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister recall her much-vaunted commitment in December 2003 to radically accelerate the road-building programme in Auckland, and the letter from the head of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce 18 months later saying that no acceleration was visible at that point, or the repeated empty promises from Transit to build State Highway 20, the Mount Roskill extension; and what does that say about how seriously we should take this latest Transit programme?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Well, if the member had had time even to glance at the programme, he would have seen there is an absolute commitment to State Highway 20 in it. That is the first point. Secondly, I am sure it will be a great concern to him that the head of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce has come out today and said that it is taking great comfort from the fact that the Government finds the document unacceptable—and will do something about it.

Dr Don Brash: Will the Prime Minister now commit to spending all the revenue generated from the petrol excise tax on roads; if not, why not?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You didn’t, and you wouldn’t.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I could certainly quote the leader of New Zealand First as saying the National Party never did, and never made any sign of doing so. I can say that because of the rate at which spending on land transport has accelerated, that day cannot be too far away.

Rodney Hide: When did her Minister first alert her to the $635 million shortfall, and what action has she or her Minister of Finance taken to overcome the problem since that alert?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Ministers have been aware since before Christmas that there was likely to be a plan of this kind produced by Transit, not least because of the ripple-through effect of oil price increases on bitumen and other costs in the construction industry, and also because of the shortfall in revenue. So from before Christmas Ministers have been actively turning their minds to how this would be addressed, and Mr Hide will recall that this was mentioned in the statement I gave last Tuesday, and Dr Cullen has been giving interviews about it for some time.

School Students—High Achievement

2. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received about high achievement by New Zealand school students?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Today the New Zealand Qualifications Authority reported the provisional results for scholarship 2005. One thousand eight hundred and five young people achieved 2,533 scholarships, and between them they will share $3 million over the next 3 years. I would like, therefore, to congratulate the eight young people who achieved three or more outstanding performances and will receive $10,000 a year for the next 3 years, the 55 young people receiving either premier or outstanding scholar awards who will receive between $5,000 and $10,000 a year for 3 years, and the 1,544 students who will receive a one-off scholarship of $500. These are the best and brightest of young New Zealanders, and I am sure the House joins me in wishing them every good fortune for their future studies.

Hon Marian Hobbs: How has the scholarship in 2005 recognised and rewarded these students?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In 2004, following problems with scholarship results, two independent advisory groups were established to ensure that the 2005 scholarship results were fair. The Scholarship Reference Group, as it was called, made 26 recommendations to ensure improvements. I met with the group last week, which includes Professors John Hattie and Terry Crooks, both assessment experts. They advise me they are very pleased with the improvements that have taken place this year, and besides congratulating the students, I therefore want to congratulate all those who have worked so hard to give us an outstanding scholarship exam season this year.

Allan Peachey: Why are there an estimated 150,000 children currently in the New Zealand schooling system who will move through that system and not learn to read, to write, or to do mathematics to a level necessary to function effectively as adults in our community?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There are not that number of young people. There are currently 11,098 who are on reading-recovery programmes. This Government is committed to all young people being functionally literate in numeracy and in literacy.

Allan Peachey: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents—first, the Education Review Office annual report for last year, which states that up to 20 percent of New Zealand children are not enjoying success at school, and I take that to mean not learning to read and write.

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

Allan Peachey: The second document is a report from the New Zealand Herald dated 25 October 2005 in which that 20 percent is translated to 153,000 students, and which has the Minister acknowledging that.

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

Roading—Funding Shortfall

3. Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: What action does he intend to take to correct the funding shortfall and ensure that there are no delays of commencement dates for any major roading projects?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): The Government’s roading programme is the largest ever funded in New Zealand, and we are working to ensure projects proceed. As Ministers have already said, the Government has commissioned work on options to address both funding and costs, and options will be considered by Cabinet before the State highway programme is finalised in June.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Why did the Minister let Transit put out an interim draft plan in February, when that has never been done before, at huge cost to the taxpayer, only to find an hour later that the Associate Minister of Finance said that it was a load of rubbish and did not count for anything?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The transparent way in which we plan for State highway funding and programmes follows the law. The present funding available to Transit New Zealand is that which is projected in the draft.

Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Minister confirm the view expressed in the Transit document that congestion between Mana and Plimmerton and on the Ngauranga interchange stretch of State Highway 1 in Wellington is a major problem; if so, will he therefore confirm to the House that the agreement between the Government and United Future regarding funding for Transmission Gully, if that is the preferred option to arise from the current consultation process—noting that 96 percent of the submissions favour it—will, in fact, go ahead?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that the Transit document identifies the congestion problems as we leave Wellington to the north. I cannot confirm what the outcome will be of the process that is currently running.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the question asked by Maurice Williamson, which was a direct request that the Minister of Transport breach the law of this country. The member may not recall it, but he was the Minister of Transport, and for a Minister to interfere with the decision-making processes of Transit is, in fact, a breach of the law. His question should have been ruled out.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that matter, but the question was a question; it was not seeking any breach of the law. The member was asking a question for information purposes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is not the way he phrased it; he said: “Why did the Minister…”, etc. That was a direct invitation for a Minister of the Crown, the Minister of Transport, to break the law of this land—something that no doubt Mr Williamson did countless times, to no effect.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, but obviously it was a legitimate question and the Minister could, in fact, have answered in those terms. He chose to answer in the terms he did.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask whether you are going to allow that list member, or whatever he is—the new Minister of Foreign Affairs—to say that I broke the law several times.

Madam SPEAKER: We are now trying in this House to do away with as many of those flippant comments as we can. I have dealt with that point of order; I upheld the question as being a legitimate question. I now request that the member asks his supplementary question.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He did not deal with the second part. He said that I had broken the law many times while I was the Minister, and I do not accept that. I do not believe that he has any evidence of that, and I wish to have the protection of the Chair of this House to stop the member making such a claim

Madam SPEAKER: If the member is asking the member to withdraw, I will ask the member to withdraw, because of the offence that was given by that comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise profusely. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: That is all that is required at this stage.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise profusely. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What is growing up in this House early in this session is the view that National Party members can do and act as they please, and that they can be so sensitive that any slight suggestion that they got it intellectually wrong, as shown by their past behaviour, is taken as an absolute affront. That is OK for them, but if we carry on in this House in the way that they are seeking you to judge various behaviours in this House, then we will have a turgid, boring House like something out of a Chrysler advertisement, which is thoroughly antiseptic and of no value to anyone. The reason why I make that response is that any former Minister of Transport who invites another Minister to intervene surely had a habit of doing so himself.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the member to please be seated. That was not a valid point of order. There has been a withdrawal and an apology. Certainly, one tries to conduct question time and debates in this House in keeping with the Standing Orders and with discretion, because this is a debating chamber. I now ask the member to ask his supplementary question.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to assure the House, on the back of the very flippant comment made by the Hon Maurice Williamson, “… that list member, or whatever he is ..”, that all list and constituency members of this House, be it the honourable Dr Don Brash or the Deputy Prime Minister or yourself, are on equal terms here.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please sit down. I have already dealt with that matter. I did ask the member, and any other members, not to make those sorts of flippant comments. That matter has been dealt with; it does not need to be revisited.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Does the Minister consider it a satisfactory way to run the transport portfolio, and to give surety to the Contractors Federation and others about the long-term plan, when Transit published an enormously big, glossy document in June 2005 that, before it hit the shelves, had to have an orange sticker stuck on the bottom, stating that the document did not include reference to the extra $500 million just announced, when Transit then published an update in August with the same photo—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With the greatest of respect, this idea, no doubt dreamt up by the research unit and some spin doctor down in the National Party—

Madam SPEAKER: This is not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, it is a point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please come to his point of order succinctly.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that this is the second tossing of documents we have seen today. It was bad enough the first time, with the posturing and posing that there was, but now, here are those members again, someone having been promoted on to the front bench for 5 minutes, putting on a display. Frankly, it brings Parliament into disrepute, and everyone who watches a TV screen will know full well what I mean. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to make them desist.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, and I bless the members for their sense of irony and humour. Certainly, throwing documents around the House is not permitted, but putting them on the floor just requires someone to come and pick them up. So I suggest that that behaviour be used with discretion.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Does the Minister think it a suitable way to run the transport portfolio, and to give surety to people like the contractors out there, when Transit published a big, thick, glossy document costing tens of thousands of dollars in June last year that, before it even made the bookshelf, had to have a sticker on it stating that it was not valid because of changes, when Transit put out an update in August, 2 months later, with the same car and the same road on the cover, stating that the plan had all changed and here was the new plan, when by February it had to put out another massive glossy document and all of these regional documents, and when, within an hour of putting those out, it had the Associate Minister of Finance saying: “Sorry, that’s not right either; forget all that.”, at a cost, I say to the Minister, of tens of thousands of dollars; is that satisfactory?

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that this time is for questions and not speeches.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I would say to the tosser of documents that the $685 million budget difference represents only 3.4 percent of the total $22 billion that will go into the National Land Transport Fund over the next 10 years.

Rt Hon Helen Clark: Could the Minister spell out a little more clearly to the Hon Maurice Williamson the nature of the statutory requirement for Transit to consult on its draft plans?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The legislation that this Government passed in the last term provides for a transparent process—so that the wool cannot be pulled over the eyes of New Zealand taxpayers and road users as it was in the 1990s—by giving people a right of participation in funding decisions and the prioritisation of funding.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Can the Minister explain why, in the documents released today—whether or not they are valid—Transit put a construction date for most of the major projects in appendix D3, but in the actual regional flyers that came with it the construction dates for nearly every project are somewhere between 8 and 10 years longer than those dates? For example, the Kōpū bridge construction is scheduled to begin in 2008-09 in this document, but it is scheduled for a 2014-15 start in the flyer. How can anyone know what the valid start date for those projects is?

Hon DAVID PARKER: By relying upon the draft programme as the document of authority.

Hon Paul Swain: Can the Minister confirm that considerable extra funds have gone into transport in the last 5 years compared with the 1990s, and that that is in stark contrast to a policy of privatising the roads, which was put forward by National and Maurice Williamson, when he was the Minister—one of the reasons why National was thrown out in 1999?

Madam SPEAKER: There was no need for that last comment.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that, and I note that the funding for State highway new road construction increased from $248 million in 1999 to some $580 million this year, and that even under today’s projections, on the basis of current assured levels of funding—which may increase—funding will still increase next year to over $600 million.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Which of the published dates should members of this House now be working to: the dates that appear in the massive document that Transit put out today, which shows, for example, that the start date of the Kōpū bridge construction is 2008-09, or should members be working from the regional flyer document that comes with it, which states that the Kōpū bridge start date is 2014-15; which of those dates is correct?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said, it is that in the projected State highway forecast plan, which is the lengthy document that the member tossed first.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister tell the House precisely who the Government has commissioned to work on the range of options to close the funding gap, which was referred to in his media release, and when can we expect detailed announcements?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Some of those work streams will be carried out by Treasury, under the Minister of Finance, to determine what other funding streams should be brought into the fund. Some of the work relating to cost control will be carried out under my ministry.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did ask whether the Minister could give us some sort of accurate date as to when we could expect something.

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said in answer to the primary question, those options will be considered by Cabinet before the State highway programme is finalised in June.

Hon Maurice Williamson: In light of the Minister’s answer to the previous question I asked, which was that we should use the dates in the big, thick consolidated Transit book today and not the ones in the little regional flyer, why did Transit tell me only an hour ago that the differences between the two dates, which are considerable in most cases, are that the dates in the big document are what Transit could build now if it had the money, but the ones in the regional flyer are what is planned to be built because there is no money to build the original programme—and I thank him very much for his assurance that he will work off the first dates, not the second?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a “privatise all roads” speech delivered in Queenstown, which was given by one Maurice Williamson, the then Minister of Transport, and which had all the levitation of a lead balloon at the time.

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

Hon Maurice Williamson: Does the Minister regret Labour’s having sold Government Print to Graeme Hart, given that the Government is now involved in funding the successor to that business on almost a weekly basis for mindless, rubbishy documents that need to be reprinted just about as quickly as Ministers change their minds?

Madam SPEAKER: I think that is a marginal question, but if the Minister wants to address it, he may.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I do not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the Jim McLay report made to National, advocating that all roading in this country be owned by six private companies.

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

Taxation Policy—Finance and Revenue, Ministers

4. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Revenue: Is he satisfied that his working relationship with the Minister of Finance regarding tax policy is an open and constructive one?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): Absolutely. The Minister of Finance and I have had an open, constructive working relationship and friendship for well over 20 years.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it evidence of a good working relationship when the Minister of Finance says that the increase in personal tax thresholds may not go ahead because: “We have to find answers to the fiscal hole left by the abolition of the carbon tax”, only for the Minister of Revenue to correct Dr Cullen, saying: “It is not a question of filling holes actually”, and, incidentally, who is correct?

Hon PETER DUNNE: We were talking about two entirely different things. I was talking about the state of the Budget as a whole, and I do not think a minor difference of that description is evidence of a bad working relationship. If it were, I would ask the member how he manages to sit next to Mr McCully, given their differences on foreign policy.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When that Minister said recently on the business tax review that: “The business community should have confidence that the changes will be substantial.”, was he trying to correct an impression given by Dr Cullen’s earlier statement: “It may well be that we end up saying … this is just too big and bold and we want something much smaller and more modest,”?

Hon PETER DUNNE: No, I was confirming Dr Cullen’s view that the changes would be bold and innovative.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: With Dr Cullen telling the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and repeating it on the radio the next day, that the Budget personal tax changes may not go ahead, what guarantee can he give as Minister of Revenue that those personal tax rate threshold increases will go ahead on 1 April 2008?

Hon PETER DUNNE: That will depend on this House passing legislation to give effect to those changes. We are still working on that legislation.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Did he voice his support for a free-trade agreement with Taiwan last Thursday—something totally contrary to the Government’s one-China policy—to send a warning shot to his Labour partner that he does not appreciate being publicly usurped on tax policy by Dr Cullen?

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of what occurred earlier, I just wondered whether that came within the scope of the original question. That was all.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. If the Minister wishes to address it—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Clearly the Minister of Revenue does not have responsibility for trade policy, and while he might even want to comment on it, he is proscribed from doing that by the Standing Orders.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. Both were actually within the scope of the question, which is why I hesitated. That is why, if the Minister wishes to address the part of the question that relates to tax within his responsibility, that would be in order.

Hon PETER DUNNE: The comments that the member raised in the question were not made as Minister of Revenue but as leader of my party. But I can assure the member that they were made out of heartfelt conviction, not out of any attempt to try to exert some pressure on issues of tax policy.

Police—Destruction of Rifles

5. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: Are the police to proceed with plans to destroy more than 800 Remington bolt-action rifles; if so, why?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Police): Yes, for the reasons given to the member in July 2005 and again in December 2005.

Ron Mark: How can the police legitimately justify the destruction of these sporting rifles, therefore denying taxpayers the opportunity to recover approximately $300,000, by quoting their “obligations under an international convention to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in small arms.”, when New Zealand has not signed the protocol of which they speak; further, New Zealand has not ratified that protocol and will not do so unless the House completely supports the Arms Amendment Bill (No 3), which is still before the House?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I should advise the member that the police routinely destroy hundreds of seized weapons every year—some of them quite valuable weapons. The principal reason that the police have independently made that decision is they believe that dumping 800 high-powered weapons on to the market would create risks that it does not wish to incur. Secondly, it believes that that decision is consistent with the United Nations recommendations and therefore wants to be in line with what other responsible countries do.

Ron Mark: If the police are so concerned about dumping 800 sporting rifles on the market into the hands of police-authorised, licensed firearms dealers and police-authorised, duly accredited, fit and proper firearms owners, what does that now say about the police’s confidence in their own vetting systems, and what does it say about the taxpayers’ right to have money recouped back into their coffers, which could so easily be done?

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members again that questions are for questions, not speeches, and in the case of supplementary questions, the Minister is only obliged to address one of them.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I and, I think, most members of this House would have every confidence in the police vetting system. It is very good. But that member knows as well as I do that weapons that are acquired legitimately do not always end up in legitimate hands.

Kyoto Protocol—Auditor-General’s Report

6. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What action does he intend to take in response to the Auditor-General’s report to the Local Government and Environment Committee that the Public Finance Act 1989 was breached last year for not including the then $309,843,000 Kyoto liability in the supplementary estimates?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): None. I am advised that the Kyoto Protocol liability was not included in the 2004-05 supplementary estimates because the value of the liability had not been ascertained by the date of those estimates. The liability was included in the books as soon as it was reliably quantified in consultation with Treasury and Audit New Zealand, and validating legislation is now before the House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why would the Auditor-General’s office tell the select committee that the Government had broken the law, broken the Public Finance Act, in not disclosing the liability, if the figures were not available, and why should anybody in this country believe that Minister and that Government over the Auditor-General after the Prime Minister’s record over the pledge card fiasco?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because the Auditor-General did not express himself in those words. It is a moot point as to what particular day the liability was quantified to the standard expected for inclusion in the Crown books, but it is absolutely clear that neither the Minister nor the ministry failed to disclose the projected deficit in volume terms—in terms of the number of tonnes of carbon dioxide—and accounting for it was duly made by Treasury.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister say that the Auditor-General did not express in clear language that the Government had broken the Public Finance Act, when, in response to the question: “Did the Government breach the Finance Act?”, Mr Keate from the Auditor-General’s office said: “Yes, they did. There was a breach.”; and, furthermore, the office, in its written advice to the committee, said that validating legislation would be required to fix the difficulty, which had been notified to the Minister of Finance?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I tried to explain in one of my earlier answers, at the time when the supplementary estimates were being prepared it was known that a deficit was projected for the first commitment period, but it was, at that time, projected by the relevant ministry in terms of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide, not dollars. Crown accounts express things in dollars. The conversion of that figure in tonnes to the amount that Treasury thought should be included in the accounts—in dollar terms—did not happen until after the closing date for supplementary estimates.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister come to the House and expect us to believe that explanation when the Auditor-General rejects it and says the Government broke the law?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I do not accept that the Auditor-General was blind to the fact that the disclosure had been made in terms of quantity rather than dollars. Indeed, the Auditor-General appeared, on my reading of the report, to be quite satisfied that the matter had been appropriately tidied up as soon as it could be.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: To clarify issues, I seek leave to table the Auditor-General’s report that states that the Government did breach the Public Finance Act, and that it required validating legislation, and, furthermore, the transcript from the select committee—

Madam SPEAKER: Can I take the first one. Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the select committee transcript in which Mr Keate from the Auditor-General’s office said it was a breach of the Public Finance Act, because there was no appropriation for that year.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Government should not face some consequence of breaching the Public Finance Act, when anybody else who breaks the law faces consequences, even if the offence is a minor speeding offence under his transport portfolio—or is this $300 million bungle by the Government in the same class as the Prime Minister signing paintings she did not paint, the Prime Minister speeding in motorcades and not facing prosecution—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not relevant to the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith:—and the sort of standard we have seen from Mr Benson-Pope?

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry but I am trying here to ensure that questions are specific, and answered accordingly.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The issue here is compliance with the law, and this Government has a track record, whether it is paintings, motorcades, or Mr Benson-Pope, of ignoring the law. I am asking the Minister—

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Minister, then, to address the question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I quote from the report from the Auditor-General in my reply: “The unappropriated expenditure during 2004/05 relates to the recognition of New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol liability. This was not included in the supplementary estimates as Treasury decided to include this liability under Vote Climate Change in late June. Therefore, it is outside the ministry’s”—that is, the ministry for climate change—“control.”

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister been advised of any actions taken by that member when he was a Minister, or by any other member of the National Cabinet, to reduce our inevitable liabilities for the high cost of carbon in the future, after the National Government had signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio in 1992, which committed us to reducing emissions, and after its Minister Rob Storey had committed to a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2000?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question—

Madam SPEAKER: Would members please be seated. There is a lot of moving around the Chamber today, which is very distracting for everyone, and members having their backs to everyone is not a good idea, either. Would members please sit down.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Not only were the allegations made by Jeanette Fitzsimons untrue but, more important, events that occurred a good 6 to 8 years before the Minister came to office are well outside his ministerial responsibility.

Hon Trevor Mallard: From memory, I think the question was phrased: “Has he seen any reports of” or: “Has he seen any evidence of”. The Minister’s having seen reports or evidence of matters, even if they occurred before the time he was responsible for them, is certainly something that comes within his responsibility—if he has seen them as Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: There is no rule about how far back one can refer, as long as the reports are official reports. The question was phrased correctly, so I ask the Minister to address it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have seen no such report, because there was nothing to report on.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the people of New Zealand have any confidence in the Government’s approach to Kyoto, when it proposed the “fart tax”, then dropped it, proposed the carbon tax, then dropped it, and then told us yesterday that it was back in discussions with the forestry sector, although the forestry sector said last night that that could not be believed, either; is there anything about climate change that this Government has said that can be believed and has been stuck with?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Climate change policy is in a state of flux worldwide, and New Zealand is not excepted from that. We have 15 comprehensive work programmes due to be reported back to Parliament within the month.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table a news release from Mr Jim Anderton yesterday stating that he had had a very positive meeting with the sector, and that officials would be talking with it again, and also a release from the forestry sector saying that this was all untrue, and that there would be no further engagement with officials.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the Kyoto agreement, with the National Government’s signature on it.

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

Firearms Safety Seminar—Police Contribution

7. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Police: How much did the police contribute to the budget of the international firearms safety seminar currently taking place in Christchurch, and what other support did they provide?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Police): The firearms safety seminar was jointly organised and coordinated by the Mountain Safety Council, the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners, and the New Zealand Police. The police contributed $20,000 towards the cost of the seminar.

Keith Locke: Does the funding of keynote speaker, Canadian Gary Mauser, indicate that the Government supports his view that reducing criminal violence is helped when Governments “encourage responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns”; and is there any connection between the invitation to Gary Mauser and the fact that he and conference organiser, Inspector Joe Green, who is also in charge of gun registration for the New Zealand Police, went off on a hunting trip together last year?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The answer to the first question is no. But let me remind the member that he risks misleading the House and the country by quoting five out of 22 presenters. I wonder why he did not mention that other presenters include Professor Annette Beautrais, who supports tougher legislation in New Zealand because it has helped reduce firearms-related suicide; David Capie, who has supported improved firearms laws, secure armouries, and improved weapon controls to stop illicit small-arms trade in the Pacific; and Tsutomu Ishiguri, who is the director of the UN Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific. Clearly, a wide range of views are being expressed at this seminar. The Government does not stand behind, or vet, the view of anybody who turns up at a seminar to debate what is best to make firearms safe. In relation to the second part of the question, I regret the fact that the member is reflecting on the integrity of Inspector Joe Green, simply because he did something totally legitimate, which was to go hunting with Mr Mauser. I would no more hold that against him than if I saw him having a beer in the pub with an anti-firearms person.

Keith Locke: Does it not undermine and run counter to the main purpose of the seminar as the Minister has just outlined it—that is, firearm safety—to fund keynote speakers such as John Lott, who is the author of a book called More Guns, Less Crime, American National Rifle Association lobbyist Mark Barnes, and Colin Greenwood, who describes the British handgun ban as “a pathetic irrelevance”; and what does the Minister think it achieves when five of the 11 keynote speakers at the conference are extreme pro-gun lobbyists?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member is compounding the error that I just drew to his attention. He is selectively taking some—five out of 22—presenters and facilitators and saying that he does not agree with their views. I do not happen to agree with their views either, but a range of people are invited to the seminar to debate and, as the programme says—if the member had bothered reading it—to “exchange ideas, concepts, strategies and procedures for firearm safety”. One does not get a debate if one only chooses like-minded people who all say the same thing.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table photographs from the website of Canadian Gary Mauser of him and Inspector Joe Green on a hunting trip together.

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article from the website of Canadian Gary Mauser in which he explains how one reduces criminal violence by encouraging citizens to have concealed handguns.

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the biographies and abstracts on the Christchurch seminar website that explain the extreme pro-gun views of the five out of 11 keynote speakers I have mentioned.

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

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the full programme of the international firearm safety seminar, which sets out the seminar’s objectives—which are purely focused on firearm safety—and gives a balanced account of the wide range of speakers who have turned up to that seminar.

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

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Because the Minister of Health is not in a position to answer this question, I seek leave to have this question held over until tomorrow.

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

Focus 2000 Ltd—Auditing Systems

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: When he said that the quality of care at Focus 2000 Ltd was “no better or worse than the quality of care anywhere else around the country.”, did he have confidence in the auditing systems used to assess disability services, and does he still have confidence in those systems?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes and yes. The quality control and auditing systems used by the Ministry of Health are comprehensive, but no system is perfect.

Hon Tony Ryall: When the Minister of Health told Parliament yesterday that he had received new information from a variety of sources about Focus 2000 mainly during the course of Friday with a little more over the weekend, why did he not pass that information on to the Ministry of Health, given that the ministry confirmed this morning that the Minister has not passed on any new information or allegations already in the public arena, nor has it received any material from the weekend; and should he not be passing on that information, which the Minister himself called “potentially serious” allegations, to Ministry of Health officials who are meeting with Focus 2000 representatives tomorrow?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I understand that information has been passed on. Those allegations, and they are allegations, are being investigated.

Ann Hartley: What options exist for people to bring forward complaints about disability support services?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: If people have complaints, they should express their concerns to service providers. If they are not pleased with the reactions of service providers, they should immediately approach either the Ministry of Health, the Health and Disability Commissioner, or the Minister of Health, so their complaints can be investigated.

Hon Tony Ryall: If the Minister did indeed pass on all the information he had to the Ministry of Health, why then was he telling Parliament yesterday that he could not give members any details in order to protect both the privacy of individuals and the national interest, when the Ministry of Health revealed this morning that all that information is already in the public arena and there are no secretive new allegations, as the Minister has tried to suggest?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The rights of the complainants to privacy must be upheld. The accusations are being investigated by the Ministry of Health, and its officials will meet with the provider tomorrow.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why does the Minister of Health not treat the issues around Focus 2000 with the due seriousness that is appropriate, instead of embarking on that campaign of media spin about secretive allegations to protect the names of people who have been interviewed on the radio and who have given their names; or is all that part of a plan to cover up his embarrassment at yet again jumping the gun and being caught out in endorsing an organisation that he now does not want to endorse?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The Minister of Health, and the ministry, are committed to due process wherever complaints are made. They are not undertaking some kind of cheap political campaign at the expense of disabled people in this country—as the National Party seems determined to do.

Minimum Wage—Reports

9. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: What recent reports, if any, has she received on minimum wage levels?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): A Department of Labour report shows that as of next month successive Labour-led Governments since 1999 will have lifted the minimum adult wage by 46 percent and the minimum youth wage by 95 percent.

Darien Fenton: Has the Minister seen any other reports concerning minimum wage rates?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As a matter of fact, I have. I have seen a report in which is expressed a strong desire to scrap the minimum wage and increase the number of people on welfare. I quote: “If they can’t live on those wages, then find some way of supplementing their income.” So said Dr Brash.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Nick Smith, at the end of that question, said: “That’s just untrue.” He is not allowed to say that about something that is said quite specifically by a Minister in this House. It calls into question the veracity of the Minister, and on many occasions members have been disciplined for doing that.

Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear the interjection.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: A common technique of Ministers to get outside—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member speak just to the point of order, please?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes. Well, the point of order is about compliance with the Standing Orders. The Minister conveniently—and she is not the only Minister to do it—gets around Standing Order 377, in that it is not her job to talk about what Don Brash or any member of the National Party said. We are quite capable of talking for ourselves. So what Ministers do is get a long list of terrible things that were said—most of which are untrue—and tag on, right at the end, who said them. I interjected, quite properly, that what was said by Ruth Dyson was not true. It was a perfectly proper interjection, firstly because she has no responsibility for what was said—she was breaching Standing Order 377 in the first place—and, secondly, what she said was not true.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: It is members’ day!

Hon Trevor Mallard: I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that as that reply was being given by the Minister, Don Brash was nodding in confirmation—pleading guilty, in fact, to making the comments.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for that. The point is whether there is an implication of deliberate misleading—and I did not take that to be this situation. It was just that it was wrong, from the member’s point of view; it was not that the Minister was personally misleading the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand from the interjection Dr Smith made that he was accusing me of misrepresenting Dr Brash in a quote. That quote was directly from an interview with Dr Brash on Good Morning on Television One on 26 August 2004. Therefore my integrity has been challenged, and I ask you to seek withdrawal of that comment from Dr Smith.

Madam SPEAKER: Dr Smith, the Minister has sought a withdrawal of the comment—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What the Minister said was not true, and I stand by that.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has asked, because offence was taken in respect of the implication. She has given evidence of where the quote came from.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Might you explain to the House, under Standing Order 377, where that Minister was in order at all, in talking about what Dr Brash had said, as it occurs all over the place. It occurs repeatedly. The reason why the House gets into trouble is that you do not enforce Standing Order 377, whereby Ministers have no responsibility for what any member of the Opposition says. It has nothing to do with their ministerial responsibilities. I think I am perfectly entitled, when members from this side of the House are half-quoted, to say “simply not true.”

Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister was replying to a specific question as to whether she had seen any reports. The Minister had clearly seen a report, and furthermore she subsequently quoted the source and date of that report. It clearly was in order.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the point here, however, is that any member has a right to object to a personal reflection. That has happened here, so in that context I would ask the member to please withdraw the comment.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw.

Dr Wayne Mapp: How will the Government’s proposal to boost the minimum adult wage to $12 an hour in 2008 improve New Zealand’s already low productivity, given that Britain, the United States, and Australia have minimum wages lower as a percentage of incomes than New Zealand, but they are much wealthier than New Zealand?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member is correct in pointing out that addressing productivity is a key priority for this Government, and it is good that we are able to do it with the lowest unemployment rates recorded in New Zealand for over two decades. Making workers feel valued for the value of the work that they contribute by giving them a fair wage is an important contributor to that goal.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister seen any OECD reports where the OECD now believes that minimum wages are a very positive reinforcement of productivity and economic growth for economies when previously they held a different view?

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is absolutely correct, and I would recommend that the member who asked the previous supplementary question read the report.

Social Development and Employment, Minister—Allegations

10. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he believe his ability to perform his duties as Minister for Social Development and Employment could be impaired, in light of allegations made against him in Investigate magazine; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): No, as Minister I have no responsibility for the views expressed in Investigate magazine.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister believe that his ability to perform his duties as Minister for Social Development and Employment would benefit from him issuing defamation proceedings against Investigate magazine and Mr Wishart, or is he willing to leave unanswered allegations amounting to misuse of his ministerial warrant?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it is very important in this case that it is made clear to the House that allegations of a criminal nature were made about a Minister in the past. They were made about him in his personal capacity. Mr Wishart has suggested that the Minister used his position in relation to the Ombudsman—that is what he has said. Of course, any individual who has been dealt with by a Government department has the right to approach the Ombudsman. That is not something that is a ministerial responsibility, it is something that every individual has the right to do, and therefore the member cannot mix up personal matters and ministerial responsibility.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for the comment, but I listened carefully to the question and it is in the terms of the Standing Orders, and the Minister will answer the question within the terms of his responsibility.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Those matters have been fully investigated, and as far as I am concerned there is nothing further to add.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I just answered that question.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister accept that his ministry has overriding policy responsibility for the well-being of our most vulnerable children, and that allegations such as the ones made recently in Investigate magazine prevent him from doing his job?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes and no.

Judith Collins: What assurances has the Minister given to the Prime Minister that allegations of him influencing and intimidating the police will not affect his ability to perform his job as Minister for Social Development and Employment?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I think questions about my performance and capacity to perform in the role should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister what assurances, if any, he had given the Prime Minister. I should not have to ask the Prime Minister what assurances she has received, if I am already asking him what he has told the Prime Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question, and the member is perfectly entitled to lay down a question at a future time to do so.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On that basis you are saying that the Minister does not need to answer any question—from now on, his answer can be just “Ask the Prime Minister.”?

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. I addressed that point of order. The Minister is entitled to address the question. The Minister did address the question. It related to the subject matter of the questioner. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the questioner.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How can it possibly be an answer addressing the question, when all the Minister did was say “Go ask the Prime Minister.”? The question from my colleague was quite specific, about what assurances he had given, as Minister, to the Prime Minister. That is a question that can be directed only to the Minister. It was directed quite properly, and the answer did not address the question.

Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been listening for 2 days, and this has been happening repeatedly and we have just seen another example of it. A member raised a point of order, you made a ruling, the same member got up and basically engaged in a continuing debate with you about your ruling, and then a second National member got up and continued the same process. That is a blatant abuse of the Standing Orders, and it really is time that the National Party front bench was called to account.

Madam SPEAKER: I had ruled on it. The questioner asked a question; she received an answer. Whether the member liked the answer is not a matter for the Speaker to judge.

Stewart Island—Rakiura National Park

11. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Conservation: What assistance is the Government providing to ensure Stewart Island infrastructure is able to meet the tourism demands expected following the establishment of the Rakiura National Park?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): Dr Cullen and I have just signed off on a $2.5 million grant to fund a range of projects on Stewart Island, including extending the sewerage scheme and building additional toilets, providing new footpaths, and providing a new building to house the local museum, council staff, and a tourism information centre. Those projects will be delivered in partnership with Southland District Council.

Steve Chadwick: What other initiatives is the Department of Conservation undertaking in the Rakiura National Park?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: In the past year alone a number of important projects have been undertaken on the island. They include upgrading the popular Mason Bay huts so that they can accommodate more people, improving walking tracks, and working with local iwi to eradicate rats from the nearby Tītī Islands.

United States Relationship—Foreign Policy

12. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) to the Prime Minister: Has she been advised of reports that her Minister of Foreign Affairs is intent on building a better relationship between New Zealand and the United States; if so, does that represent the foreign policy of her Government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, and I welcome building on the already very, very good relationship that New Zealand has with the United States.

Hon Murray McCully: Why did the Prime Minister respond to Mr Peters’ stated intention of seeking help from the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, to improve the relationship with the United States, by rejecting the need for a better relationship or any help from Mr Downer, because New Zealand could “paddle its own canoe”; and why did her Minister of Foreign Affairs ignore her and ask Mr Downer for help anyway?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Even the very best of relationships can always be improved on, and I look forward to the Minister’s efforts in that regard.

Hon Murray McCully: Which policy is the policy of the Prime Minister’s Government: the policy promoted by Mr Peters that we need a better relationship with the United States and that Mr Downer is helping us to get one, or her policy that the relationship with the United States needs no improvement and therefore we do not need any help from Mr Downer?

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s sensitive.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am always very sensitive about things that are total untruths. My point of order is that that statement made by Mr McCully is absurdly incorrect. It is not the policy of the Government, it has never been a policy articulated by me, and the member should not be allowed to get up and just make it up on the hoof, as he tried to do yesterday in front of a very august group of people, who went away horrified at his suggestions.

Madam SPEAKER: That is a debating point.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am not sure of the name of the member—it is the new one over there next to the one from the West Coast—who interjected twice or three times during Mr Peters’ point of order. I know that the front-bench members are sticking to the rules; maybe the back-benchers could.

Madam SPEAKER: I did not hear that, but I know we are getting towards the end of question time and there might be a slight anxiousness to move to the general debate. I just ask members to observe the rules. When points of order are being made—before they are ruled to be in or out of order—the members doing them are to be given courtesy.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I repeat that we have a very, very good relationship with the United States, but even the best relationships can always be built on. However, unlike the National Party, this Government would not sell the nuclear-free policy down the drain to do it.

Hon Murray McCully: When the Minister of Foreign Affairs said recently that he wanted to put the New Zealand - United States relationship “on a much more harmonious and positive level”, what was he saying about the current state of the relationship?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: He was saying precisely that very, very good relationships can still be improved. I might say it is a great comfort to speak for a party that has a policy, unlike the National Party—“McCully: Nats need policy”.

Te Ururoa Flavell: E whakaae ana te Pirimia ki te kōrero o tana Minita o te Manatū Aorere, i a ia e kī ana i tēnei Whare i te 13 o Hakihea i te tau kua hipa mō ngā take whakawhitiwhiti kōrero ki ngā tāngata whenua o te ao. Anei pea te whakautu pai ki a mātou ko te kāwanatanga e kōrero ana ki te tangata whenua, kua whakaae mai tētahi, ngā tāngata whenua nei hei minita mō ngā take o tāwāhi. Mēnā āe, ko wai mā te hunga i wānanga nei tēnei kōrero?

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who told this House on 13 December 2005, on matters of consultation with indigenous peoples of the world: “…perhaps the best answer is this: in consulting the indigenous people, the Government appointed one as the Minister of Foreign Affairs.”?]

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am having a little problem understanding that question. Of course, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is very proud of his Māori heritage. He is an indigenous person. I really do not know what else to take from the question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Ko te tikanga o taku pātai e hāngai tonu ana ki te kōrero a te Minita i te tau kua hipa. Koinei te tika o taku pātai ‘kaua mō te pai, mō te kino rānei engari, mō tana kōrero.i te tau kua hipa. Kāore i whakautu mai tērā kōrero.

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

[The essence of my question focused on the Minister’s statement that he made last year. In fact my question was not about whether it was good or bad but, rather, about what he said in the year past. She did not answer that statement.]

Madam SPEAKER: The difficulty I had with the supplementary question, I suppose, was that it was a very broad one, given the primary question. I think the Prime Minister has addressed it, so I ask for the supplementary question from the Hon Murray McCully.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The focus of the primary question—I will try to help you by speaking English on this—was foreign policy. This supplementary question was based on the response given by the Minister to a question in this House sometime around 13 December last year about consultation with indigenous people. The interpreter has given you the response to that—a direct quote from Hansard. I was asking who had been invited to attend the consultation process, if that was the case. I still think the answer has not been given.

Madam SPEAKER: The focus of the primary question was on the foreign affairs relationship between New Zealand and the United States. I thought your supplementary question was broader than that. But the Prime Minister did address it.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry but I have ruled on that matter—unless it is a new point of order.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Yes, it is, actually. As I said, I took the original question to be about foreign policy. Under that wide heading, I would have hoped that the supplementary question was in fact valid.

Madam SPEAKER: If you read the whole of the question, you will see that the question was specific to that, but, as I said, the Prime Minister did address your question.

Hon Murray McCully: Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s recent public comments that it is her position that she will contradict and ride roughshod over her Minister of Foreign Affairs when he says he intends to improve our relationship with the United States, and to get help from Mr Downer to achieve that goal, but will stand 100 percent behind him when he sets back New Zealand - United States relations as he did yesterday; can she tell the House just what sort of signal those actions are intended to send to Washington?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I will certainly support the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ efforts to build on our very, very good relationship with the United States.

Hon Murray McCully: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents. First of all, I seek leave to table a transcript of an interview with the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, in which he makes it clear that Mr Peters sought assistance from him in improving relations with the United States.

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

Hon Murray McCully: Second, I seek leave to table a press report quoting Mr Peters directly as calling for a more positive and harmonious relationship between New Zealand and the United States.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given how busy the United States is in the Middle East, Iraq, and other parts of the world, and given the huge, complex, and intricate arrangements that we have put together in this country over the last 4 or 5 years in respect of the Pacific, might it be that the United States is not as aware of them as it could be, and that, in terms of enhancing our relationships, its better understanding of that might just help; might that not be the case?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: For all the reasons the Minister has given, it would be entirely understandable if not a great deal of notice was taken in Washington of what happens in micro-States in the South Pacific.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Prime Minister whether—

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he standing up or sitting down?

Madam SPEAKER: That is outrageous—I agree. That was totally uncalled for. Would the member please withdraw and apologise for that comment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise, but my point of order is that I was on my feet—

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. New Zealand First members are normally allocated four questions. Today they have six questions because the Government has given them an extra two supplementary questions. This would be their seventh question, and that is out of order.

Madam SPEAKER: That is out of order, actually. There is an arrangement to transfer supplementary questions, and I know that other parties do that.

Lindsay Tisch: No, I have checked today, and New Zealand First members were allocated six questions. They have had their six questions. The Minister is now trying to ask the seventh question, which is out of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Due to the nature of the question, and knowing full well that National members would not be able to sustain the attack for more than four questions, I arranged with Labour to be able to ask three questions, that being its allocation. It is very simple, really. Knowing who I was up against and how weak they would be, I tried to till the debating chamber for three more questions. That is exactly what the arrangement is, and it is above board.

Hon Trevor Mallard: My understanding, leaving aside some of the comments the member made, is that in fact there are still spare Labour supplementary questions, which the member is quite able to use, because we think he is doing a very useful job in showing up the Opposition.

Madam SPEAKER: I have checked, and in fact the Labour members have supplementary questions left. If they wish to transfer those questions they can, in the same way that other parties can.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take you back to a few minutes ago when Mr Peters made his rather unfortunate remark. You asked him to withdraw and apologise. He did so in a very qualified sort of way. I do not think you can put up with that. It is not unusual for him to do this sort of thing. He may be a Minister, and he may want to ask a question now to justify his own position, but I suggest that probably a spell out of the House is what is now needed for him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the interests of some tranquillity around here, I apologise and withdraw. Can I ask the Prime Minister, given that the United States has advocated its engagement in large theatres of the world where democracy or the growth of democracy is imperilled, and given that it seeks to re-establish it, is the United States’ understanding of our own engagement in our part of the world, in an identical and a like-minded cause, important in our obtaining a better relationship with the United States?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I believe it is. That is why we will welcome a visit that I understand is impending from assistant secretary of State Christopher Hill, so that we can take the opportunity to have him on our home ground to talk about the work we do in the South Pacific.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister recall reading page 8 of yesterday’s speech by myself—[Interruption] A wonderful speech it was.

Madam SPEAKER: Members should remember that when members are asking questions, they are to be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you, Madam Speaker, but that was more by way of an applause intervention.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member just ask the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does she recall reading three paragraphs, in which I specifically pointed out that US assistant secretary of State—the former Ambassador to Seoul, who is now in charge of Asia and the Pacific—Christopher Hill was aware of what we have done, and has pointed out the need for us to better get our message across to Washington on that record; and would that not help us to have a better relationship with the United States?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I understand that the member did draw attention to that in the speech. I myself have had the chance to speak with Mr Hill, and to endeavour to make him aware of that, and I know that if and when Mr Hill comes to New Zealand, the Minister will work to see that New Zealand’s fine efforts in the Pacific are well recognised.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Pai te Pirimia mēnā ka pātaia te pātai ki te Minita o te Manatū Aorere mehemea he Māori ia ka taea e ia te kī ,‘he pātai kaikiri tērā’; mēnā kei te whakaae, he aha ai, ki te kore, he aha ai?

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

[Does she agree that asking the Māori Minister of Foreign Affairs about his ethnicity amounts to racism, if so, why, and if not, why not?]

Madam SPEAKER: That question is not in order in this context. I presume it relates to question 12, and that is not in order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In respect of the ruling you gave to my colleague from the Māori Party, it seems that that question has been asked twice, in respect of the issue of ethnicity, by a so-called leading journalist. You might give the Prime Minister the chance to point out just how absurdly embarrassing it is that—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. That is not a valid point of order.

General Debate

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Last week I spoke of the fundamental lack of integrity that is at the core of the Labour-led Government. I spoke about “paintergate”, about “corngate”, about “Doone-gate”, and about Helen Clark’s refusal to take responsibility for speeding through South Canterbury at 160 kilometres an hour. I spoke about the shambles of Kyoto. I spoke about the structure that created a mickey-mouse Government in which two Ministers, on the one hand, claim to be part of the Government, and, on the other hand, claim to be part of the Opposition, even though they behave like Government poodles.

Now we have “pledge card - gate”. The Prime Minister signed a card—with her photograph on it, and with her commitments written on it—for which somehow she is no longer responsible. We saw her this week in the House playing funny procedural games to deny responsibility for her action of flagrantly breaching the Electoral Act.

Hon Phil Goff: What double standards from that member, who’s got his face all over this pamphlet—paid for by the taxpayer!

Dr DON BRASH: Mr Goff is quite wrong. The Government has flagrantly breached its electoral cap by half a million dollars and, moreover, has used taxpayers’ money to do so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to interrupt Dr Brash, at all. But there is too much noise from members, particularly over there. [Interruption] This is a point of order; the member cannot say “Shut up”. [Interruption] I am sorry; I thought she said it, but never mind. Dr Brash was speaking, and we could not hear him down this end of the House, and I suspect the public could not, either. I know the public like a good joke, so I want them to hear it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member is quite right—in the general debate there is always a level of interjection, but it was actually very, very difficult to hear. I also say that that was the final warning for people who interrupt during points of order. There were a number of interruptions then. Points of order will be heard in silence.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you effectively ruling that the final comment made by Winston Peters is acceptable, because we have put up with those comments all afternoon, and we are sick of it. The Chair does need to send him a strong message, and he should get his marching orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The first part of Mr Peters’ point of order was legitimate. The second part contained a comment that was similar to comments that have indeed been made by members on all sides of the House, especially during general debates. I ask the member to continue.

Dr DON BRASH: I am talking about the fundamental lack of integrity in this Government. I am talking about “pledge card - gate”. I am talking about the card that the Prime Minister signed that bears her photograph, has her commitments written on it, and was issued in flagrant breach of the Electoral Act cap. She also used $446,000 of taxpayers’ money, in clear breach of the Parliamentary Service rules. The reality is that the Government has a fundamental lack of integrity at its core. Some people would turn a blind eye to that lack of integrity. I would not do so, but some people would turn a blind eye to what is clearly a flagrant breach of the law and a flagrant breach of the Parliamentary Service rules.

One might have turned a blind eye to it if the Government were competent. But we have seen in the last 3 to 4 hours that the Government is not even competent. My colleague Maurice Williamson highlighted the fact that in June last year Transit issued a document that had to be changed after it was printed. Two months later it was changed again, and just 6 months later a new document was issued, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, by an organisation whose board is full of Labour Party appointees—including the Labour Party president, Mike Williams. Less than 1 hour after the document was released for consultation the Associate Minister of Finance said: “Disregard the document. It’s got no meaning.” Maurice Williamson highlighted the fact that the document is clearly flagging totally different dates.

My colleague talked about the Kōpū Bridge project, which one document said could start in 2008-09, but with the funding shortfall it will not actually begin until 2014-2015. Another project is the Newmarket viaduct replacement. This big, fat document talks about it starting in 2007-08, just 18 months or 2 years away. But with the funding shortfall, it will not be started until 2 years later, in 2009-10. I remind members that that means the bridge will not be finished by the time the Rugby World Cup takes place in Auckland. There will be a bombsite in the centre of Auckland, with that viaduct half-built. Then there is the main highway, Ellerslie, which, the big document states, could start in 2006-07. But the document issued to Auckland states that it will not start before 2014-15 or maybe after then—“2014-15” written with a little plus sign beside it means it will probably be beyond that 10 years.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Point of order, Tau Henare.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Hon TAU HENARE: I was first, sorry, boss.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have called Mr Henare.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, but he is junior.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, I say to Winnie that he does not have to be like that. Madam Assistant Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the speaker because I believe it would have been rude, but throughout that speech there was a cacophony of noise—not just interruptions or banter but a cacophony of noise, including Ministers walking in and out of the House, talking, and yelling out things to the person who was speaking.

The other thing is that Peter Brown and one of his colleagues from New Zealand First were standing in the House while a speaker was speaking. Madam Assistant Speaker, I just ask you to do your job properly, because you are not doing it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will stand and withdraw that last remark. He knows that if he wants to criticise the Speaker, there is a proper way of doing it. He will stand and withdraw that remark.

Hon TAU HENARE: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will then ask the member to leave the Chamber now.

The Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I move an extension of time for Don Brash’s speech. We are entitled to hear one today; that is what I came here for.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not a point of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can seek leave for an extension of time for Dr Brash.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that he cannot do that.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have just asked Mr Henare to leave the Chamber because he was not prepared to withdraw a remark. I appreciate that probably two things have become a little confused here. One is his frustration at the shenanigans that have been going on in the House this afternoon and the apparent overlooking of some of those things for certain personalities in the House, and the other is the confusion about that by your actions. You have been in the Chair for only a short time, so I will not relitigate that, but I am simply trying to put some context around a few things.

If we take it back to yesterday, we know that Mr Mallard jumped up very quickly to suggest that Dr Brash had made a comment after a question had begun, when the Speaker had clearly ruled that when questions were being asked, no one was to speak. Dr Brash admitted that it was him, and he was asked to leave the Chamber. We just saw a situation whereby you called Mr Henare for his point of order, and Mr Peters immediately started barking at you that he was senior to Mr Henare. It has been well understood for a long time that when people take points of order, they are heard in silence. If this House was to be consistent, Mr Peters would be asked to remove himself—just as Mr Henare has been asked to leave—for breaching exactly the protocol that Dr Brash was asked to leave the House for yesterday. I do not want to prolong things, but I suggest that what is good for one side should be good for the other.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I make just two points. A longstanding Standing Order states that when two members rise in the House, the senior one will be taken first. Now, I am not disputing that beyond my saying it, but when I said that, the member had not started his point of order. Therefore, Mr Brownlee’s complaint is without any validity, whatsoever. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will just rule on this point of order. [Interruption] Please be seated. I just remind Mr Brownlee that we do not go over what happened yesterday when we are talking about the context of what is happening now. When that point of order started, there was a banter from about three people, and Mr Henare entered into it, too. That was not his point of order. I let that go on both sides. We will now continue with the debate.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the point of order. I presume this is a new point of order.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: It is a new point of order. You took exception to a statement that was made by my colleague Mr Henare and asked him to leave the Chamber, but prior to making the statement you took exception to, he raised some concerns about the behaviour of members opposite that, as a result of asking him to leave, you did not address. In the context of the general caution you gave earlier, which some members may doubt that you meant given the standard of enforcement that followed, I want you to lay down to the House now very clearly the rules that will apply. Otherwise, we will have this confusion whereby members like Mr Henare will be the unwitting victims, due to intervening in good faith because they have become so frustrated with the state the House has come into, despite the warnings that have been given by the presiding officer. So I want you to be quite clear about the expectations, then I want you to follow through with those expectations after you have created them.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. Firstly, I have made the expectations very clear, and, secondly, when Mr Henare made his point others were making points on both sides. I let him continue with his point of order, and he added other things to his point of order that were not part of the point of order. That is why I ruled the way I did. I have clarified the matter. We will continue with the general debate.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): We have just heard a very self-righteous speech from Dr Don Brash, impugning the integrity of others. I want to ask him something about his own integrity. I want to ask him why, on 5 and 6 September, he twice denied any knowledge of the Exclusive Brethren and their distribution of pamphlets, yet on 8 September he said: “I knew they were going to issue some pamphlets attacking the government and I said ‘that’s tremendous.’ ” I want to know why that man deceived the public of New Zealand for 2 days by denying that he knew anything about the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. He had meetings with the Exclusive Brethren. So keen was he to keep that a secret, that he asked his office to take those appointments out of his diary. He was ashamed of the fact that he would be supported by an extreme religious sect to the tune of $1 million.

I want to know, Dr Brash, why you have not included that $1 million in your election return, because very clearly those pamphlets were about getting you re-elected.

Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would have thought that the Standing Orders do not allow members to make assertions that are absolutely and totally without foundation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No. That was part of the general debate. This is a robust debate, and certainly, those points have been raised from all sides of the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Dr Brash can run but he cannot hide. He cannot hide from the facts. At his invitation I will table his denial twice that he knew anything about the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. He denied it twice. Some people outside this House would suggest that when one denies something that one knows about, that is a lie.

Dr Brash also comes into this House—[Interruption] Oh, he does not like it. He should stick to the truth.

Dr Don Brash: He should withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I think that does come under a personal reflection. I would ask the member to withdraw that comment.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Then Dr Brash comes in and talks about integrity and “pledge-gate”. Dr Brash, this pamphlet shows your face. On the front of it, it asks: “What does National stand for?”. This is a piece of party political propaganda. This went out across the electorates before and during the election campaign. Dr Brash, if you come in here and say that the Prime Minister should pay for her pamphlet, why can you not undertake to pay for this pamphlet, which you put out under your name during the campaign, when it is about the National Party and, obviously, designed to win support at the election?

But it was not only Dr Brash who did that; it was a number of National’s members. Mr English had hoardings put out right across this country, with statements that were designed to help his re-election. The National Party for years has been spending public money on promoting its pamphlets, but National members have the nerve to hold a double standard and say that when somebody else does that it is wrong, but that when they do it it is OK. I say to Dr Brash that that situation is exactly the same as the New Zealand pledge card, and he knows it.

I want you, Dr Brash, to sometime be accountable to this House and say why you deceived the public of New Zealand by denying what actually happened. You said you did not know about the pamphlets; 2 days later you admitted you did know.

Simon Power: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I will deal with the point of order. The last two speakers have been using the word “you” and bringing the Speaker into the debate. I was going to make that point after this speech. I did not want to interrupt either member, but I probably should have made the point after the first speech. It also happened quite a lot the other day. I ask members not to bring the Speaker into the debate.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is also an added dimension to that ruling, which is that in bringing you into the debate Mr Goff has also accused you of deceiving the public.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have made the point. The member can withdraw his remarks.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Madam Assistant Speaker, I would certainly withdraw any remark that was felt to be directed against you. I have said that Dr Brash deceived the public by denying his knowledge of a pamphlet that he admitted 2 days later he knew all about.

A million dollars was spent by a small religious sect, to try to get the National Party re-elected. It has even got the tick: “Use your party vote to change the Government.” That pamphlet, put out by the Exclusive Brethren in my electorate and designed to support the National Party, was not put on the National Party’s electoral return. That is quite wrong. Dr Brash knew that a million dollars was being deceitfully spent in order to get him re-elected.

There is another question I should ask Dr Brash, and it relates to what Mr Hide has said about there being three or four National Party traitors who are fuelling speculation in the media about a leadership coup, and asking Dr Brash why he does not take the vote to the caucus and demonstrate his authority within the caucus. I want Dr Brash to tell the House who the three or four traitors in the National Party were. Let us have a think about it. John Key is there. He, of course, has said he will not stab Don Brash in the back—but Don Brash said that about Bill English, and 6 months later stabbed him in the back. I say to Dr Brash that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. Or is it Gerry Brownlee? I understand it was Gerry Brownlee who was fuelling that speculation, because he sees a leadership vacuum and he wants to hold that position. But then there is Bill English. Bill English wants utu. He wants to pay back Dr Brash with the same loyalty that Dr Brash showed him. That member is a lame-duck leader who will not survive long in this House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I remind members of the public that that was “Barbeque Phil Goff” speaking just then—the man who should really not talk about trying to stab leaders in the back.

Can I just say to this House that I have never known the portfolio of transport or roading to be in such a shambolic state. I say that because of the level of press releases that have come out today; not from the National Party, although we have done our bit, but from just any other organisation one might wish to name: Federated Farmers, the Automobile Association, the regional councils, and a number of other organisations that are absolutely in a state of crisis—and the Contractors Federation can be added to that list, as well. They are in a state of crisis because they simply have no idea what the roading programme for the next few years is.

One might say that that is not really fair comment because the Government has put out a reasonably good document. Well, actually, the Government has put out lots and lots of documents, and every one it has put out contradicts the previous one. I have to say that the Minister of Transport, David Parker, should either tender his resignation because of the shambles or, more important, go after the members of the board of Transit seeking their resignations.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who’s on that board?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Actually, the member asks a good question. Who is on the board of Transit? A common factor with Labour Party overspending comes to mind. His name is Mike Williams, the Labour Party president. When we hear the cry in the House all the time: “Pay it back, pay it back!”, maybe Mr Williams should get some of that money back so he can pay for all the printing that goes on at Government Print, or whoever does it.

I want to tell the House this. Transit put this document out in the last week of June last year. Now, that is proper. That is what should happen. It is a 10-year plan that is released once every year, saying what the next 10 years should look like. That is absolutely proper. But what happened was the first codicil that was added to the document came out on the day the document came out. There is a little orange sticker at the very bottom that says we cannot take any notice of this document because the Government announced something just that week that Transit did not know about and, therefore, this document is not worth the glossy paper it is printed on. It is full of maps, graphs, and tables—but we can forget it; it is not worth it. That is the first point.

So everybody sat in limbo for some time. Then, 2 months later, there was another document. Members will spot how much the covers are alike, but the new one has the words “Update August 2005”. I do not know why they did not put the day and the week, as well, because that is what we will have to go to. Now yet another update has come out with it all changed. Everybody out of the pool—it has all changed. The construction industry people said: “Oh, my God! Now we have to go back to the drawing board and decide how many new bulldozers and how many new personnel we will need.”

Then the rumours started leaking out, driven by the Prime Minister’s speech last week, that there was a problem with roading. She made one of the worst mistakes she has ever made. Again, she was badly briefed by her transport Minister that roading costs were blowing out because of contractors and their pricing. Well, the Contractors Federation was out of the blocks straight away, pointing out that the key drivers of roading costs are cement prices, steel prices, and fuel prices—not one of which the federation has any control over. They are international commodities and that is what is driving it. Even when we add all those increases together, the contractors’ margins have been squeezed back a bit. So I tell the Prime Minister that she should not start blaming the contractors. She should blame her Government for driving some of the inflationary spiral.

But now I come to the doozy. We have all been waiting for this. We heard about it last night around the corridors. There is a new document out. I thought: “Right! I better be ready.”, so I got my team ready with the spreadsheets. We got all the old data and we said that we had better look to see how different it is. All morning I have sat at my PC inputting this data. Here it is—a beautiful coloured glossy about the State highway programme. I thought it was really worth doing so that we would be really ready to respond.

An hour after the document was formally released at midday, the Associate Minister of Finance Trevor Mallard said: “See all these? Forget them. They don’t mean anything. They are of no value. We are not going to do it. They are of no value—they’re gone.” That is what Mallard said. I say to this Government: how on earth can the roading industry plan where, with this Minister and this board of Transit, the plan changes daily?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): We saw an extraordinary spectacle in question time today. A member who has been in this House just over 3 years as a new Minister creamed a former Minister who has had 20 years of experience. He had better jokes, better lines, and better everything. But the real point of my contribution today is to go back to Don Brash and his argument about credibility, responsibility, and integrity. I want to pick up on the theme outlined by Phil Goff. I refer to the relationship between the National Party and the Exclusive Brethren. It is absolutely true that Don Brash, who is supposed to be a smart person—he has run the Reserve Bank and he has an IQ of 100-plus—could not remember for 2 days whether he had a meeting with the Exclusive Brethren. Then, suddenly, incontrovertible proof was put in front of him that he had.

What the public fail to understand or cannot get the hang of is why the Exclusive Brethren would suddenly become politically active. Well, I have to say that in actual fact it is very clear. The public, and people generally, do not know that the Exclusive Brethren have a school, Westmount, on 12 sites. They have 12 schools and approximately 1,000 pupils for which they run those private schools. They have complained consistently to the National Party about the level of the State’s contribution to private education. The National Party promised the Exclusive Brethren that it would double the State’s contribution. Let us work this out. There is $40 million going into this area of activity and the Exclusive Brethren schools, with approximately 1,000 pupils, would receive $1.5 million in income each year from the Government. So if, in fact, the Government doubles its money, the Government’s contribution will rise from $1.5 million to $3 million a year.

On television we had the spectacle of the Exclusive Brethren meeting with John Key. He would have said to them: “The finance stacks up like this, boys. You put $1 million into the National Party campaign. We will make sure that you double your money and you will get a $4.5 million return over 3 years.” That is a 450 percent return on investment, over 3 years. It is quite clear and it is very simple. It is all public. We all know how much the Exclusive Brethren get. They get $1.5 million; the National Party promised to double it and give them $3 million a year. Now the Exclusive Brethren say that they spent only half a million dollars. Like Don Brash, they have no credibility because they denied that they were putting out these pamphlets. They denied it and denied it until there was incontrovertible proof, and then they fronted up and said that they had spent half a million dollars. Well, if they lied before, why would members believe them now? There is no reason to believe them.

The second element of this is that of the $1 million the Exclusive Brethren paid for a National Party campaign to write and deliver their pamphlets—there is no question about it—not one cent is on the National Party’s returns for electoral expenses. The only thing that the National Party’s return for expenses can be described as is a cheat sheet, because that is what it is. There is over $1 million worth of expenditure. This smells of corruption in my view because, unlike other political contributions, there is a direct and pecuniary interest to a group. The Exclusive Brethren have an exclusive school. No one who is outside of the Exclusive Brethren can sign up for it, and it is subsidised by the State. If the State is going to double the subsidy to that school, then the money will be doubled. So the Exclusive Brethren, by spending $1 million to get the National Party elected, had the prospect of getting a $4.5 million return. That is a 450 percent return.

The tragedy for the Exclusive Brethren is that, having taken the advice of the likes of Don Brash and John Key and made that investment, they have failed. The National Party now has turned up in this House with the largest caucus it has ever had, and it is still in Opposition. I say to the public and to the National Party that National will remain in Opposition as long as it continues to try to cheat its way to victory. The public turned off the National Party dramatically when they saw Don Brash say on TV that he did not have a meeting with the Exclusive Brethren. A day later he said that he did not have a meeting with the Exclusive Brethren, and only on the third day—he did not have the third crow of the cock, by the way—he said that he did. This is a man who tries to say that he is smart. Well, he ain’t that dumb.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Civil rights leader and orator Dr Martin Luther King Jnr once said that life’s most urgent question is: “What are you doing for others?”. The answer to that question in the prisons of this country is depressing. The report of the Ombudsmen released last Christmas described the shameful shadow of neglect that hangs over our penal walls. The report described inefficiencies in the basics, such as access to clothing, dentists, and books. It outlined a lack of employment and vocational programmes, despite the fact that access to meaningful work or training is a key departmental goal to reducing reoffending.

The report went further. It described substandard recreational facilities, sloppy sentence-management plans, inadequate procedures to record information, and an overall inconsistency in terms of inmate management and policy. Perhaps the most damning find was the revelation that the Department of Corrections was painting a picture that differed greatly from reality. The report of the Ombudsmen stated that “while a casual reading of the Department’s published documents might suggest it is substantially meeting those ideals and intents for prisoners, our conclusion is that this is not the case.” It is hardly a good news story, unless, of course, members like the story of the emperor’s new clothes.

Yesterday, when I asked the Minister of Corrections when the report into the detention and treatment of prisoners would be taken seriously—particularly its urgent recommendations relating to conditions that breach international human rights standards—his response was that he had every confidence that we are meeting those standards right now. This is not a fairy tale. Bad Girls is a TV programme, not the curriculum for New Zealand jails. Budget blowouts, poor accountancy practices, prison break-outs, emergency measures to accommodate extra inmates such as double-bunking, and industrial disputes over safety all sound like a failed system to me, and our jails are still bulging at the seams.

In a report on prison and reoffending released today, the Salvation Army has recommended a multiparty agreement to deal with the issues of crime and punishment in a non-partisan way. The report calls for some principled, courageous leadership to turn prisons round. The Māori Party has heard this call and supports it with all its will. We must turn round this crisis before it is too late.

The biggest flaw in the prison mentality is the proliferation of psychologists who would, if we allowed, diagnose children in utero as potential crims, identify their criminogenic needs, assess people for Māori culturally-related needs if they happen to be a Māori, apply a dosage of bicultural therapy, and finish off by applying the risk of reconviction, “ROC”, and the risk of imprisonment, “ROI”, tools, which together form the ROC٭ROI measure—kind of like the “jailhouse ROC ‘n’ ROI tools”.

We will not tolerate any more tinkering with a system that is clearly falling apart. We suggest three solutions. The first is to look elsewhere, and we hope that on his recent trip to Finland the Minister picked up on some key strategies for success. The second is to look here at some of the excellent ideas just waiting to be read. The ombudsman’s Christmas reading, the Roper report, and Moana Jackson’s He Whaipainga Hou: A New Perspective, the Salvation Army’s report would be a pretty good start. Finally, the best source of investment for sustainable solutions is to look to our whānau, to stop the politicking, and to ask our families for help—and that includes discussions with the families of the victims and the families of the offenders.

Five months ago the Waitangi Tribunal said that Māori communities have significant interests in the goal of reducing Māori offending and the use of Māori culture to help achieve that goal. Is the Minister prepared to speak to Māori communities, or does such an approach fall into the “ethnic targeting no-go zone” promoted by this Government? How about investing in them—not with bricks and mortar, not with diagnostic codes and treatment plans, but with real tangible resources—to help families to help themselves? All it takes is the political world to make the change.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka): I feel duty-bound and obliged to keep the public informed of the latest National Party leadership race, which has moved on again since last week. I think that the public needs to know about where the TAB odds are, who is running, who is fading, and who is looking like he or she will not even make it. Let us just recap who the horses are. We have Don Brash, the current leader who is not really the leader, Gerry Brownlee, who wants to be the leader but not likely to be, John Key, who will probably be the leader at some stage but it is not certain when that will be, Bill English, who was the leader and now wants to be the leader again, Simon Power, who was predicted to be the leader but is not likely to be, and a bit of a roughie. If I had money and I wanted to put it on a roughie, I would take Tim Groser, because I think he is paying very, very good odds.

Let us look at what has happened in the last week To be fair to Don Brash, I think he has moved slightly ahead. He was in the pack, but then he was moving just slightly ahead, because he laid down the law and told his caucus not to be disloyal. Therefore, he had probably moved a little ahead of the pack. But today Don Brash has gone backwards, by throwing Transit documents around Parliament. The important thing about that is that he was trying to do angry. I tell him not to do angry, because he just does not do it well. I think the pressure is getting to him—moving forward a bit, dropping back a bit. Overall, Don Brash has probably not really improved his position in the last little while.

Then there is Gerry Brownlee. Gerry Brownlee, one would have to say, has gone backwards. He has gone backwards because he was outed as the person who was undermining John Key. That was a really, really bad piece of information the public had. As a result, I would say that Gerry Brownlee is fading. He is running out of puff, fading, and not likely to make the cut at the end of the day. I think that whatever happens at the end, he will not even be the deputy leader. I think that is the point. Gerry Brownlee will go to the back benches and, with restructuring, he will slowly disappear out into the lobby.

Then there is John Key. It is fair to say that he was looking strong in that pack. He was coming forward, and then went backwards after announcing at the 2-day National caucus meeting that someone was deliberately undermining him. He said he knew who it was, but he would not say. That outraged and incensed the National Party caucus. How do we know that? Well, we know that it incenses us when those sorts of things happen. As a result, John Key himself has been dropping back. He has gone quiet. He is quite happy just to gallop there in the middle of the field, just going along quietly and waiting for the break—waiting for the gap. He knows he will have to get some assistance from other jockeys who are sitting on the horses around him. He is just waiting, and, of course, his time will come.

Then there is Bill English. What do we know about Bill English? He has gone completely quiet.

Hon Mark Burton: He’s very bitter.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: He is bitter, of course, about what happened, because he was rolled. Do members remember that—that he was rolled by Don Brash? Is it not funny that Don Brash is now concerned about being rolled? An old saying is that he who lives by the jockey’s whip dies by the jockey’s whip. Bill English is galloping in the middle of the field, and he may finish strongly.

Sue Moroney: He’s a stayer.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, he is a bit of a stayer. He has come back a bit, but he has not faded. He is also just waiting now. Just like John Key, Bill English is sitting in the middle of the field, waiting for the break but needing the assistance of others.

I come now to Simon Power. It was predicted at the start of the race that potentially he was a winner, but it is fair to say that he has faded and that he will pull up lame. That is a shame, because he is a thoroughbred—he has good breeding. The problem is that although he probably would have made a good leader, I think he will fall out.

Of course, Tim Groser is paying exceptional odds. He is the real roughie in the pack. If I had 20 bucks, I would probably put it on him. I would probably become a millionaire if he ever came in. He is still in the race, but at the same time he is likely to drop out.

So here we have the pack moving forward, and I think we are duty-bound every Wednesday to try to pick where the race is at that particular time, to make sure that people know the odds. Everyone will be interested. We, like the TAB, have a duty to keep people informed of the chances.

Hon Mark Burton: It’s the only interesting thing they do.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Yes, it is the only interesting thing. Not one policy comes out of the National Party; the issue is all about the leadership. Of course, that is the most important thing that the public is looking at as far as the National Party is concerned.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): We know how much trouble the credibility of the Government is in when we hear one of its members speak for 5 minutes without mentioning a single issue of any importance to the people of New Zealand. That is how rotten to the core this Labour Government is and why it is on death row. Don Brash put the issue of the Government’s credibility on the agenda this afternoon. Today, at midday, the Government put out an expensive document on an issue that matters—an important issue to do with billions of dollars of roading—and, within an hour, the Government said: “You don’t believe it. Nothing to be believed.” The Government put out a pledge card with the Prime Minister’s own photo and signature on it, in breach of the law. The matter is now before the police.

I want to bring a further issue into the arena—the issues around Kyoto, where again this Government does not have any credibility. You see, 4 years ago the Government ratified the Kyoto Protocol and said that New Zealanders would make hundreds of millions of dollars from it. That has all turned out to be false. Further, we found out that the Government broke the law. The Auditor-General said that Labour broke the law in not disclosing a liability before the election. What is rotten about this Government is that when it gets it wrong, it hides it, it cheats, and it breaks the law.

Then there are the issues of the last 24 hours. Our fourth-biggest export industry, forestry, is in crisis. A huge company, Weyerhaeuser, is pulling all of its investments out of New Zealand because it has completely lost confidence in our forestry industry and in our Government. Yesterday Jim Anderton put out a press release, in which he stated that they had had a very positive meeting with the forestry sector. He went on to state that they would be engaging again with officials. But what did the forestry industry say of the same meeting? It said that it was surprised and disappointed with the comments made by Jim Anderton, the Minister of Forestry. It said that they did not reflect what had occurred at the meeting.

What does that mean? It means that one cannot trust the Government. It means that it did not tell the truth. It means that what it said was untrue. We know that further, because Jim Anderton said that officials would be back talking with the forestry industry, which was what the industry wanted, but the industry said exactly the opposite. Your see, time and time again on issues that matter, you cannot trust any more what Labour Government Ministers say.

Then we had David Parker, the Minister of Transport and also the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, who has been in the job for only a few months, telling the House that we could not rely on the climate change policy, because it is in flux. I looked up the meaning of flux in the dictionary. It said that it meant something that is in continuous change. Is that not helpful? We have a Kyoto policy that is in continuous change. We were to have a “fart tax”. We have not had a “fart tax”. The Government had to abandon that. Then we were going to have a carbon tax. Only 8 months ago the Government said that the carbon tax was a critical part of the Government’s Kyoto policies. But that has gone. Now we have the awful Kyoto figures and the fiasco with the forestry industry.

The reason this Government is stuffed is that we cannot believe anything it says. Whether it is Transit putting out a huge report on its roading projects, whether it is the Prime Minister’s photo and signature on the pledge card, whether it is David Parker and his fluxing policies on climate change, or whether it is what Jim Anderton said in his press release yesterday, you simply cannot believe anything that Ministers of this Government say. That matters, and that is sad for New Zealand. What sort of Government do we have when New Zealanders can no longer put any credibility on what it says. It has been caught out telling porkies. It has been caught getting it wrong. It has been caught breaking the law so many times that its reputation is in tatters. This is a Government on death row. Its days are numbered. I call on the next speaker to resign and do New Zealand a favour.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Just before I call the next member, I make the point again that the previous speaker brought the Speaker into the debate several times. I remind all members to be aware of that issue.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): What a disgraceful display we have seen from the Opposition in this House this afternoon. I believe that this House should take out an ad in the “Situations Vacant” columns, because we actually have a vacant position for an Opposition in the House today. However, we do have to have some consideration, because National does have a leadership problem. Not only does the leader have to contend with a tired, boring, old front bench, but not at one point this afternoon have we heard any policy. All that the Opposition members can do is to chip away at the very decent work that we have been able to achieve under this Labour Government in the last 6 years.

I heard Mr Williamson go on about what he terms a transport debacle. We do not expect behaviour in this House whereby members throw papers around the Chamber. If the fans in this place had been turned on we would have been sprayed with confetti, given the way that member went on. [Interruption] Well, it would have been confetti of a sort, because that is what seems to exist within the minds and to occupy the time of the people who call themselves the loyal Opposition. If there was one, we would be pleased. This Government is sick and tired of having to remind New Zealanders why they put us back in Government: because the policies that have been delivered under a Labour-led Government for 6 years have indeed delivered.

With regard to transport—good heavens! Mr Williamson was the Minister of Transport under the leadership of a National Government, and Better Transport, Better Roads rings with infamy as far as transport at that time is concerned. We have increased significantly, many times over, the funding provided for roading. On that matter, given our ability to be flexible and given the current global economic position to do with petrol and other fuels and things like that, we have taken a prudent stance. We may have to wait a little, but the projects are still on the road. Let us not forget that the report that members on the Opposition side of the House think they will make such capital out of is a draft report. They will not make capital out of it.

Let us get back to the Opposition’s leadership issue, because that is the real problem members opposite have.

Hon Mark Burton: What leadership?

GEORGINA BEYER: Precisely! As my eminent colleague asks, “What leadership?”. There is no leadership. The display by the Leader of the Opposition in the general debate today was nothing short of pitiful. It was pathetic. I could not even hear the member. He could not even raise his voice enough to be heard. In fact, I wonder whether this is not the first time he has taken part in a general debate in this House. That was disgraceful, coming from the leader of a major party. I would single out every other party leader in this House as being able to deliver something very credible and very reasonable most of the time—but not that leader.

I watched the faces of Don Brash’s caucus members. They looked horrified. They smiled most determinedly through his speech, but I have to inform the listening public that their consternation was palpable. Why? Because they have a flip-flop leader. They have a leader who wants to turn up to events and take to the stage, but who scuttles away as soon as he feels that the climate is not quite warm enough for him. He runs away from facing the people. I had such an experience recently. I will not reiterate it, because I mentioned it last week—if anyone cares to read my speech in Hansard.

I urge this House to give serious consideration to placing an ad in “Situations Vacant” listings across the country for a loyal Opposition. We simply do not have one. That is disgraceful in the forward-thinking democracy that this Labour-led Government embraces. We want to transform our economy, and members on the Opposition side of the House continually talk the country down. They do not want to give New Zealanders opportunities, as we do. We in the Government are inclusive in our responses to the community, and we listen. I have to inform the listening public that Opposition members do not do that very well, at all. I have brought them to silence now, I must admit, so I will concede that they like listening to me. That is most entertaining, I know, from time to time.

I have managed to be as kind as I possibly can be. I offer the hand of help to the Opposition and say that if it needs a few tips, it should come and talk to those of us who experienced being in Opposition long ago. In fact, it is so far in the past now since National was in Government that we have almost lost that institutional knowledge. We intend to keep it that way—to remain on the Government side of the House, leading this country towards a transformed economy that is inclusive of young and old and of families, and that offers all the opportunity anyone could ever want.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki): It gives me great pleasure to speak in this general debate. I am a troubled newbie politician—troubled by the lack of integrity and the dishonesty I see on the benches opposite me among the members of the Clark-Peters Government. Examples abound. Firstly, the pièce de résistance—the assertion that the pledge card was a legitimate use of taxpayer funding through the Prime Minister’s leader’s fund. I do not think so! The timing was just too cute by far—arriving in my mailbox smack in the middle of the election campaign, with no pretence at all, a glossy brochure and a pledge card with a stunning babe photograph on it. How could that not win votes? The rules on taxpayer-funded advertising can be summarised very succinctly: publicising policies is okay; soliciting votes or—

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but the previous senior Government whip will know that it is contrary to the Standing Orders to move to another seat in order to gain a better advantage for interjections. I suggest that if she wishes to interject she return to her seat at the back of the Chamber. Alternatively, she could stay in her seat and keep quiet.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That is exactly what the Speaker’s ruling says, but I think most people are out of their own seats in the general debate today and have been interjecting from where they are sitting at present, because most people like to come forward. We seem to let it go, but we will certainly send people to their proper seats if that is what the member wants.

JO GOODHEW: The pledge card is all about soliciting votes. If it were not, Labour would not keep rolling it out, election after election. Labour made a calculated decision to campaign on the public purse. There is no confusion. There was no mistake. It was a deliberate and conscious decision—dishonesty and lack of integrity. Labour members thought they had got away with it—but no! The matter has been referred to the police, just like the Prime Minister’s many other excursions that are very close to being unacceptable. National has led the charge in calling for an overhaul of taxpayer-funded advertising rules. Only now that Labour has been caught red-handed is the Prime Minister shuffling her feet. It is simply not good enough. Taxpayers deserve far better, and they will get it from National. But wait—there is more lack of integrity! Members may call it duck-shoving, if they like. The previous Aoraki MP and the Prime Minister sped through South Canterbury, then hung the police and civilian drivers out to dry. My constituents sent a clear message to the Hon. Jim Sutton and Labour over their thoughts on that one.

It is very appropriate that I am talking here today about duplicitous behaviour. On 29 August 2005 the Timaru Herald carried a story of a miraculous change in the priority of local Transit State Highway 1 and State Highway 8 project funding. The previous Minister of Transport, Pete Hodgson, was quoted as saying: “I would hope that the money for the full feasibility plan for the roundabout can be made available in this financial year and funding for its construction in the next financial year. Construction of the roundabout would be planned for the winter of 2007 …”. The headline was “Green light for roundabout: SH1 trouble spot gets top priority”. But wait—what do we see in the report today? That project is so far away that it does not even warrant a date. There is no chance whatsoever that Trevor Mallard will be able to talk the department into putting it in the next draft of this document. The earlier comment was duplicitous. Labour thought that it might win Labour the election, but it did not work in my electorate. Pete Hodgson and Jim Sutton can now be seen for what they are. They attempted to bribe the people of Aoraki and they failed but miserably.

The other project that got quite a bit of newspaper coverage during the election was another attempted bribe—Timaru’s courthouse. Again, we find that that is on the backburner now that the election is past. I implore the Government not to punish the people of Aoraki for their distrust of the Prime Minister and Jim Sutton. I implore the Government not to treat the people of Aoraki badly just because of the election result, because that distrust was bred of “paintergate”, “Doone-gate”, “corngate”, “motorcade-gate”, and “pledge card - gate”. I fear that their trust will now take a further battering when they find out about Labour’s duplicity in relation to the election pledge card.

I represent rural provincial New Zealand and the people of Aoraki. I strive also to represent being trustworthy. That seems to me to be something that all of those examples are not. Again, I remind members that we have had “paintergate”, “Doone-gate”, “corngate”, and “motorcade-gate”—all examples of Government members not being trustworthy. So I invite them to try to mend bridges, to try to apologise. For a start, they should pay the money back. They should say to the people of New Zealand: “OK, it was not OK to ask you to pay for a bribe for your votes.” That is a very simple exercise. So they should start by paying the money back. We did find that Ministers put their hands in their pockets to pay the fines for the motorcade’s police officers. What was that if not an about-face and a “We’re feeling guilty; how can we mend this bridge?” But the people of Aoraki saw through it, and they did not feel that that made those people trustworthy in their eyes.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I am familiar with what it takes to have a hard-working, successful, and competent Government, because I am a Labour member of Parliament. I am familiar with what that all takes, because we have had a Labour Government for the last 6 years. However, as a new member of Parliament, I have been very interested to see how an Opposition behaves—and it has been quite an eye-opener.

For that reason I was really interested to see what happened during National’s 3-day caucus retreat. I thought: “Here comes the challenge.”, because is it not the job of the Opposition to challenge the Government? What challenges would Opposition members put before the Government? What in-depth proposals would they have for the future of New Zealand? Clearly, Dr Smith does not understand the concept of continuous improvement, because when he spoke previously to this House he was concerned about changes—that changes might happen in New Zealand. Well, let me tell members opposite that continuous improvement is exactly what this Government strives for. That is why we are continuously looking to see what we can do better for New Zealand.

But what was National doing at its caucus retreat? I had hoped its members might get a whiteboard out and start doing some calculations on the tax cuts they had promised throughout the election campaign. Then they might have worked out that those promises did not add up. They would have worked out that what they had promised would amount to having deficits in this country. They would have worked out that we would end up having cuts, subsequently, to health and education in order to give those tax cuts they had promised and, yes, that spending on roading could not go ahead with the tax cuts promised. Perhaps they were going to spend 3 days working out, and finally coming to a conclusion about, what it means to be “mainstream”. What is the definition of mainstream? Perhaps they were going to spend their 3 days working that out amongst themselves and getting agreement on who is and who is not mainstream, and which members of the National Party caucus fitted that criterion and which did not. But, no, they did not come to any conclusions even on those issues. In that 3-day retreat, what ended up happening was an endless number of leadership squabbles and leaks to the media. A few witch-hunts were going on about who leaked what to whom. Then, just adding to that, there were a few flip-flops—now characteristic of the National Party—on policy, for good measure. That is what happened during the 3-day National Party caucus retreat.

I want to thank the Hon Paul Swain for giving a wonderful racing analogy before of what is going on with the leadership squabbles within National, because I can finally understand who is in the field and who the players are. So I thank Mr Swain for that. But the cloak-and-dagger approach was not left behind after the 3-day retreat. I have been observing the strange movements of the National Party caucus over the last 24 hours and, in particular, the strange movements of its leader, Dr Brash. While Prime Minister Helen Clark was dealing with issues affecting the nation, at about a quarter to 10 last night Dr Brash was spending his time here in this House. I thought he had come to make a speech but, no, he spent his time sidling up to back-bench members to shore up his own position in the leadership squabbles. That is what he was doing, while the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, was dealing with issues that affect this nation.

I am reliably informed, even though I was not in the House at the time, that that is exactly the same sort of thing Jenny Shipley was doing just before her demise as leader of National—coming into the debating chamber late at night to get alongside back-benchers. The other contenders, I am sure, know of that approach, and they will be using it as well. Simon Power knows it, so do Bill English and John Key. How many approaches have they been making? How have they been sidling up to back-benchers to shore up their positions in the leadership squabble? And what will the role be for Tau Henare? It is sad to see that he has been ejected from the House for this sitting because of his lack of respect for the role of the Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must not refer to the absence of members from the Chamber. That is a longstanding convention. All of us at some stage have to leave the Chamber.

SUE MORONEY: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. But what role will Tau Henare play in the current squabbles going on about the leadership? I was not in the House when the waka-jumping legislation was debated and went through, but I believe that the waka in question was known as “Tau Henare”, so he must be looking forward to what will be happening in the aftermath of the leadership coup that will inevitably happen within the National Party. That is fertile ground for Tau. The disaffected will be thinking—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I know she is new, but she must use the member’s full name, please.

SUE MORONEY: So that is fertile ground for Tau Henare in his new-found home in the National Party, because after the leadership coup has happened what will the disaffected—those people who supported a member who did not win in that leadership coup—be looking to do? Will they be looking to form yet another new party? That is the sort of thing that Tau Henare specialises in, and I think he would be looking forward to that. All of those things are going on across the way there; meanwhile, what is happening on this side?

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First): We have been back here for not quite 2 weeks into the 2006 year, and what have we heard? We have heard Labour and National ripping into each other, almost exclusively about campaign spending. That is campaign spending that the smaller parties hardly registered in, I have to say. Labour spent $400,000 out of the leader’s fund on a pledge card, so we are told. Will that party pay it back? No—of course it will not. National received huge support from the Exclusive Brethren. Will the Exclusive Brethren let the National Party go? No, they will not. They will keep influencing it, and the Labour Party will keep spending. All the while, members from both sides of the House speak of their honour and credibility, and of the rightness of their cause. We in New Zealand First say that the more they speak of their honour, the more we count our spoons.

The public in this country needs to understand that those two tired, old parties will continue in that manner, and that what is needed is—and the strength of people’s vote needs to be put into—a strong third party. It will not be until we have critical mass in a third party in this country that we will start to get the transparency that MMP promised—and the action that people demand of a Government.

While all of the bickering and carrying-on is going on, New Zealand First is attending to the job. We understand MMP, we understand what is needed, and we understand that somebody has to step up to the plate, whether it be with the Labour Party or with the National Party. Whichever party gets the most votes on the day has to be supported, and we have done that. We have had criticism from left, right, and all over the place for the role of our Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I want to put it on the record that when people pick up today’s paper they can read praise for his stance. They can even read of Murray McCully agreeing with the guy, for heaven’s sake. Yet in this House and all around the land, some will pretend otherwise.

This Government will not fall to pieces; it will continue. This is MMP, and this is the way it will be in the future. While the bickering is going on, New Zealand First will get on with getting the job done, not only for its voters but for the public of New Zealand. We will ensure that there are more police on the beat. We will ensure that there is better aged care, and that there is a credit card so that our aged people know what they are entitled to and can go out and access health. We will make sure that the Kyoto Protocol does not proceed in the way that was espoused at election time by the Labour Party. We will make sure that more trees are planted in our communities, and we will ensure that exporters are encouraged. It is only by those methods that we can get this country out of the doldrums and moving into the position it should be in.

But the point I want to make, and the overriding point that I make, is that it is not by supporting the two tired, old, bickering parties that we will progress this country. Support must be given to third parties, and in particular to New Zealand First.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga): Every time I speak in this House I usually write a few notes down, to follow through. But every time I listen in this House I have to put some extra notes at the top, because I get quite offended by some of the things that happen here. I would like Labour members and others to open their ears and listen to this statement: I am not going to fight for any particular religion, but I would like to tell this Government it should understand that the Bible says that God’s word will be spread in many ways. That should be taken into consideration when people rubbish the Exclusive Brethren, or I think they will burn in hell.

The second point is that Labour members are very consistent; anything they say is not to be believed, including road reports. During the election I put a bit of pressure on the ex - member for Tauranga—the loser, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—and he responded. The Rt Hon Winston Peters promised the people of Tauranga better roads. The Rt Hon Winston Peters promised a second toll-free harbour bridge. We all got excited. We thought that when the Rt Hon Winston Peters did the deal with the Labour Party and became a half-pie Minister for Foreign Affairs, it was all on.

The truth is now coming out. We have delays in our roads. Construction has been pushed back for years. Some of the people in Tauranga who trusted Winston, and there were a few of them, have found that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has deserted them and moved to Auckland. This promise, by the way, is right there in the agreement between the Government and the New Zealand First Party. The National Party, and Winston—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must use the full name.

BOB CLARKSON: Sorry, I apologise. The National Party and the Rt Hon Winston Peters promised we would begin building roads in Tauranga immediately after the election. If National were the Government, those roads would have been started by now and we would be well on the way.

I am deeply disturbed by this dead-beat Government. The future of the Mayor of Tauranga hangs in the balance because of Winston’s promises—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

BOB CLARKSON: Sorry, I apologise again—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I would rather forget his name but, however! Somebody has just yanked the chair away—the mayor is gutted; I have actually talked to him. The mayor’s whole plan was to get another bridge in Tauranga.

It also saddens me that productivity for the whole of New Zealand is out the window. Roads are the key to successful businesses and to improving the economy. New Zealand is in a holding pattern until it can get rid of this do-nothing bunch of wallies in Government. When National becomes the Government we will get roads built and put the wheels back on the bus. I am in deep despair. As a businessman I cannot believe that we are living in a country where only a few weeks ago the roads in Tauranga were blocked up for 2 hours for no good reason. That is beyond belief. It should not be allowed to happen by any sane Government. This Government has been in power for 6 years. All the excuses in the world cannot shift the blame. The failure to build roads is the Government’s responsibility.

New Zealanders have worked hard. We have been through the best period of commodity prices for years. No other Government has had it so good.

Lindsay Tisch: They have squandered it.

BOB CLARKSON: It has taken taxpayers’ money and squandered it. In some cases it has stolen that money for its own use.

If voters gave National 6 years, we would have roading in this country up to speed or well on the way. We would have this place humming. Government members will say that we would borrow millions. National would borrow only a small amount of money. Out of the consolidated account we would take the tax that was taken off for road users. Those roads to a certain extent would be self-funding. The accident rates would drop. Productivity would increase and people would be allowed to go about their business in the best possible way.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill

Procedure

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to the orders of the day that we are about to move to, I have had a discussion with the whips of all parties, and therefore, on the basis of that discussion, seek leave for the speaking times for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to be the same as for a members’ order of the day. In other words, I seek leave for there to be two 10-minute speeches, eight 5-minute speeches, and a 5-minute speech in reply.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Members have heard that and I have been assured that the member has sought the permission of the whips.

LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have no difficulty with what is proposed, but in terms of the order, can we just confirm that we would be using the format for members’ bills—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just want to caution members. I know we have some new members here, but during points of order there is to be absolute silence. That member has his first yellow card.

LINDSAY TISCH: I just seek clarification that we will be using the format for a Labour member’s bill today, so Labour would take a 10-minute call, National a 10-minute call, and then other parties 5 minutes. Am I correct in assuming that?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): That was the basis on which I sought agreement from whips following a discussion with the Clerk, so I am happy to give that confirmation to the member.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The confirmation has been given. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

First Reading

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I move, That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I stand here today as a proud activist for protection of the Waitakere Ranges, the foothills, and the wild west coast beaches. These are not just features of the land; together they represent a crucial part of our natural heritage and our national culture. This land is a beacon of enjoyment worthy of celebration and deserving of protection for generations to come.

I want to pay tribute to many who have come before who have protected this land and who have campaigned to recognise its importance. I acknowledge the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, who decades ago had a vision for protecting the ranges. I acknowledge the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society and many others who have worked tirelessly for so long to promote protection, to challenge inappropriate development, and to nurture a dream that so many of us hold dear. I acknowledge tangata whenua, whose comprehension of the splendour of this land and whose commitment to it was never in question, and the families who have been there for generations and who have contributed so much to the history and culture of the special place we know today. Now to the present, I acknowledge the landowners in Swanson, Ōrātia, Henderson Valley, Titirangi, Pīhā, Karekare, and the wider community who recognise the uniqueness of the ranges and who willingly take on a responsibility to ensure that that uniqueness is protected.

The Waitakere Ranges form the western backdrop to metropolitan Auckland. They are a range of high, bush-covered volcanic hills with steep slopes and high rainfall. They fall on the west to the rugged coast of the Tasman Sea, and on the south to Manukau Harbour. On the city side, they grade more gently through rural foothills. In places like Titirangi, the ranges are urbanised, but in a form that leaves the natural character dominant over the built environment. In other places, they remain a wilderness on Auckland’s doorstep. The heart of the ranges is the 17,000-hectare Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, which was founded on reserves set aside from the late 1890s, and incorporates the Auckland Centennial Memorial Park, which was established in 1941. The heritage area to be established by the local bill embraces this public land and a further 10,000 hectares of private land in the ranges and foothills. The heritage area is mainly in Waitakere City, but extends naturally into the southern Rodney District.

Three councils—the Auckland Regional Council, Waitakere City Council, and Rodney District Council—have come together to promote the bill. They have worked closely with iwi and local MPs. I acknowledge my colleagues David Cunliffe, Chris Carter, and Dover Samuels. They have engaged in a huge programme of public consultation on the drafts of the bill, and have received outstanding endorsement both locally and throughout the region.

It is appropriate that this measure is a local bill. The Waitakere Ranges and foothills are a discrete and distinctive area. Their natural beauty and landscape are outstanding in all of New Zealand, but they are under pressure of urban sprawl. Their heritage value—both natural and rural—is at risk from metropolitan pressures. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has advised the House of the need to take action to protect this area before it is too late. It was recognised that ad hoc development was having a detrimental effect on the Waitakere Ranges—death by a thousand cuts. It is not just a matter of protection; it is not about drawing a line around the land, locking the door, and throwing the key away; it is a matter of promoting a compatible style of development and economic activity that is appropriate. The bill does that.

However, the bill does not erode private property rights and it does not take any private land; rather, it enhances the rights of the vast majority of residents who do not want to see ad hoc development. It also strengthens the existing parkland, but it does not turn private land into parkland. It identifies and protects heritage features, including current activities such as farming. The Waitakere foothills have microclimates that are very favourable to horticultural crops. The area has been famous for its apples, pears, tamarillos, and grapes, but that is changing. The bill focuses on managing the transition from now obsolete rural uses to new, vibrant uses that are also rural in character. The local area management plan provisions will allow communities to express their own character and to assess developmental proposals against long-term goals. The bill builds on the Resource Management Act and provides guidance to councils in decision making to consider the long-term and cumulative effects.

The key to this bill is that it has a goal, which is a vision of what the area might be like in 50 or 100 years. It works towards that goal. It does not freeze development, but it does ensure that this precious area does not just become another example of urban sprawl. The ranges and foothills will continue to provide a quality choice for residential living, but residential growth is nearing capacity. The ranges will continue to supply more than a third of Auckland’s metropolitan water supply. The ranges and beaches will be a Mecca for the relaxation and recreation of Aucklanders, a respite from urban life, and a showcase to visitors. They will be a celebration of our unique and wonderful landscape.

The bill recognises the tangata whenua of the area, and imports from the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 and claim settlement legislation statutory devices to better recognise those important associations. It also builds on the heritage richness of pioneer families for which the west is famous.

The bill secures the heritage of the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. It creates a new place, the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, and it provides for the nurturing of what makes the place special. But more than that, the bill reinforces the containment of urban Auckland. It points towards an urban future away from the ranges where urban development is intensified around transport nodes and activity centres. The bill preserves the Waitakere Ranges and foothills and coastline as a very special area that people live in, work in, and enjoy. It is an area that is valued and will be protected for our children, our children’s children, and way beyond.

As the member of Parliament for Waitakere, I am proud to take charge of the bill in the House. I warmly congratulate the three councils on their foresight in drafting and promoting the bill. It is my strong recommendation to the House that the parties support the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

PAULA BENNETT (National): I find myself, a little surprisingly, agreeing with the speaker before me in many respects. Without a doubt, Waitakere is the absolutely beautiful wild west that deserves to be protected, and I support protecting the ranges. In fact, out of the many hundreds of Waitakere residents I have met and spoken to, I have yet to meet a local who does not support protecting the ranges. The area is not only a magnificent asset to west Auckland, with its spectacular backdrop to the city and its natural expanse of parkland and beautiful beaches, but it is also an asset to all New Zealand.

In light of our desire to protect the ranges, and considering their uniqueness that adds to the beauty of all New Zealand, I believe that we should make the 17,000 hectares of regional park into a national park. I would like to address certain areas of concern with the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, but I will first address the awesome opportunity that we have to turn this area into a national park.

There are no national parks north of Taupō, and since the National Parks Act affords those areas greater protection than any other Act, it seems as if it provides an obvious solution to a complex issue. The Act states in section 4(1) that its purpose is for “… preserving in perpetuity as national parks, for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use, and enjoyment of the public, areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality, ecological systems, or natural features so beautiful, unique, or scientifically important that their preservation is in the national interest.”

The Waitakere Ranges fit those criteria easily. It is time to use all our might, and lock in that area without uncertainty. The proposed bill does not come even close to doing that. Currently, three pieces of legislation could protect the Waitakere Ranges and the surrounding foothills and coastal areas: the National Parks Act, the Resource Management Act, and the Local Government Act. Instead, we have before us yet another piece of legislation that at the end of the day will give us no certainty of environmental benefit.

I have yet to meet anyone who wants to see a tight-fitting subdivision in the foothills or in our wild and wonderful coastal areas. Local people choose to live in that part of the country because they absolutely love it and appreciate its wildness and uniqueness. As this matter has cleverly become an emotive issue between those who support the bill and those who do not, the latter have become painted as evil landowners who want to chop up the land into a thousand bits and who have no consideration for the environment, their neighbours, and indeed the area as a whole.

Nothing could be further from the truth; in fact, what a ridiculous argument. Some of those people who oppose the bill do indeed own land in the area but, from my own observations, they are as passionate and as slightly fanatical—they are westies, after all—as those who support the bill. The fact that they value private property rights and feel that the district plan and the Resource Management Act are enough to protect the foothills, actually makes them pretty smart—because they are right.

Let us look at the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. Firstly, members should not let the title fool them. This bill is not only about the ranges; this bill should be called the “Waitakere Foothills Heritage Area Bill”. Over 21,000 people live in the area proposed in the bill. They will be affected. This legislation is not only about protection but also about the erosion of private property rights. A local district plan should be exactly that—a plan for the district. It should plan how people want their district to be.

Let us not forget the Resource Management Act, which restricts what people can do on their property, and which has such a myriad of compliance requirements that people cannot just carve up their land willy-nilly. For that matter, they can hardly cut down a tree or anything else on their own property. The legal effect of this bill is to add another tier to the requirements of the Resource Management Act. Already there is widespread acknowledgment that the Resource Management Act has generated far too much paper and too few environmental improvements. It suffers from a lack of clarity and excessive bureaucracy. This bill would only make that situation worse.

The bill refers to protecting the heritage area—protecting it against what? Will it protect it against subdivision and development? There are no specific measures within the bill to control subdivision. The bill does not even lay out in clear terms measures that will protect the very thing it is trying to protect the area from—because it does not need to. The Resource Management Act and the district plan already do that. If we add in the protection provisions of a national park, the facts are clear that this bill is unnecessary.

Let us talk about a few of the clauses. Clause 9(f) states that an objective of the bill is to “ensure that any subdivision, either individually or cumulatively—(i) is of an appropriate character, scale and intensity;”. What is an appropriate character, scale, and intensity? Who is defining “appropriate”? For that matter, what is inappropriate? Will that have to be determined time and time again in a court of law? How will people know what boundaries fit into an appropriate character or scale? Clause 13(2) refers to a “restricted discretionary activity”. What is a restricted discretionary activity? It is not defined at all. Clause 15(3)(a) refers to “aesthetic coherence”.

And there is more. The explanatory notes mentions “inappropriate development”. So what is inappropriate development? Is it one house per hectare, no houses, 20 houses; no halls, no schools, 10 schools? There is no definition of what “inappropriate development” really is. The explanatory note states: “… landscape values have been degraded to a level where they are now no longer regarded as ‘outstanding’.” What does that mean? Under whose definition of “outstanding” have the landscape values been degraded?

The preamble states: “Whakarongo mai e nga iwi, ki ta te korero i mua. He ika tenei whenua. Ko te tangata nana i huti ko Maui. Kei konei tonu ahau, a mate noa.” I apologise for that pronunciation not being quite as good as it could have been. Let me translate: “Listen all of the assembled tribes, to this the talk of olden times, this land is a fish. The person who fished it up was Maui. I will remain here on it, indeed until I die.” That is actually an awesome statement, and I think it says a lot. It sounds better in Māori than it does in English. But what on earth does it have to do with legislation? How will that protect our flora and fauna? How will that really protect what needs to be protected in the Waitakere Ranges?

The campaign to protect the ranges—and, by the way, we still do not know specifically against what—has been an emotive one. Of course, everyone wants to protect the ranges. As I have stated, I have yet to meet anyone who does not support protecting our environment. But nowhere in this bill is it clear how the ranges would be protected against some of our most serious threats. Introduced pests and invasive weeds are a continued concern, as is the dumping of cars in our secluded bush areas. Visitor management issues are raised time and time again as a huge problem for various coastal communities in the proposed areas. This bill does not deal with any of that. The water quality in lakes and streams continues to deteriorate, and the native bush is taking a hammering. How does this legislation help with any of those very serious issues?

This bill will not offer the level of protection of the ranges that the people of Waitakere are hoping for. Our regional park needs to become a national park, to be secured as important for all New Zealand. The Local Government Act is about empowering local people to run their communities. The district plan and the Resource Management Act should protect the foothills and the coastal areas.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): New Zealand First thoroughly supports the intentions behind this legislation. I lived and taught in that area for a number of years, and I even played league for Glenora. As a result of that, I reckon I can claim to be a real westie. It is a lovely area, not just the bush-clad hills but also the rolling orchards and vineyards in the foothills.

However, many areas of New Zealand are of stunning beauty, and we have legislation that is supposed to provide the sort of protection this legislation sets out to achieve. It is called the Resource Management Act. It is supposed to allow for development in a planned and calculated manner that takes into consideration the views of communities and that protects the very elements this legislation seeks to protect.

If this legislation is not working to protect the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, there are two possible reasons. The first is that the current legislation for protecting areas on a national basis is flawed. The second is that the Auckland Regional Council, the Waitakere City Council and the Rodney District Council are not utilising the legislation appropriately—that they are making bad decisions or inappropriate decisions.

The explanatory note states: “There is also a lack of long-term assurance about resource management standards. At present, notwithstanding robust rules in district plans, there is no certainty that inappropriate activities will not be granted consent and that the district plan’s provisions will not be reviewed and undermined through the 10-yearly reviews required under the Resource Management Act or through Council and privately initiated plan changes.” However, the legislation we are discussing today in fact depends also upon the Auckland Regional Council, the Rodney District Council, and the Waitakere City Council to make it work.

I suggest to the House that it is an absolute absurdity to suggest that the way to fix up failings in the planning processes of those councils is by putting them through a new piece of legislation that requires exactly the same councils to meet its objectives.

However, the problem could lie elsewhere; it could lie in the legislation. Once again I go back to the explanatory notes, which state: “A key concern about the Resource Management Act, in practice, is that individual applications for development consent tend to be considered on a site by site basis and the cumulative effects and precedent effects of incremental development are difficult to assess and manage. Most notably, there is a lack of guidance about the thresholds that might trigger the cumulative effects test, and a focus on testing applications for their effects on the present environment rather than the desired future environment (including amenity).”

New Zealand First holds to the view that if the problem lies with the principal Act, then that is what we should fix in order to address the issue. We should not put through ad hoc legislation to cover specific situations. In that sense New Zealand First is consistent with the position it took regarding the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. I live in Ngunguru, which is on the coast, and there are very real concerns about what is happening to the coastline all the way up the eastern coastline of Northland, because the Resource Management Act does not adequately deal with cumulative effects. New Zealand First says that if this is the case, then we should fix up the Resource Management Act.

A number of other considerations lead us to reject the bill. The first is the potential impact on the value of landowners’ property, and whether that will be reflected in decreased valuations. If that is the case, it could be an inadvertent theft of property rights. An argument has been put forward that within the Waitakere foothills there is a heritage landscape of orchards and vineyards. I hope the promoters of the bill are able to see the irony of trying to legislate for the protection of landscapes that have been created through the deliberate destruction of the natural landscape that existed earlier.

Finally, the bill requires regular monitoring and reporting on progress towards the objectives—in fact, on a 5-year basis—and on the funding impact of activities within the heritage area. We all know what that means: more bureaucracy and more costs to ratepayers. Although we applaud the intentions of the bill, we do not believe that that will affect its purpose.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Because these are 5-minute speeches I will do members the courtesy of ringing the bell with 1 minute to go, so that members know.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I rise to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill on behalf of the Green Party. The bill should be supported because of the particular circumstances that pertain in this case—in particular, the enormous pressure that is placed on the Waitakere area due to the population pressure from the Auckland urban area, and the urgency of the need for protection. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has described the dismemberment of the Waitakere Ranges as a “death by a thousand cuts”, and I think that is an apt description. Protection has been requested for over 30 years now, and it is high time that something was done.

At this moment I would like to mention Gary Taylor, one of the founders of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, and to acknowledge the work he put into this issue. I also acknowledge John Edgar, who is the current president of that society. I also take the opportunity to mention the many Green Party members who have been working on this campaign, along with other people in the community, in other political parties, and, in particular, Kath Dewar.

However, even though the Green Party supports the bill, it is concerned to ensure that the problems the bill intends to address are dealt with in a systemic rather than piecemeal fashion. I agree with comments by Paula Bennett that the Resource Management Act should be able to protect the hinterland of the Waitakere Ranges. It seems straightforward: the ranges would be classified as a special zone, with a strong district plan with clear objectives in place to protect those areas, and with rules on how those objectives would be implemented. That should be sufficient.

However, we also have to recognise in the House that the courts are starting to open that assurance up to question. In particular, the court decision that stated that the Thames-Coromandel District Council could not prohibit particular activities, such as mining—even just from Department of Conservation land and from the coastal marine area—demonstrates that the courts are beginning to interpret that legislation in a way that was not intended by Parliament. So I agree with Mr Brian Donnelly that the House needs to address that issue. It does, perhaps, need to look at the Resource Management Act, in order to clarify the intentions of Parliament with regard to those kinds of areas, next time we do one of our perennial Resource Management Act reviews.

But in the meantime we also have to be aware that the Waitakere area is an area of particular importance. It is under enormous pressure because of the population growth that is occurring in Auckland. We are seeing the dismemberment of the area, and it is quite right that the House in this instance should support a bill of this nature. But we should bear in mind that we do not want to see a proliferation of local government bills come before the House to designate this area or that area as a special area, because, of course, we would then have the potentially unintended consequence that all areas not designated would then be considered not to be special areas and not to deserve protection. We have to be really clear that it would be a substantial misreading of the intention of the House if any court or any other person was to assume that a designation such as this one is intended to denigrate or take away from any other place that deserved protection under any district plan or under the Resource Management Act.

We do support the bill. We look forward to it going to the Local Government and Environment Committee to work through its details, and we commend it to the House.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Since time immemorial whānau, hapū, and iwi have been the custodians over the lands, mountains, waterways, and airspace within each tribal area. As kaitiaki we have assumed the responsibility of caring for the environment to the best of our ability and for the benefit of all. Nōku tēnei whenua, nō ōku tūpuna. This is my land, given to me by my ancestors. Such is the thinking that guides our thoughts on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I am pleased to speak to the bill, because the Waitakeres fall within the boundaries of Te Taitokerau. The bill aims to promote the natural, regional, and local significance of the area, which extends from the Manukau Harbour to Titirangi, Karekare, Pīhā, Muriwai, and Tirikōhua Point.

The Māori Party welcomes initiatives that provide innovative solutions to enduring environmental issues. The challenge for us here is simple: it is to decide whether the bill provides such solutions. The bill offers protection, but whose interests does it protect? Does it protect private property rights? Does it protect those who have already built in the Waitakeres and do not want others to join in sharing the beauty they enjoy? Does it protect the rights of the tangata whenua? Does it protect te taiao, which includes the flora and fauna? Or does it just protect jobs for the Auckland Regional Council, the Waitakere City Council, the Rodney District Council, the Department of Conservation, and all the resource management consultants? How will the voices of Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara, Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Rongo, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei, and all those who share common whakapapa ties to this land be sustained in an ongoing and a meaningful way?

Tangata whenua have a vested interest in protecting the Waitakere Ranges for generations to come. It is their right to be party to and to direct such measures as will ensure the well-being and good health of the environment. It would also be wrong to assume that when Te Taumata Rūnanga gave its support to the draft legislation, that meant unqualified support. We draw the attention of the House to points raised by Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara, which agreed to endorse the legislation on the condition that clause 29(c), which acknowledges the existing rights, be enforced. That clause states that the legislation will not limit or affect “the ability of any person to bring a claim … relating to the foreshore, seabed, or other land or natural resources of the Heritage Area arising out of the Treaty of Waitangi, or any Act”. We would hope to see that clause strengthened, to ensure the role of tangata whenua is maintained with the passing of this legislation. Indeed, if this bill proceeds to a select committee, we will do our best to ensure that the status of tangata whenua is not compromised in any way. We are aware that Ngāti Whātua and Ngā Rima o Kaipara are involved in a partnership of iwi and local councils.

It is ironic that this bill is being considered on a day when the spirit of partnership that lies at the heart of the Treaty of Waitangi is being threatened by another bill being introduced to delete references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. Well, I have some sympathy with the frustrations some MPs have regarding the flip-flop nature of this administration towards the Treaty. Eliminating reference to the Treaty’s principles, such as they are, will not solve the confusion this House has towards the place of the Treaty. The Māori Party would remind both the member and this House that Te Tiriti o Waitangi did indeed establish a partnership: a covenant that imposes the duty on both partners to act reasonably, honestly, and in good faith. Within that covenant is the commitment that Māori will retain rangatiratanga over their resources and taonga, and have all the rights and privileges of citizenship. What that means is part of the debate we are yet to have.

At this point we turn again to this bill and the concept of protection. We will be watching this bill to ensure that the Crown’s duty of active protection of Māori access to and use of their lands and waters is complied with, and we remind the drafters of this legislation that the provisions of clause 29 also cover three specific land interests, including Kauwāhia Island, Ihumoana Island, and the constable Māori reserve. Ngāti Whātua holds an interest in those lands and waters and, indeed, in all areas considered for inclusion within the proposed bill. Unfortunately, over the last 50 years the environment has degraded to the extent that it needs urgent attention if it is to survive into the next century. We applaud the precautionary approach described in the bill, which aims to prevent outcomes that impact adversely on the heritage feature, particularly the threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment.

The Māori Party will support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and we will probably follow very closely what occurs. We look to the select committee process to see that Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki get a fair hearing, and that they are fully involved in round-table discussions that are reasonable, honest, and done in good faith.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want at the outset to acknowledge the hard work done by the sponsor of this bill, and by all those who have worked towards getting a measure of protection for the Waitakere Ranges. The Waitakere Ranges are a unique part of west Auckland and New Zealand’s heritage, and there is little doubt that they deserve long-term protection. But this bill is not the way to go about it, and United Future will not be supporting its first reading.

I am one of the few members in the House now who was here at the time the Resource Management Act was being drafted and introduced. In fact, I was the Associate Minister for the Environment for part of that time. I recall vividly that one of the key objectives of that legislation, which is as relevant today as it was then, was to provide a national framework within which a range of local decisions could be made for the benefit of local communities.

One might argue about what has happened over the intervening 16 years or so, but that argument needs to be sheeted home to regional governments that, frankly, have been far too timid in their interpretation of a lot of the Act’s provisions. I do not think it is good enough to come back now—and I find myself in agreement with the Green member, who implied it is a very likely ongoing reality—and have a series of specific pieces of legislation dealing with various items of iconic importance around the country. One of the objections to what preceded the Resource Management Act was that, at that time, we had in place 54 different pieces of legislation covering various aspects of town and country planning.

It seems to me that if we are now to say that this cause, worthy and all that it is, is so special and so important that it requires its own separate legislation, then I can imagine all sorts of projects around the country coming forward on the same basis. I imagine that the Wellington City Council will be on my doorstep very quickly, saying: “What about the town belt in this city?”, the Mayor of Christchurch will be on to Christchurch members about the Port Hills, and on and on it will go—and the sheer purpose and principle of the Resource Management Act as the basis on which we could make those decisions would be overcome.

Now I am not saying that the Resource Management Act is perfect and does not require upgrading and amendment; that is a constant process. But let us just not forget the purpose for which it was put in place. I read the Standing Orders before about what constitutes a local bill, and this bill fits that description entirely. It states that it is a bill that deals entirely with a local matter. What we are doing here is confusing the national interest and the local interest, and that is not the way to proceed through a bill of this type.

Argument has been raised on both sides about whether private property rights are infringed by the bill. I note with considerable concern that when this matter went to the Waitakere City Council on 24 May last year, a resolution that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be subject to the rights for compensation as is being provided for in my colleague Gordon Copeland’s member’s bill concerning property rights, which is being considered by Parliament as an addition to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, was defeated by the Waitakere City Council by 11 votes to three. So, in other words, even if there are issues of property rights involved, the council is making sure that the residents who will be affected do not have rights to compensation.

Although the sentiment behind the bill is laudable, the practicality is not there. The bill should not proceed. We should use the principles and the procedures of the Resource Management Act to provide the protection that those who seek it want in respect of the Waitakere Ranges.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): It has been a pleasure to listen to the debate on this bill, which I think a lot of thought has gone into. It has been a very interesting debate, so I have listened with some interest. I think every New Zealander, and certainly every Aucklander, has a close affinity with the Waitakere Ranges, and they are a very, very beautiful part of New Zealand. But then, we are blessed to live in a very beautiful country with so many beautiful areas. Again, like Mr Peter Dunne, I understand the sentiment perfectly that what we want to do is preserve that beauty and maintain that environment for years and years to come.

But I searched through this bill and listened most intently to the debate to understand what the problem is in our current planning law and processes that this bill is designed to address. That is where I am stuck, because we have a Resource Management Act. There may well be problems with it, but let us address them. This bill does not identify any problems with the Resource Management Act. So we have the beautiful Waitakere Ranges, which we want to protect and preserve for future generations, but I ask myself why we need this bill. We have a Resource Management Act—and, heaven knows, the Waitakere City Council has been prepared to exercise enormous powers over property owners in order to implement its plans—so I am left failing to understand, and not having heard one reason, why this bill is needed to go alongside that Act.

I pick up Mr Peter Dunne’s point: are we to have a similar bill for the Port Hills? Will we have a similar one for the beautiful city of Tauranga?

Hon Member: Mt Eden.

RODNEY HIDE: For Mt Eden—of course; it is a beautiful spot. So on and on we will go. But of course we will not, because we have a national Resource Management Act that allows local bodies to implement their plans, which is exactly what—as I understand it—this bill tries to do.

Nandor Tanczos: I thought you were against it.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, I am against this bill. I am explaining why I am voting against it, and if the member would give me the courtesy of listening, he would understand why. I am actually picking up his precise point, which was that if there are gaps in the Resource Management Act we should be addressing them.

I heard the Green Party member clearly say that his party does not like the idea of having hotchpotch Acts of Parliament in order to address local issues of concern in relation to environmental protection. That is a point I am reinforcing; I think I am agreeing with the Green member. The only thing that is different about my position is that I am actually following through the conclusion the Greens made, and therefore I will vote against the bill. That is why I do not understand why the Green Party is saying what it says and then voting for it. We do not want to get into a situation where we have a hotchpotch of legislation coming through this House for every nice bit of New Zealand because, living in this country, it would never end.

I also pick up Mr Hone Harawira’s point. He said that this legislation will be great for the bureaucrats because it is just another planning process. I do not understand how we can conserve our resources by putting more and more bureaucrats into power, by putting more and more planning processes into power, and by creating more and more hurdles for people to jump through.

I come back to this final point. I am always concerned—and Nandor Tanczos brought up this issue—about the moves to put these sorts of bills through this House, because invariably they involve the diminution of property rights of people: Māori, Pākehā, everyone. Why? Because these pieces of legislation are all about shifting power to the bureaucrats and away from the people whose resources and land it is—indeed, the very people who will protect and care for that environment. I have not see bureaucrats or local body politicians care as much for the environment as the actual people who own properties themselves, and that includes the tangata whenua. I look askance very much at this legislation.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In the words of Waitakere City Council mayor Bob Harvey: “The Waitakere Ranges are an indelible blue image on the western horizon—a glorious backdrop to New Zealand’s most populated, thriving metropolis.” This bill proposes a way of ensuring that that magnificent area is kept for the enjoyment of future generations.

The bill reflects the local community’s desire for a local solution. The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill tackles the struggle local communities face on a day to day basis—the balancing of private landholder rights with public expectations—which the Waitakere City Council, the Auckland Regional Council, and the Rodney District Council have joined forces to resolve. The notion of a local bill to protect the Waitakere Ranges has been in the pipeline for many years now. Far from disenfranchising local communities, it has brought them together. Its first reading today marks a critical step in how the bush, foothills, and streams of the ranges might be managed to ensure the right balance between development and protection.

I support the bill being considered by the select committee. The committee must now balance issues that local communities present to Parliament, and balance the issues that private landowners’ rights and public values will also present, including those intrinsic values of the ranges themselves. That will not be an easy task. The amendment to the Resource Management Act last year is testament to that. This bill will form a catalyst for debate and form a resolution, hopefully, for that debate, by focusing on the limits to private choice for the benefit of the common good. The common good is pretty clear. Whether or not one is an Auckland resident, the Waitakere Ranges are part and parcel of our country. One-third of New Zealand lives on the ranges’ doorstep. It is an area of the country that undeniably possesses an immensely strong landscape identity.

The rationale behind the bill is well known. Disputes over development pressure have been longstanding, and Waitakere City’s innovative approach to its district plan has met with an increased desire for development. Its community is clearly of the view that the ranges are not currently protected well enough and that something extra is needed—particularly when it comes to determining when enough is enough. Mayor Bob Harvey referred to the current management regime as a death by a thousand cuts, and as such it is understandable that new legislation has been seen as a way to achieve better protection.

This approach is not new, and it is not new since the introduction of the Resource Management Act. Local Acts such as the Summit Road (Canterbury) Protection Act 2001 and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 are instruments that have historically catered for localised circumstances. I fully acknowledge the difficulties faced by some local authorities in delivering the intent of the Resource Management Act. The purpose of recent amendments to the Resource Management Act centred on this, and building upon the workable system already in place at the local authority level has led to this Government looking into a complementary programme of providing greater national guidance and support for the implementation of the Resource Management Act.

I thoroughly commend the way in which these councils and their communities have come to an agreement on this process after a lengthy debate. The job for the Local Government and Environment Committee is to ensure that the approach of the bill is the most appropriate. The committee’s job will be to check whether the bill meets its objectives and to ensure that it does so. That is a job that only the select committee, with public submissions, can do. The committee will need to compare the options proposed by the bill with those already available in the Resource Management Act. The select committee hearing this matter should reflect on what could be gained from other instruments, such as national policy statements. It should ask whether the approach is flexible enough to cope with change and whether the process and policies are fair and workable.

In conclusion, I support the bill’s consideration by referral to the select committee. The debate and dialogue on the matter must continue. I have the utmost confidence that the ensuing progress of the bill will reflect those landscape values sought to be protected by the local community, and I trust that a straightforward and clear outcome will arise for those living in, enjoying, and working in such a highly valued piece of New Zealand.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): We are nearing the end of the debate on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, in the name of Lynne Pillay. I would like to make two or three acknowledgments before we start. What is not in question is that the Waitakere area is a special and unique area and needs protection. That is not in question. Nor is the desire of Lynne Pillay, who has sponsored the bill. What is in question is whether what she is attempting to do will actually deliver and whether it actually clarifies the matter. In that regard, I believe it does not.

I also at this point acknowledge my colleague Paula Bennett, who spoke so eloquently as the second speaker in this debate. She outlined a lot of the areas of vagueness in the bill and said that it is a unique area, and, as one who lives in that area, she wants a higher degree of protection, as for a national park. I thought that that request had a great deal of merit. I also acknowledge my friend and colleague Tau Henare, who would, were there more speaking slots, have taken part in this debate. But in discussion he said he was happy for me to make some principled arguments against this particular piece of legislation—not, I emphasis, against the necessity to protect an icon like the Waitakere Ranges.

This bill is very vague. I have read it twice, and I am not exactly sure what it means or how it actually applies. If we read the explanatory note, we see it states that the bill’s objective is to create a strategic overarching framework. Well, I read the bill and I did not find that framework, but I did find a bunch of sentiments. It is when we try to apply sentiments to finding a solution that we create something of a problem. This bill could well be called the “Environmental Lawyers Enhancement Bill” because they are the ones who will gain the most if the House does pass it. There is a degree of vagueness that will make development activity in this area a litigant activity.

I will just run though clause 9 in order to illustrate the vagueness in the bill. Clause 9 is headed “Heritage Area objectives”—not principles, not requirements, not statutes, but objectives. So we have, immediately, a list of items that are open to interpretation. Let us look at paragraph (b): “take a holistic approach to managing the Waitakere Ranges, …”. What on earth does that mean if someone wants to undertake an activity in that particular area? Who defines “holistic” and what does that actually mean? Clause 9(c) states: “adopt a precautionary approach towards decisions…”. Well, again, as previous speakers have said, the Resource Management Act stands to protect those iconic parts of New Zealand. This bill is in fact an admission that this Labour Government has sat on its hands and not dealt with the issues around the Resource Management Act that would provide the protection that is needed. Then, paragraph (d) states: “recognise and avoid the adverse cumulative effects, …”. Well, of course, one of the adverse cumulative effects in the Waitakere Ranges is people. So I am not sure what this means in terms of stopping people from coming in there.

We have got ourselves tied in knots in the past with various pieces of legislation that are as vague as this. I ask members to have a look at the very arguments that are taking place over development in the South Island, over the land tenure bills—the Crown pastoral land legislation and the land tenure procedures—where we have this vagueness and we have reports written in the very language that this bill embraces. I say that, yes, this House needs to protect the Waitakere Ranges, but it should do so through the Resource Management Act. It should not pass legislation that purely opens up a position of litigation over those who actually want to do something in that area.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): E ngā iwi o te Waitakere, e ngā iwi o te motu, ki a Ngāti Whātua ki Tāmaki-makau-rau, ki a Te Kawerau-a-Maki, kia ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the people of Waitakere and of the nation, to Ngāti Whātua in Auckland, to Te Kawerau-a-Maki, greetings to you collectively and to us all].

I wish to mihi to those who have gone before, to those rangatira whose genealogy lies in the bill presented to this House today, to the previous Speaker of this House, the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, to Justice Tony Randerson, and to Gary Taylor who some 30 years ago gave birth to this idea. I wish to mihi to those who have brought this bill to fruition today: people like the Harveys sitting in the gallery today; to Lynne Pillay my friend and colleague; to people like John Edgar, Greg Presland, Denise Yates, Kath Dewar, Tim O’Shea, the kaumātua and kuia, the guardians of the Waitakere Ranges, who reflect the views of the vast bulk of the people of Waitakere and the people of Auckland. If members do not believe me, they can believe Colmar Brunton, which, in one cross-sectoral scientific survey told us that 81 percent of Auckland residents want the ranges protected permanently, and 77 percent of Waitakere City residents and 58 percent of landowners in the Waitakere Ranges want this bill.

What is the problem this bill will fix? The answer is very simple. It has been said in this House and it has been stated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment: “Death by a thousand cuts” or, in technical terms, “incremental effects”. Yes, the Resource Management Act works for most problems, and there are mechanisms complementary with this bill that can be made to work well. But wherever the boundary is drawn between the city and the bushline, there will always be a financial incentive to move the line one block further, to cut down one tree more, to build one more house, to build one more subdivision—and the point is that, once done, those things cannot ever be undone.

Tariana Turia: We know.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, Māori Party members know. They know that the kuia and mātua of Waitakere City, of Ngāti Whātua, and of Te Kawerau-a-Maki give their wholehearted support to this bill, and we call upon the Māori Party to give its wholehearted support to this bill, in keeping with the wishes of the rohe and of the tangata whenua.

This is a moderate bill that employs the processes of the Resource Management Act, and it is very simple. It requires any future change to a district plan to be undertaken in harmony with the objectives and purposes of this legislation. Nobody will lose any rights to have a consent considered. Nobody will lose a single extant property right. Not a single subdivision currently approved will be voided. But we will overcome the problem of incremental effects, because in the future, when the 101st application is being considered by the commissioners or by the council, they will know that it must be in keeping with the wishes of the peoples of Auckland and of New Zealand, who have set a long-term vision. It provides the kaupapa, it provides the context, and it provides the permanence, clarity, and certainty that are necessary, because the effects are inter-generational.

We have a choice: we could steal the land from our grandchildren and give it to today’s property developers by bulldozing the bush, or we could leave our children—[Interruption] The so-called aspirant for Waitakere laughs. Does she not know the money that bankrolled the Structure Plan Advocates Network campaign? She represents the people of Waitakere neither in title nor in fact. If I were her and I had any intention of standing in that part of New Zealand ever again I would change my mind real quick, because she will never be elected in Waitakere if she opposes this bill against the will of four out of five residents of that electorate.

Over the last 3 years Lynne Pillay and I have sat in I do not know how many working-groups with the councils and the members of the community to process this bill through. I have campaigned for this bill in the last two election campaigns. If there is nothing else that is clear about west Auckland politics, it is that the people there care about their environment, and this bill will help us to put that care into action.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I would also like to add my thanks. I did have a list of names I was going to rattle off, but my good friend David Cunliffe has done so. There are people who have worked alongside David, me, Chris Carter, and also Dover Samuels, such as the members of Waitakere City Council led by the mayor, Rodney District Council, and, of course, the Auckland Regional Council. It has been a real culmination of so much hard work, passion, and energy and it is a really proud moment to stand in this House today to talk about this bill.

I also thank with real sincerity the Māori Party and the Green Party for their supportive statements, and, of course, my colleagues and friends in the Labour Party for their support to enable this ground-breaking legislation to go to a select committee. This will give many supporters of the bills such as landowners, iwi, environmental groups, community groups, westies, and, in fact, all Kiwis the opportunity to have their say to explain why long-term protection of the ranges is so vitally important and why it has won their hearts and minds. To Paula Bennett, who describes this as an emotive issue, I say that that is rich. What irony! Earlier today we heard Nick Smith preach about credibility. That is a joke in itself.

Some months ago pre-election, before the Labour-led Government was re-elected, the National Party, being unable to get a local MP to speak against it, shipped in its most engaging, eloquent speaker, Nick Smith, who claimed that this bill was a land grab. Those comments were echoed by Paula Bennett. Now the legislation is deemed waffly. To not be aware of the problem is an indication of being out of touch with Waitakere.

The national park theme is a different issue. It does not address the problem of the cumulative effects of ad hoc subdivision on private land, unless Miss Bennett is proposing that private land is part of the national park—and I suggest that she will be in a heap of trouble with the people in Waitakere if she tries to run that one.

Pleading ignorance is one thing; acting ignorantly is another. If members do not understand, then they should read the report of the environment commissioner and talk to the people of Waitakere. They should talk to the Henderson Valley residents who spent $50,000 fighting inappropriate subdivision in the Environment Court. They won their case, but at tremendous financial cost, pressure, and pain.

I find it extraordinary that the National Party spokespeople on this bill are not elected MPs for the area the bill covers. I know that it is very, very hard to find elected National MPs in that area, but there is one, and I would ask John Key why you have not taken a call. Why will you not stand up and take a call on this issue?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate. The use of the word “you” brings the Speaker into the debate.

LYNNE PILLAY: I ask John Key why he does not take a call on this important issue.

David Bennett: He’s not here.

LYNNE PILLAY: The member said that John Key is not here.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

LYNNE PILLAY: The member said that, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Tisch: The reference to an absent member is out of order, and you might want to point that out to the member.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I did not understand that the member on my right actually referred to the absence of any member. That is the way I took it. She did not actually do that.

LYNNE PILLAY: It is important for local MPs to make their point when they have been elected. I remind this House that before this election I stood very clearly on support for this bill. I said that I was committed to supporting it, and I was re-elected as the member of Parliament for Waitakere. Paula Bennett did not stand on that ticket, and she was not elected. The polls that my good friend David Cunliffe has spoken about clearly show there is majority support for this bill. It is with tremendous pride that I stand alongside my colleagues, my friends, in a visionary Government, and promote a visionary bill to this House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 50; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That the Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I will, at the appropriate time, move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. This is a private bill, promoted by Trustees Executors Ltd. Trustees Executors Ltd was previously known as TOWER Trust Ltd. The principal purpose of the bill is to substitute the name of Trustees Executors’ parent company in the principal Act from TOWER Ltd to Sheffield Investments Incorporated (NZ) Holdings Ltd in order to enable the company to transact business with its parent. At the same time the bill introduces a mechanism to allow Trustees Executors’ further parent companies to be named by Order in Council and renames the TOWER Trust Limited Act 2002 so that it reflects Trustees Executors’ current name. I am aware that this issue was raised in the last Parliament with a similar piece of private legislation for another trustee company, so this discussion will not be new for the committee.

Trustees Executors Ltd was first incorporated in 1881. It was then known as the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Co. of New Zealand (Ltd). The company now has eight branches. It has customers throughout New Zealand and provides a comprehensive range of specialised services to both personal and corporate clients. As a trustee company, Trustees Executors is governed by the Trustee Companies Act 1967. It is also governed by its own private Act, like the other three statutory trustee companies.

The private Act is the TOWER Trust Limited Act 2002. The 2002 Act authorises the company to transact estate and trust business with its parent company and with its parent company’s subsidiaries. The Act sets out certain safeguards in respect of those transactions. Trustees Executors can do business with its related companies only if Trustees Executors is satisfied on reasonable grounds that doing so is in the best interests of the estate or trust concerned. All payments made to related companies must be clearly identified in the accounts provided to the estate or trust. Similar concessions exist for the other statutory trustee companies.

The TOWER Trust Limited Act 2002 currently defines Trustees Executors’ parent to mean TOWER Ltd. However, TOWER sold Trustees Executors, then known as TOWER Trust Ltd, to Sheffield Investments Incorporated (NZ) Holdings Ltd in July 2003. Shortly after that, Trustees Executors adopted its current name. Accordingly, the objects of the bill are, first, to enable Trustees Executors to transact business with its current parent company, Sheffield, and with Sheffield’s subsidiaries, whether or not they are incorporated in New Zealand, and with future parent companies; second, to amend the title of the TOWER Trust Limited Act 2002 to reflect Trustees Executors’ current name; and, third, to ensure that the TOWER Trust Limited Act 2002 reflects Trustees Executors’ current ownership structure.

Sheffield is not a well-known name in New Zealand. Sheffield is ultimately owned by Sterling Grace Corporation in New York. Sterling Grace is a private investment company that has provided private equity, investment, and asset management services since 1885. It manages investments in various sectors and countries, mainly in Australia, Europe, and the United States. I should make it clear for the House that the bill authorises transactions only with Sheffield, a New Zealand incorporated company, and its subsidiaries. The bill does not authorise transactions with the US parent.

The fact that New Zealand’s four statutory trustee companies need legislation of this type from time to time has been a cause of comment from and frustration for many members of this House. A number of select committees have recommended a review of the regime for naming parent companies in trustee legislation with a view to enacting generic legislation to cover all trustee companies. This was the issue raised—and rejected, I think—by the select committee in 2005. It is still a live issue out there in the community of trustees. In the absence of generic legislation, Trustees Executors has included in this bill a mechanism to allow for its future parent companies to be named by Order in Council. The order can be made only on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice after consultation with the Minister of Commerce.

The mechanism will remove the need for parliamentary approval of a new parent company, as we are providing now, should Trustee Executors be sold, yet still allow appropriate scrutiny of future parent companies before transactions with them are authorised. Trustees Executors tells me that no such sale is currently intended by its parent, but that is not to say it may not happen in the future. Trustee company sales are not the rare occurrence today that they used to be. No doubt the Commerce Committee will consider the Order in Council mechanism more fully.

This bill has been advertised in accordance with the Standing Orders, and all persons who have a direct interest in the bill have been notified of the intention of Trustees Executors to promote it. I commend the bill to the House.

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

KATE WILKINSON (National): I support the Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill on behalf of the National Party. I am delighted to be given this wonderfully exciting opportunity to support the bill, which I am sure will be of intense and general interest to everybody. By way of background, there are four trustee companies—not to be confused with trust companies—established by private Act that may undertake the administration of estates and personal trust work. These are the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co., Trustees Executors Ltd—formerly TOWER Trust Ltd—Perpetual Trust Ltd and PGG Trust Ltd trading together, and New Zealand Permanent Trustees Ltd.

It may be useful to backtrack in history somewhat and relate the reasons for the existence of these trustee companies. I will quote from the original Trustees, Executors and Agency Company Act of 1882. Apart from being a history lesson, this illustrates some of the changes in drafting styles, bearing in mind that the Act was passed by this Parliament. It states: “Whereas from the uncertainty of human life, and from other causes, great difficulty often arises in securing the services of suitable persons for the office of trustee, executor, liquidator, guardian, and other similar offices: And whereas”—[Interruption] I know!—“in order to secure the more certain discharge of the duties of such offices a company has been formed … with the object, among other purposes, of affording persons the opportunity of obtaining the services of a permanent corporation for the performance of the duties of such offices, and thus to remove much of the uncertainty and insecurity which attends the appointment of private individuals:”—

Hon Maurice Williamson: I knew that.

KATE WILKINSON: I knew that my colleague Mr Williamson knew that. It continues with a further “whereas”: “And whereas it is expedient”—[Interruption]; there are plenty of “whereases”—“to enable the said incorporated company … to act as liquidator, executor … and to perform and discharge all the duties of such offices and to receive remuneration for such duties, and also to act as receiver and committee of the estate under any law now in force or hereafter … in the colony”—no less—“relating to lunatics”—I kid members not; this law of 1882 relates to lunatics—“… and to perform and discharge … such duties, and to confer upon the said company the powers and privileges hereinafter set forth, in order to enable the said company more effectually and usefully to carry out the objects sought in its incorporation.” That is the 1882 drafting style of the original Trustees, Executors and Agency Company Act. These days we would just say in simple terms that this Act enables a trustee company to be paid.

Under general trust law a trustee cannot charge for work done as a trustee unless this is specifically authorised in either the trust document or the will creating the trust. In legal circles this is known as the charging clause. In effect, the trustee company Acts creating these trustee companies are similar to that charging clause, merely enabling trustee companies to charge for the work that they do. Each time there is a change of the parent company, a trustee company must secure changes to its private Act to authorise it to transact business with its new parent company.

This is, surprisingly enough, a very sensible bill. It is a technical bill. It is not new law. It has happened before, and no doubt it will happen again. What I find surprising about this bill, though, is that when a similar situation was presented in 2004 in a very sensible bill, the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill—and at that stage it merely wanted to enable the Guardian Trust to transact with its parent company, Promina Group Ltd—the Labour Government representatives decided by majority that they were not willing to support the proposal. In 2004 the proposal was not supported; in 2006 it is suddenly a wonderful idea.

I am pleased to say that in 2004 National at least displayed common sense, some business acumen, and the nous to take the minority view supporting the proposal to approve that new parent company. How times have changed! Now we have the same situation, albeit with a different trustee company, being supported and proposed by a member on the opposite side of the House. I am pleasantly surprised at this sudden, but no doubt momentary and fleeting, discovery of common sense by the Labour Government. But where was that common sense when it was decided that our farm dogs, our working dogs, should be microchipped? Where is the common sense in that? I have yet to find anyone who can explain to me how microchipping farm dogs will stop urban dogs biting and attacking people.

Bob Clarkson: They thought they were Labour dogs.

KATE WILKINSON: They may well be Labour dogs. All this does is add an extra nonsensical compliance cost to our farmers, with no hope whatsoever of addressing the mischief. Is the problem in relation to microchipping aggressive dogs in the country? No. Is the problem rural farm dogs? No. Is the problem with the farmers? No. This microchipping will not address the problem whatsoever.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the bill.

KATE WILKINSON: OK, I will come back to common sense. This is a surprising turn-round where common sense has suddenly eluded the Labour Government. The microchipping bill is ludicrous, dumb, and lacks common sense. I would like to see this fleeting example of common sense displayed by the Labour Government remain with us for a wee bit longer. Returning to common sense, I say that National supports this bill. All the bill does, as Marian Hobbs has said, is to rename the Act from “TOWER Trust Ltd” to “Trustees Executors Ltd”, and it enables that trustee executor to transact with its parent company, Sheffield Investments Incorporated (NZ) Holdings Ltd. The bill is only technical in nature. It is commercial reality. It is wonderful common sense. Therefore, National supports this bill.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I rise to take a very short call on the Trustees Executors Limited Amendment Bill, but one could be forgiven for being slightly confused about the microchipping of dogs. The introduction of the bill was very profoundly put by its introducing sponsor, Marian Hobbs, and it really had nothing to do with dogs. This is simply a bill that came from the Trustees Executors themselves, and it is sensible. It is a private bill, and any Government of the day always supports a private bill when it comes to the House. That is democracy. So we are delighted to support this bill today.

There is a very interesting bit in the bill about future-proofing, with an Order in Council mechanism so that we will not have to relitigate it in the House. That is common sense. It is the sort of legislation that this Government is pleased to stand by, support, and promote.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.

Bills

Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination)Amendment Bill

First Reading

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I move, That the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. My goal in putting forward this legislation is simply to get rid of the current legal discrimination that sees young 16 and 17-year-old workers paid less than people doing exactly the same job, solely because of their age. There was a time in the history of this country, which lasted for generations, when Māori were paid a lot less than Pākehā for doing the same work, purely because they were Māori. Nor were tangata whenua entitled to unemployment benefits, but that is another story. There was also a time, which also endured for generations, when most women were paid a lot less than men who were doing identical work, simply because they were women.

These days I imagine that all of us in this House look back in disbelief that such primitive attitudes were so acceptable and accepted. Yet we still have a situation in which the legal minimum wage for young workers is set permanently at a lower rate than for workers 18 years and over. At the moment the minimum pay for 16 and 17-year-olds is $7.60 an hour. That will go up to a princely $8.20 at the end of March. The minimum pay for everyone 18 and over is $9.50 an hour, which is due to rise to $10.25. All those pay rates are far too low. The national average earnings in our country in December 2005 equalled $21.29 an hour. The Australian minimum wage is currently set at nearly NZ$14 an hour.

If we compare the $21.29 or even the A$14 with our minimum rates, it should be easy enough to see why workers on the youth minimum rate of $7.60, or not much more, might feel somewhat aggrieved. After all, those young workers are carrying out real jobs that need doing. The work is not make-believe, and it is not training. They have to meet a job description and all their employers’ expectations in just the same way as do their colleagues aged 18 and over. Jobs at the local petrol station, supermarket, fast-food outlet, shopping mall, cinema complex, farm, or a multitude of other places are not there for fun or for training. Those jobs are for real. If anyone doubts me, they should take a quiet closer look next time they are being served or helped by a young worker.

There seems to be a myth embedded in some older people’s consciousness that if one is young, one is not worth as much. Yet how real is that myth? We are actually at our physical and mental prime when we are in our mid-teens. I hate to say that, being the age I am now. For much of human history that was the age at which we started having and supporting our children and going to war for our tribe or nation. Most young people have minds that are sharp and bodies that are quick and strong at that age, and they are more than capable of performing to a very high standard, especially in the so-called entry-level jobs. I believe that many businesses take on workers in that age group because they bring greater mental alertness and/or a high physical capacity to the job—a higher capacity than would older workers in, say, their 40s, 50, or 60s—

Bob Clarkson: Or 70s.

SUE BRADFORD:—or even their 70s; I agree with Mr Clarkson. Employers are not hiring young workers out of the kindness of their hearts; they are taking them on because they are as valuable to them as any other employees.

The argument is often made that young workers deserve to be paid less because they are new to the workforce and need lots of training. I would like to refute that on several grounds. Firstly, in this day and age many young people have already been at work since they were 14 or 15, and they have considerable experience in the workplace, and even in the same job, by the time they reach 16. Secondly, even where that does not apply, any worker, no matter what their age, needs training and orientation when they start a new job. All employers know that, and in this day and age I am sure that most of them are more than adequately equipped to bring new employees up to speed in as timely and supportive a way as possible. Thirdly, during the last few months, as I have been working on bringing this bill to the House, I have been surprised to discover just how many 16 and 17-year-old workers are not just at entry-level positions but are in fact in roles like supervisors or shift managers. These are people who might have been working for 2 or 3 years at a job, and who have been promoted to positions where they are managing and training other staff—a number of whom may well be on substantially higher wages. Is that fair? Does that make sense? Not at all.

Another argument used by those who staunchly believe young workers are literally worth less is that getting rid of minimum wage discrimination will mean employers will be reluctant to take on people in that age group, thereby adding to youth unemployment. Now, if I thought that was a reasonable expectation, it is unlikely that I would be pushing this issue as hard as I am. There is no question that young people suffered disproportionately from unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s, and I would hate to see us go back to the kinds of unemployment levels we had then. In fact, I take note of research, like that carried out by Treasury, and published in a 2004 report, that shows quite clearly that raising minimum wages for young people does not create or cause unemployment for young people. That is a myth. Many other factors cause unemployment to rise, but that is not one of them.

The Mayors Task Force for Jobs—which has done and will continue to do such wonderful work in the area of youth unemployment—said in a submission to Minister Ruth Dyson in late 2005 that minimum wage increases for 16 and 17-year-olds of 81 percent since 1999 “have not resulted in constraints on job creation or fewer opportunities for young people.” Instead, what higher pay rates actually do is increase worker productivity—a happy and reasonably well-paid worker will almost always be a more productive employee—and, at the same time, boost the amount of money going back into the low end of the New Zealand economy, thus helping to keep other workers in jobs, too.

Already, a good number of employers have policies not to pay less than the adult minimum wage to their 16 and 17-year-old staff. I take this opportunity to commend them for the respect they are paying to the worth and quality of their young employees, and I hope their fellow employers who have a less progressive attitude might take a closer look at the benefits those companies are achieving through a more enlightened approach. At a rough estimate, there are around 10,000 or more 16 and 17-year-olds in the workforce at present. The costs those young people face are no different from those confronting 18, 30, 50, or 70-year-olds. Food, clothing, and transport are just as expensive. There are no discounts for being young when young people go to the supermarket checkout or petrol station counter. Often young workers are still at school and helping to feed and clothe themselves and their families, because the income coming into the wider whānau is simply not enough.

Many young people are working long hours after school and on weekends just for reasons of survival. Teachers and principals express concern about the way in which that is affecting the ability of students to do their best at school. If those young workers were being paid more, they would not feel obliged to work such long hours at a time when getting the best possible education should be at the top of their career agendas. We live in a country where wages for many are far too low, and where the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. Those of us with a commitment to social and economic justice should be doing everything we can as MPs to boost minimum incomes and to close the aching gap between those who are paid a lot less than what they are worth and those who are paid plenty.

I understand that my bill tonight has the support of a number of parties in this House, and I would like to thank Labour, the Māori Party, New Zealand First, and United Future in advance for what I understand will be their support. It is great that we will be able to have the debate in the select committee and enjoy the opportunity to hear points of view from all sides of this issue in the months ahead. Should National and ACT choose to support the bill, I would be delighted. I realise that some members—even some in the supportive parties—may not be convinced by my arguments here tonight, but I believe that when they hear the voices of young people affected by the issue, and of those who work with them, they will become more certain about just how iniquitous it is to be paid less on the grounds of age alone.

I would like to finish by paying tribute to the unions and workers who have rallied, picketed, and marched over the last couple of months, and who are out there rallying and picketing tonight, in support of this bill and of a higher minimum wage for all workers in this country. They are the real heroes of this struggle, and I hope that before long we will be celebrating a small but vital victory in the long march towards genuine pay equity for all workers in this country, not just some.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): Sue Bradford certainly raised a series of what can only be described as emotional arguments. Her whole case—and it is in the bill—is built on the case that youth rates are a discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993. I ask Ms Bradford this: can 16-year-olds vote? Can they enlist in the armed forces? Can they go to a hotel and drink? The answer to all those question is no. So in reality we do actually have proper and reasonable reasons why we have different rules for 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds, 18-year-olds, and so forth.

Sue Bradford’s second argument was that 16 and 17-year-olds have got the same life experience as older people, and that they actually bring more skills to the workplace than older people. Well, human experience tells us that that is not the case. Did not Ms Bradford watch television tonight? Did she not hear Mr Phil O’Reilly of Business New Zealand point out exactly the issue of additional training being needed for new workers? It is not just about skill; is it actually about life experience. The third argument she raised was that this bill will help schoolkids. I actually think that schoolkids should be studying.

The problem with the bill is that it is potentially and actually going to be a perverse incentive. The 16 and 17-year-olds, particularly those who would be taking on full-time work, will get a perverse incentive not to continue at school. Instead, they will try to get a job because of the increased wages. That is the wrong way to go. What we need to do is boost the skills and training of the youth of New Zealand. Frankly, that means going to a polytechnic, doing apprenticeships, going to university, or staying at school. We are talking, after all, about 16 and 17-year-olds—which is years 12 and 13. [Interruption] Mr Cosgrove probably remembers that as forms 6 and 7. So perverse incentives will lead to bad outcomes.

I wish to point out a crucial fact. Has the member considered, in an analytical kind of way, that the unemployment rate for youth in New Zealand, even today, is in fact 12 percent, compared with 3.4 percent overall. Does that not tell one something? Even in times of—and I admit it—high employment, people are still choosing older workers. Why? Because they are more experienced, not just in skills but in life skills. That is hugely crucial in the way we grow up. When I heard the Green member speak it was as if 16 and 17-year-olds have all the maturity of someone aged 21 or 22. Common sense tells us that that is simply not true. Indeed, that is precisely the reason we do not allow people of that age to drink—it is too risky, and they do not have enough experience. So those are the kinds of arguments.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Old Grandpa Walton!

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I want to point out to the House, and indeed to that carping member, that this country has an incredibly difficult problem around productivity. Productivity in this country is low. We have heard members on the other side of the House go on about productivity. They talk about it all the time, but they simply do not know what it means to actually boost productivity. I just want to share some statistics with colleagues in the House. The truth of it is that the minimum wage in New Zealand is the highest as a percentage of average incomes than any other country we would like to compare ourselves to. In New Zealand it is basically 50 percent. It certainly will be once the $10.50 rate comes into effect. What is the case in Australia? It is 46 percent. That is as close as it gets. In the United States—it is quite low, admittedly—it is 32 percent. In Canada, a country that we regularly compare ourselves to, the average—because it is done on a provincial basis there—is 40 percent. In the United Kingdom, which has had nearly 10 years of a Blair Government—a Government admired by the Labour Party—it is 38 percent.

Members might say: “Obviously all those countries have got it wrong.”, but they have not. Every one of those countries is wealthier than New Zealand. Every one of those countries has higher productivity than New Zealand. So this bill is essentially a naive attempt to try to close the wage, wealth, and productivity gaps by artificially boosting minimum wages, and New Zealand First is guilty of succumbing to these emotional arguments, as well. New Zealand First has bought into the $12 argument.

Hon Member: Have they?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes, they have. Do members want me to recite to the House the numerous items of guilt that New Zealand First has? No, that would take too long, so I will not bother.

The point is this. The reason each one of those countries is more wealthy and more productive is that they put the stress on boosting skills. Australia, for instance, spends more as a percentage of GDP on tertiary education—and by that I mean apprenticeships, polytechnics, and universities—than New Zealand does. That is why Australia’s economy runs faster. It has, in short, made a different choice. It has decided not to encumber its businesses with increased minimum wages. Australia says: “Let’s give the taxpayer the opportunity to spend that money on boosting skills, because that is the crucial thing that we have to do to boost productivity.” It is a lesson that members on the other side of the House simply do not get. So Labour, in a craven kind of way, caving in to its Green mates, has said: “Well, let’s send this bill to the select committee.” The truth is that sending the bill to the select committee ends up being the same as voting for it, finally. I will be very interested to hear how Labour deals with this.

The problem is if one artificially boosts minimum wages to levels that are, frankly, too high, one ends up reducing profitability, reducing opportunity, and reducing the ability to put more money into improving skills. Now, if the Government had a credible plan to spend some of its surpluses on boosting skills, which is the crucial thing to boost productivity, I would say: “Good on them!”, because I know that works. It works in Australia, it works in Britain, it works in Canada, and it works in the United States. Every one of those countries has a higher level of skills in its workforce than New Zealand does. That is why they are wealthier than New Zealand, and that is why they have higher productivity. They have not gone down the path of having an unsustainably high level of minimum wages as the means to close the income gap. It is simply a false way of doing it.

So I say to the Government that when one is talking about productivity, one has to do the things that will actually boost skills. That is most crucial for young people. I ask members to go back to that figure I mentioned earlier—12 percent youth unemployment. Why does that exist primarily? It exists because that 12 percent is unskilled. That 12 percent does not have the life skills, the technical skills, or the employment skills to get into a job. If we change that, we change their life skills.

Finally, I put it to members opposite that young New Zealanders make choices. People who take skills—an apprenticeship, university, polytechnic, and the like—know they are making a life investment. They know they are deferring the immediate gratification of higher wages. Why do they do that—something, I suggest, that everyone in this room probably did? They do it because they know there are higher incomes down the track. That is the way to boost productivity and to boost life skills for youth workers.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): Two words sprang to mind as I listened to that speech. One word is not allowed to be used in the House, so I will not even tempt fate; the second word is “irony”. There is huge irony in listening to a speech from a National member of Parliament who presided over a regime for nearly a decade when National’s skills strategy was to look to the stars and hope that the stars lined up with apprenticeships, which National scrapped, hope that the stars lined up with industry training, which National scrapped, hope that the stars lined up with tertiary education, which National stifled through reducing the funds provided to tertiary institutions and increasing the fees for students, and hope that the stars lined up with collaboration between business and unions, and that then the market would deliver skills. It is no wonder we inherited such a skills deficit from the member who now stands up and says that productivity is what we need. There is another huge irony in that member talking about productivity, but I do not think that I need to go there, because not only do we on the Government side of the House recognise that but so does every other member of the House.

It gives me great pleasure to support this bill going to a select committee, and I congratulate Sue Bradford from the Green Party on taking the initiative, stimulating the debate around the country, and introducing the bill to the House. Since Labour was first elected at the end of 1999, our Governments have reviewed, and then raised, the minimum youth and adult wage annually. I am very proud of that. In 2001 we lowered the age of eligibility for the adult minimum wage from 20 years of age, as it was then, to 18 years of age. Prior to that, one had to work on the youth rate, if one was on the minimum rate, right up to age 20 years; now it is 18 years. Labour increased the relativity between the youth rate and the adult rate, in two steps, from 60 percent to 80 percent, and it has maintained that relativity. It is my view that those steps have been very positive.

But it is still obvious that there is a debate to be had about the suitability of paying workers at a different rate for the same job, just because of their age. I think that that debate should properly be held at a select committee. There are many issues to be debated. Is the enticement of young people from the education system—from high school, polytechs, apprenticeships, or university—with the possibility of higher-paid jobs an issue? I think that should be debated. As Sue Bradford quite rightly pointed out, we do not want young people to work long hours while they are studying. Will a higher wage reduce that, or will young people continue to work for the same number of hours and just earn more pay for doing so? That issue should be debated. The financial pressures on employers, and the potential for the constraint of job growth, are issues that should be debated. A primary issue is that all workers in New Zealand should receive fair pay. The debate that Wayne Mapp mentioned briefly in his contribution tonight is that concerning the value of experience and ability in terms of being able to do the job, and the debate between what is genuine training and what is life-work experience and what the financial consideration for that life-work experience should be.

This matter is not a simple or a straightforward issue, but, in my view, it is one that should not divide our employers and our unions, despite the differences of opinion that those two parties may hold. From Labour’s perspective, employers’ and unions’ voices, and the voices of young New Zealand workers, should be heard. A select committee is an appropriate forum to host the debate. I know that the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee will give fair consideration to both the perceptions and the facts around this debate. I, personally, very much look forward to the debate and to hearing the deliberation of the select committee. It is a debate that the time has come for. Labour will give further consideration to its position in the House on the bill following that consideration and deliberation.

I wish the next stage of the bill very speedy progress.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First is quite delighted to support this bill. We have long said—even before the Greens came into the House in any meaningful way—that the minimum wage should go up. We put it in our policy, and when we had confidence and supply discussions—[Interruption] That is a bit of policy that National did not pinch, according to Wayne Mapp, so I say to the new member that he should sit there quietly, or maybe he should take note and go and pinch it tomorrow. It was in our policy that we wanted to raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour. When we sat down with Labour to negotiate the confidence and supply agreement, Labour members were willing to look at the policy. But they came back and said “if economic conditions permit”, and they made us tag that on to our policy. Finally, they agreed that the wage would reach $12 an hour by the year 2008, which is before the next election.

I have to say to the honourable member there, who cannot stop grinning, that had we got into meaningful discussions with Dr Brash and Gerry Brownlee when they came knocking on our door, it would have been in an agreement with them, as well. I bet they would have nodded their heads faster than we can say that member’s name—which I cannot even remember. It would have been in any confidence and supply agreement that we proposed to National. [Interruption] Yes, it would; I can assure the member of that. That member would have crawled over broken glass to get a confidence and supply agreement with this provision in it. It disappoints me, to some degree, that the National Party is obviously not prepared to send this bill to a select committee in order to hear what the public really have to say about it. Frankly, we live in a low-wage economy and we need a minimum wage with a reasonable ceiling to ensure that people can live at least reasonably well.

I will move on to the youth rate. We support this bill going to a select committee, but we have some reservations. I want to be absolutely honest here. I have spoken to a number of employers and they have told me that if they have to employ a young person aged 16 or 17 years at full wages, then they will get older people instead because of their life skills. Wayne Mapp made some very good points on that. I note the point that he raised about the unemployment level. According to Statistics New Zealand, the unemployment rate for youth aged from 15 to 19 years is 11.7 percent. That is a very high figure. It is actually close to double the next-highest sector group, and after that the rates are all very much lower.

So I want to put forward a reservation. If Parliament, in its wisdom, chooses to abolish the youth rate totally, then we might be doing young people a huge disservice. New Zealand First is aware of that, but it still wants the bill to go to the select committee, as the Minister said, so that we can hear the voices and the views of New Zealanders, in total. They are entitled to have a say on the issue. That is why New Zealand First supports the bill going to a select committee.

I have to say, I was encouraged by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I know she is a lady who keeps her word. She sort of implied that after the bill comes back from the select committee Labour will want the adult rate to be $12 an hour. If that is the case, we will be totally behind it. We had reservations about including in our policy the tag “if economic conditions permit”, but we are prepared to listen to New Zealanders—to working New Zealanders, trade unions, fellow politicians, and New Zealand business people. We want to hear their views. We want to send this bill to a select committee so they can have their say.

I shall talk briefly about what happened under the National Party. We tried to give the National Party good advice in terms of the Employment Contracts Act when we came here. We said to modify it and make it fairer. I come from an industry of shipping and of loading ships. I can tell Dr Mapp honestly, and I can see that he is taking an interest in this, that there is no port in the world that can load any type of ship, or discharge it, faster than can the Port of Tauranga. Yet what did port workers get for their troubles? They got massive casualisation and redundancy. [Interruption]

I tell the honourable member over there that I do not think terribly many voted for “Uncle” Bob Clarkson. I do not think that they did. If members listen to that honourable member’s speeches, they will hear that he cannot speak without saying something derogatory about Winston Peters. I will get phone calls like the one I got the other night when someone said: “Peter, we only wanted to scare Winston. What the hell have we done? We’ll be back with him next time, with a huge majority.”

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): The Māori Party will be supporting the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill before this House, in its direction to abolish age discrimination. In our world view, to arbitrarily single out any one age group and discriminate against it is entirely contrary to the recognition that it is the breadth and collective strength of the people that is our wealth. I thank Sue Bradford and the Green Party for introducing this legislation. Others now want to take the credit for it, but no one has stood up for 16 and 17-year-olds. I have not heard anybody talk about that before, so I thank the Greens for doing that.

We can appreciate what employers are saying and understand their concerns that their ability to select their preferred workforce is being constrained by another intervention by the Government—even when it is a Government with good intentions, such as this one. Having been an employer myself, however, I know that I would not expect young trainee employees to carry out complex duties that I would expect more experienced employees to carry out. I would expect that those I employed on the minimum wage would be performing at the level of the basic skills that we would expect to see at the lower end of the salary range. No matter how old a person in a new job is, that person needs training. I cannot see the difference between training a 16 or 17-year-old and training a 20 to 60-year-old. Frankly, when I see young people pushing trolleys around car-parks, I think not very many 60-year-olds would want to perform that job, and certainly not for a minimal wage.

The central concept in this bill is the word “discrimination”. The Minimum Wage Act 1983 discriminates against those rangatahi who are aged 16 to 17, by dropping the minimum rates to $7.60 an hour. Those rangatahi are tomorrow’s parents, workers, leaders, helpers, spokespeople, and mentors. In order to ensure that rangatahi have the ability, confidence, and support to fulfil those roles to the very best of their ability, we need to ensure that nothing we are doing as part of the Government, as whānau, and as a community limits or impedes their development. They are tomorrow’s managers. It is a question of justice. We must remove the discriminatory aspects of the current Act, in the interests of our young people. In the end, those are the interests of our nation. We have heard some shocking stories, from right around the country, about youth rates. We have heard about 15-year-olds working long hours, and being paid $5 an hour to stack supermarket shelves. That is legal.

The Māori Party has a particular concern about the injustice currently permitted by the legislation, given the demographics of our population. Almost half of the Māori population is under 18 years of age—43 percent, compared with 24 percent of the non-Māori population. In real numbers, when we look at the age range of 10 to 18 years, the figure is 103,158. That is a lot of young people on youth rates. We know that for far too many of our young people, the crisis of poverty that racks this nation has pushed them literally out of the door—out of their homes—and into the workplace. The House needs no reminding of the reality that the Māori poverty rate is over 50 percent higher than the non-Māori rate. We must also consider the reality that one in five children live in low-income families, which is nearly twice the level of the late 1980s. Alongside that, the employment security that previous generations enjoyed has mostly disappeared, with many training and education options being too costly to pursue to the level of obtaining employment and income security.

I heard a member from National say that youth rates are how one gets ahead and moves on to higher wages, at a later stage in life. Well, that is fine talk if one has money. Some people do not know what it is like to have no money and just to focus on living from day to day.

Finally, I return to the issue of discrimination, and I raise the obvious anomaly of this bill. It is to do with disabled workers. During our discussions with our constituents about this bill, we have heard about intellectually disabled employees who know that they are being exploited, and know that they are being abused and that it is legal. Yet this bill does nothing to change the current law.

We will support this bill going to the select committee, to remove the current discrimination against 16 and 17-year-olds. Members of this House will be familiar with the whakataukī “ma pango ma whero ka oti te mahi”, interpreted in this context to mean that old and young—in fact, all peoples—can work together and be rewarded equally for that work. It is a worthy goal to work towards.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill. I have to be honest that when I first heard about this bill my gut reaction was: “Oh my goodness me, the employers are not going to like this. As a consequence of them not liking this, there will be fewer jobs available for 16 and 17-year-olds, and therefore this is going to be very counter-productive.” I suspect, from hearing some of the speeches tonight, that other members reacted like that and have camped at that place.

I took the time to read very carefully the bill put forward by Sue Bradford, and I also did some research of my own and discovered that this is actually quite a sensible proposal. It is time we had this debate. United Future will support this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so that we can have the discussions that need to be had. We will be able to hear from both employers and young people about their concerns in this regard. I do not think there is anything to be scared of by letting this bill go through.

The first thing that impressed me was that this bill is not extreme. We are talking here about 16 and 17-year-olds. The current provisions that relate to 15-year-olds and under would still remain in place, and maybe that is a discussion to be had on another day. I am kind of glad that we are focusing on a very specific age group of young people who have often been employed at least part-time for several years, are quite competent at what they do, and, quite often, are supervising older workers. Certainly, my own children worked during their high school years. They learnt an amazing work ethic, gained skills, and were given responsibilities. It would have been offensive to them to work for less pay alongside adults doing exactly the same job. The employer they worked for did not make that discrimination and they were paid the same minimum rate as the adults working alongside them. They appreciated that consideration.

My concern was how employers would react to this bill, and when I did some research, one of the things that interested me was that, currently, 44.7 percent of 16 and 17-year-olds who are employed are already on more than $9.50 an hour. Employers are already making some very good calls in that regard. This bill is not the major shock to employers that I had anticipated it would be. So the first fact that I found really interesting was what is actually happening in common practice out there right now.

We are talking about quite a large number of young people. Something like 26,400 16 and 17-year-olds who are employed either full-time or part-time are affected by this; we are not talking about small numbers. We have to think about what those young people are working towards at this point. First of all, they want to get a track record of employment that looks very good on their CV as they apply for all sorts of jobs and tertiary training opportunities. They want a consistent work record that looks very good on paper. The second thing is that many of them are saving toward their tertiary education. They are responsible young people who are developing an early work ethic that should be applauded. When we start to undermine that development by saying that they do the same work but are not worth the same as anybody else, we are sending some really strange messages. United Future believes that because of those kinds of considerations, this debate is probably long overdue. We are very happy to support this bill’s passage to the select committee, and we will watch with interest.

We do have some concerns, and we would like to see those addressed. I am sure that submitters will bring those up very loudly and clearly. We want to see what kind of responses come out of that. One of the concerns I have is about the training period that might happen. I guess we need to find out whether it takes longer to train 16 and 17-year-olds than to train more mature workers. Maybe there is a case to be made, and maybe provisions need to be made for those kinds of considerations; I am very open to that kind of thinking. But I also take the point that possibly there is no difference. It will be interesting to see as the evidence comes out.

We are very keen to see the bill progress. That was not our initial reaction, but we did a bit of soul-searching on the issue. We looked at what was genuinely proposed here, and we discovered that it was not as extreme as we first had anticipated. We commend the member for bringing the bill to the House’s attention.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill. I think people would be surprised if I did anything else. Let me make this point. It is all very well for people in the House to stand up and piously say that they would like 16 to 17-year-olds to be paid more, and that they feel good about voting in favour of the bill. But, of course, members will not pay the price of the bill. Businesses that are struggling to pay, or that cannot afford to pay, workers their wages will pay the price of the bill. The second group that will pay the price of the bill will be young people themselves, because there is no doubt that people will be priced off the labour market as a consequence of the bill, and that they will struggle, as a consequence of that, to find work. One might say that that will not happen. But if it will not happen, then why pass the bill? The only way that a minimum wage can work is by actually increasing the wage rate above the level that the market currently pays. If the minimum wage is below the rate that the market currently pays, then it does not have any impact. If the minimum wage is above the market rate, then it will have an impact on the numbers who are employed and the ability of people to get a job.

I ask the people who are voting for the bill to contemplate the following. Of course, everyone in the House wants higher wages for New Zealanders. But if it were as easy as passing a law in Parliament to give people higher wages, why stop at $9.50 an hour? Why not make it $12.50 an hour? Why not make it $15 an hour? Why not make it $25 an hour? I heard Sue Bradford call out: “Why not?”.

Sue Bradford: $12.50 would be good.

RODNEY HIDE: Sue Bradford said that $12.50 would be good. What is wrong with $25 an hour?

Darien Fenton: Nothing.

RODNEY HIDE: So if we can make the minimum wage $25 an hour, what is wrong with $100? I heard Ms Fenton call out that nothing is wrong with making it $25 an hour. But, of course, if the minimum wage were made $25 an hour, not one person’s wage in New Zealand would go up. What would happen is that all the people who are currently earning less than $25 an hour would find themselves unemployed. That is why I do not understand why we think we can sit in Parliament and, without regard to the cost to business and without regard to the cost to young people, legislate for a wage. That is not how the world works.

If we want to get wages up in this country, we will not do so by passing laws; we will do so by increasing the productivity of the economy. At the end of the day the dairy owner, the owner of the factory, the owner of the trucking company, and the owner of the retail store can afford to pay someone only what that person brings to the business. Employers cannot afford to pay more than that. The sad reality is that we have had a poor-performing economy for many, many years, and therefore people cannot command the high wages that we would like them to have. The answer to that problem is not to live in fairyland and pass a law that says that $25 an hour would be a good idea, which is the figure that members of the Labour Party and the Green Party called out, because unless people produce $25 an hour, it does not work—in fact, they would have to produce more than that, because one has to cover all the costs that this Government has put on someone who employs them.

The best thing that could be done for the wages of low-income people in New Zealand—and, in fact, for everyone’s income—is to make it a lot easier to employ people in the first place, and to make it a whole lot easier to do business. And here is a novel thought: what about having them pay less tax?

We put up wages at our peril, because it will not be parliamentarians who carry the cost, and it will not be civil servants. It will be businesses and young people who pay the cost, and that will result in jobs and opportunities that we will not see. I ask members of the House to think about that. I am staggered that people in the Labour Party think we can legislate for a $25-an-hour minimum wage, without that having any consequence. That shows the thinking behind this sort of legislation.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party says that youth rates are all about putting down the young people of this country—denigrating them, abusing them, and treating them as second-class citizens. Like all discrimination, it is not based on anything rational—any more than was the wage discrimination of the past against women, Māori, or any other group. It is based on the self-interest of employers and a certain degree of brainwashing in the population.

There is a set of myths that to give young people full wages is somehow a cost to the community. One of the myths is that full rates will make it difficult for companies, or will bankrupt them. That argument was used against women in the past in order to justify paying them less wages than men. Few people today use that argument in favour of women being paid less than men—they would rightly be called sexist if they did—and the same applies in the case of youth wages: we should call people prejudiced against youth if they justify low youth wages.

The second myth is that youth rates cause unemployment. That is not true. It is true that there is a higher rate of youth unemployment than in the rest of the population—the figures I saw stood at about 12 percent amongst youth, as against roughly 3 percent of the general population; of course, in the 1980s and 1990s it was much worse than that. The cause of the difference in the unemployment rate is the way society organises its workforce; the cause is not basic economics. If one looks at it rationally, one will see that young people have greater energy, alertness, and fitness than the rest of the population, and that they come out of school with a fairly up-to-date, modern education, so they are well fit for the workforce. The problems are more about society not properly organising the transition from school into the workforce for 16 and 17-year-olds. Certainly, young people lack one thing, and that is work experience, but when one thinks about it one will realise that youth rates are applied not to jobs that require a huge amount of experience but to relatively low-skilled jobs that people can get to know pretty quickly. So it is not an economic argument. As Sue Bradford pointed out, if we want people to be highly skilled and advancing through the education system—often 16 and 17-year-olds do part-time work when in full-time education, and sometimes they do full-time work and go to night classes or whatever—then we need them to be paid properly, so that they can afford to go through that education in order to add value to our workforce as they grow older—as 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds, and beyond.

If one looks at economics on the level of the individual company, one sees that few companies would fail to survive if they paid young people a full rate. In fact, productivity actually goes up if people are paid decently and they are not hanging around feeling sullen about their low wages and the exploitation they are suffering. The argument that companies put to groups like Unite!, which organises young workers, is essentially that companies are in a competitive market, particularly in industries like fast-food outlets and supermarkets where young people are employed—and McDonald’s brought in youth rates only a couple of years ago—and they could not compete with the other fast-food outlets or supermarkets if they did not pay youth rates. So some of those employers actually favour having a higher minimum wage so that they could compete on a level basis; that is, if they are paying decent wages to their workers, they are not having to compete against other firms paying exploitation wages.

I think that the other reason for decent wages too is that we do not want young people—16 and 17-year-olds—growing up too dependent on their parents. If we are looking to the future we want them to be well-paid, confident, independent people, and we see some of those people today. At 6 o’clock today the KFC youth workers went on strike to end youth wages and to get decent wages in their industry. The strike was organised by Unite!, and we fully support them in that action.

MARK BLUMSKY (National): I am pleased to have this chance to speak to the bill because it gives me the opportunity to tell the House to be very careful as it is sending yet another message, another signal, to businesses that it does not like them. I stand here as one who owns a business and employs staff, and probably not too many members on the other side of the House—

Rodney Hide: None.

MARK BLUMSKY: —if any at all—can say that, because the Government benches are full of academics and trade unionists.

I know exactly what will be going through the mind of businesses when they hear about this bill on the radio tonight, because it is going through my mind as well. I quote: “Not again—shit! I’m already suffering.”, and: “Whack me, especially when I am down, just trying to make a living.” It is tough out there. Electricity prices are up, transport costs are up, accident compensation levies are up, compliance costs are up, rates are up, and now Parliament is considering a bill that sets about hurting business owners and their livelihoods even more. How much hurt will there be? A local supermarket owner rang me just the other day and said that if he moved away from youth rates, his business would incur an extra expense of $1.6 million per year. That is an extra cost to his business, and it will mean one thing: he will put up his prices to recover. What is even worse is that that business owner cannot ask the Government for some money to recover the costs as he trains his staff to learn to read and write.

It may surprise many of the members opposite that one of the main reasons to be in business is to make money. My wife and I own a lingerie store. Now look, we would love to fit every woman in Wellington with a new bra and every man in Wellington with a new set of Jockey’s. We want to offer as much support as we can. But our real motive for being in business is to make a profit, and if we make a profit—as we do—we can open another store, which we are doing in Christchurch. And we will employ more staff and pay more wages because we can make a profit. However, as Parliament is putting yet another significant cost factor against my bottom line it will be harder.

When my business and other businesses employ youth, we are making a considered compromise at the moment. We pay a little less, and we trade that off by getting a slightly more immature young adult who still has a lot to learn about life, who needs a little more training, and who is inexperienced, so will need more supervision. Hey, let us not forget about the after-school workers who do those odd jobs around the edge. What of them? At present, those kids have the opportunity to learn about fiscal responsibility and work ethic, as well as earn a little bit of additional pocket money. Well, that after-school job will be a historical job before too long. I ask the member who introduced the bill what we will have to pay the 15 or 16-year-old babysitters. Will we soon be paying them that $12.50 minimum? I tell the member now that it will make going to the movies with one’s partner—to have a night out and leave the little kid at home—one heck of a lot more expensive.

Employing youth and paying them the adult minimum wage will entail a gamble. Maybe, just maybe, it will be a gamble that business might be prepared to take if there was a probation period when we initially hired those kids. But, at the end of the day, the National Party has all New Zealanders at heart. We want all New Zealanders to earn more money and to have a better quality of life, and the best solution to ensure high productivity and high wages is to reduce our taxes.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): May I say what an absolutely predictable speech that was from the Opposition side of the House. What is new? I was hoping to hear something different from Mark Blumsky. I am pleased to speak in support of the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The issue of paying a lesser minimum wage for young workers aged 16 and 17 does need to be properly considered, and the appropriate place for that to happen is in a select committee.

The purpose of a minimum wage is to protect vulnerable low-wage workers from exploitation in the employment relationship—to provide a safety net. It is not intended to be a primary wage-fixing instrument. But, unfortunately, in some New Zealand industries the minimum wage has become the market rate. Often firms, like the supermarket to which Mark Blumsky referred, which can very easily afford to pay more than the minimum wage, pay minimum wages because they can get away with it in our still very deregulated labour market. A couple of days ago I talked with some workers in a well-known national shoe store chain. Throughout its 52 stores in New Zealand workers are paid the minimum wage and the youth minimum wage. The workers do not have the bargaining power to do anything about it, so their response is to leave and get another job that pays better. Now, that works fine when there is a buoyant labour market—like there is under this Government—but when jobs become tight, workers are stuck in low-wage jobs, and work for employers who can afford to pay a lot more.

When Opposition members complain about the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia, they should own up as to why it has happened, and why this Government’s commitment to increasing the minimum wage has become an essential tool in increasing wages in New Zealand. When the minimum wage was introduced by Labour in 1945, it was set at 83 percent of the average weekly wage, and there was no youth minimum wage. Over the years it fluctuated, but as large numbers of workers had the protections of industrial and occupational awards, the minimum wage did not have the significance it has today.

When National introduced the Employment Contracts Act in 1991, the minimum wage became the only protection for hundreds of thousands of workers whose award wages disappeared almost overnight. Now, what did National do? It introduced the youth minimum wage for the under 20s, at 60 percent of the average weekly wage. Despite the minimum wage setting the wages that many workers came to rely on, there were many years during the 1990s when the minimum wage did not increase at all, or when only minimal adjustments were made. The effect was that the minimum wage slipped from 52.5 percent of the average wage in 1987 to 40 percent at the end of the 1990s.

Furthermore, may I say that National’s enforcement of the minimum wage during those years was pathetic. In 1997 there were just 19 labour inspectors for the whole of the country, with the consequence being that many workers who sought help to enforce the minimum wage were told to come back later, because no one was available to help them. In the climate of fear that prevailed then, and with the great stamina that was required to enforce workers’ rights, many of them simply accepted sub-minimum conditions.

Gerry Brownlee: Well, why didn’t these people join unions?

DARIEN FENTON: Because the National Government made it difficult for them. This Labour-led Government has set out to incrementally address the dreadful consequences of those policies on low-wage workers. It has extended the adult minimum wage to 18 and 19-year-olds, and we have done something about 16 and 17-year-olds. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): That barraging was really a bit too much.

Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was really standing up to say that there is a bit too much barraging, and we cannot even hear down this end of the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is absolutely right. Please, members, it was far too excessive.

DARIEN FENTON: The Labour-led Government has stood up for 16 and 17-year-olds by increasing the application of the adult minimum wage to 18-year-olds and also by increasing the youth minimum wage to 80 percent of the average wage. I will give members a couple of figures. In 1999 the adult minimum wage was $7 an hour. From March this year it will be $10.25 an hour. In 1999 the youth minimum wage was $4.20 an hour. In March it will be $8.25 an hour. So it will almost double. But, of course, Dr Brash and the National Party want to abandon the minimum wage, as well as holiday pay entitlements, paid parental leave, and moves to close the gender pay gap.

Since Labour was elected in 1999 successive Labour-led Governments have reviewed and raised the minimum youth wage and the minimum adult wage every year. It is clear that there is a debate to be had on the suitability of paying workers at a different rate for the same job just because of their age. As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I look forward to considering all the issues and having robust consideration of this important matter.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): First of all, I would like to thank again the four parties that have shown their support for my bill tonight: Labour, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, and United Future. I would particularly like to thank Judy Turner for her frankness and her courage in convincing her party to support a Green Party bill—that is quite novel. I would also like to compliment members on the quality of the debate, from all sides. It is quite unusual in this House to hear every speaker actually addressing the issue. Even when we totally disagree with each other, I think it is fantastic that we have opportunities for this kind of debate. I wish we had longer to go into some of the deeper economic issues behind this.

In terms of the bill itself, I would first like to discuss some of the things Dr Mapp mentioned. He talked about the perverse incentive that my bill would give to school students who are working after school and on weekends. As I pointed out earlier, precisely the opposite is actually the case. I think it is a perverse incentive to pay people such low rates that they have to work longer hours than would be desirable and are spending far too much time working rather than studying, resting, or doing other things. I am not saying, though, that younger people have the same skills and experience as older workers, as Dr Mapp seemed to imply. Young workers have different skills and attributes to offer their employers. It is simply a matter of difference, and the attributes that young people bring to these jobs are different from those of a lot of mature workers. We need people to do this kind of work. We need people who are willing and able to run around in the back of a McDonald’s, and are willing and able, as Tariana Turia said, to push trolleys back into supermarkets, and to stand on their feet all day in a retail outlet and meet their sales targets. We depend on those workers to keep all sorts of businesses going, and it is an insult to them to say that because that work does not require a university degree or an apprenticeship, it is somehow worth less. The arguments that Dr Mapp and his colleague Mark Blumsky made do not counteract the fundamental principle that people doing the same work should get the same pay, and I am sure that at some deep level even the National Party members may understand that.

Finally, on the question of productivity, which Dr Mapp has talked about a lot and which is a really interesting issue, he is saying that the most important thing is that these students can get a really good education. That is true, but we believe that the National Party would really be putting its money where its mouth is if it supported our Green Party policies on education, such as getting rid of the student loan scheme altogether, providing a system to remit student debt and to reduce the level of fees that students have to pay so that we get rid of the whole system that is encumbering generation after generation of graduates. That would really help productivity and help keep our young graduates in this country and get them back from overseas. That would be a real contribution, instead of penalising young people by paying them such low wages.

I turn to Peter Brown’s arguments. He has said that abolishing youth rates totally may be doing young people a huge disservice. This bill does not actually abolish youth rates totally. Judy Turner mentioned that fact, as well. In fact, I have come in for quite a lot of criticism from colleagues in the union movement and from youth organisations because my bill does not get rid of youth rates altogether. My bill deals only with youth rates for workers aged 16 and 17. I acknowledge that that does a disservice to workers under 16 whose needs are deep—they are a very vulnerable and exploited group of workers—but I felt that it was sensible to take this one step at a time. I thought it would be great if we could achieve an end to at least one level of discrimination, and I am sure there will be a lot of submissions to the select committee criticising my bill because it has not gone far enough. This bill is not extreme, I say to Judy Turner. It is a very moderate piece of legislation.

To Tariana Turia, who talked about workers with disabilities, I would like to say that I am very well aware of that issue and the extent to which people with intellectual disability, for example, are and continue to be exploited in some situations is deeply problematic. I hope the Māori Party will join with the Green Party in encouraging the Government to proceed with the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill with alacrity.

In conclusion, I would like once again to acknowledge and thank all the parties who are taking the progressive step of backing this bill tonight. I just hope that their commitment to fairness and equity to young workers will continue all the way through until this bill becomes law.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Bill read a first time.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I move, That the Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

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

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill

First Reading

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I move, That the Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill be now read a first time. I expect everyone in the House to support this bill, because what New Zealand has in its legislative structure is a glaring, glaring hole that is causing strife, uncertainty, and chaos. It goes back to 1986, when the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer inserted into the State-Owned Enterprises Act a section—section 9—that states: “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” It is one of those great phrases that lawyers use that sound great—that sound as though they mean a lot.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer, I think, wanted to imply that. I am reliably informed that he told his Cabinet colleagues not to worry, because the phrase was meaningless—that it could just sit there and mean nothing. Well, of course, it is very hard to pass a clause in a bill, and then have judges say it means nothing. Lord Cooke of Thorndon got hold of this and it was like “make his day”, because he was then in a position to decide what the principles of the Treaty were. There was no direction from Parliament, no accountability to the people of New Zealand—

Tariana Turia: Lucky for him.

RODNEY HIDE: Lucky for him. He was going to decide what all the principles of the Treaty were for all time. Well, it was not for all time, actually, because the courts kept changing their minds as to what the principles might be—

Christopher Finlayson: What did they do?

RODNEY HIDE: In all sorts of ways—

Christopher Finlayson: Give us a case.

RODNEY HIDE: Chris Finlayson is a bit lost on this. I could cite them. The first one, of course, was New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] in the Court of Appeal. It is in the New Zealand Law Reports, Volume 1, at page 641. I will send it to Mr Chris Finlayson, who has not seen it. He can look at that and bring himself up to speed with this important bill.

Then, not to be outdone, the Waitangi Tribunal, too, wanted to have a hand in what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi might be. It started coming up with its own list—I ask members to bear in mind that no one votes the tribunal’s members in; they do not have any ability to make Acts of Parliament—and just invented them through the door Professor the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer had opened. Then successive Governments, both National and Labour, have just inserted this happy little phrase into bill after bill.

Christopher Finlayson: Then why blame the judges?

RODNEY HIDE: Well, exactly. This is why we are here. Chris Finlayson makes a very good point. He asks: “Then why blame the judges?”. Actually, I am not blaming them. That is why we are here in Parliament tonight. I know it is late for Mr Finlayson and that he would rather be tucked up with a good book. We are here in Parliament to put this matter right so that we do not blame the judges, because it is Parliament’s mistake. Without knowing what it means, Parliament put this phrase into 36 Acts of Parliament. It voted for it. I have to say that Mr Finlayson is in the happy circumstance—probably one of the few in this Parliament—of never having voted for one of those clauses.

We then had the experience of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who, not having a lot to do for days on end—

Christopher Finlayson: Why bring him into this?

RODNEY HIDE:—well, I cannot resist—would stand up in this House day after day and ask Ministers of the Crown and the Prime Minister what on earth the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were. If members think they have seen Ministers dodge questions thus far, they have seen nothing compared with when Ministers get that question. They cannot tell us what the principles of the Treaty are, so no one actually knows. Robin Cooke’s work was work in progress. The Waitangi Tribunal stuff is work in progress. It is the stuff that we will slowly evolve over time to some undefined purpose. In the meantime, Māori do not know what their rights are—

Te Ururoa Flavell: Yes, we do.

RODNEY HIDE: They say they do. They have to go to a court and convince Robin Cooke’s successor that they are right. No one knows what these principles of the Treaty mean.

So here we are with the great ACT party. I am sure everyone will be supporting this bill, because we are coming along—[Interruption] Thanks, Pita! Pita Paraone is saying that he will support the bill. I am very pleased, because he knows it is very important. I will be proposing, just for Pita Paraone, that this bill go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Why? [Interruption] They cannot even get a quorum—I would send it to the Māori Affairs Committee if its members could be bothered to turn up, but I cannot trust them to turn up on any given day. We know that members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee all turn up, and it is better off there because there are more members on that committee. At the Finance and Expenditure Committee, every party in this great Parliament is represented, bar Jim Anderton. Those are two pluses. Every party is represented on that committee, bar Jim Anderton, so the Finance and Expenditure Committee has to be the committee that considers this most important bill.

I have had a crack at defining what I think the principles are, and I am not saying that I have understood them perfectly. We could have the combined wisdom of Pita Paraone, the Labour Party, the Māori Party, the National Party, and Mr Chris Finlayson, who could read till late, then come down and help. But I want to tell members that I did an odd thing: I actually read the Treaty. I was quite surprised, because in English it is as straightforward as anything. I cannot understand why there is all this confusion, because I read the Treaty—

Hon Member: That’s the problem.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, it is a problem; it is so clear. I admit it was the English version. But, again, we are in Parliament. The select committee can get the Māori version and add in those principles, then we will actually know for once what the principles are and Parliament can pass the bill.

I want to know who in Parliament is against the first principle. It is actually just taken off the first article. The principle of the first article is that there is just one New Zealand—that sort of seems a bit obvious—one sovereign nation, and the Crown exercises sovereignty on behalf of Māori and non-Māori alike. I say that people who vote against this bill are voting against having one sovereign nation in this great country. I hear the Māori Party say: “Yes”. Its members are against one sovereign nation, so we know where they sit. Where do Labour members sit? Are they in favour of dual sovereignty?

Brian Connell: Over on this side.

RODNEY HIDE: Brian Connell says that they sit over there with him. That may be so, but it is he who has moved from his seat, not Labour members. Brian Connell might want to sit over there with the Labour members, but tell him that that is not good for his career. Mind you, I have given up trying to help Mr Connell with his career. I have helped him a fair bit so far. [Interruption] We might be a small caucus but we are safe.

Then we come to the second principle. The principle of the second article is that the Crown has a duty to uphold citizens’ property rights and that no property may be taken by the State without good cause and full market consideration. That is what the foreshore and seabed legislation was all about. Of course, that was a breach of the Treaty, so there has to be a breach of the Treaty principles. That is why I have No. 2. I come to the third principle, and I would like to know who in this House will vote against this. I will be counting and reporting. The principle of article 3 is that everyone in New Zealand who is a citizen has the same rights and obligations as every other citizen. Is Mr Paraone against that?

Pita Paraone: I’m waiting.

RODNEY HIDE: He cannot make up his mind as to whether he is in favour of every citizen having the same rights—the right to a fair trial, to free speech, to vote, and to be treated equally before the law.

This is a very, very important bill. It sets the scene for what sort of a country we are. Are we to be a country that has one sovereign? Are we to be a country where property rights are held? Are we to be a country where every citizen is equal before the law? That is what this bill is about. I commend it to the House and look forward to its getting good support right across the House, including from Mr Paraone.

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): He Tirohanga ō Kawa ki te Tiriti o Waitangi: A Guide to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is a good text. I recommend it to the member speaking previously, and I want to start my contribution on this bill by reading a short piece from it. This is a book that really is about understanding perhaps some of the complexity of the Treaty and how it evolves. It states: “The differences in the Māori and English text of the Treaty of Waitangi have led to different understandings of the meaning of the Treaty. These differences, coupled with the need to apply the Treaty in contemporary circumstances, led Parliament to refer to the principles of the Treaty in legislation, rather than to the Treaty texts. It is the principles, therefore, that the courts have considered when interpreting legislative references to the Treaty. As Justice McKay noted in the Broadcasting case (1992): ‘It is the principles of the Treaty which are to be applied, not the literal words. The English and Māori texts in the first schedule of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 are not translations the one of the other’ ”—I say to Mr Hide—“ ‘and the differences between the texts and shades of meaning are less important than the spirit.’ ”

I also want to draw to the attention of Mr Hide that, as usual, he has failed completely to do any real homework on this very inadequate legislation. He referred tonight to the Court of Appeal and to Sir Robin Cooke. I refer the member to the lands case in 1987, in which the Court of Appeal elaborated the principles of the Treaty, as required by section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 he referred to. What he did not refer to was the judgment of the President of the Court of Appeal, Sir Robin Cooke, who wrote of the principles of partnership, acts of protection, and redress. Later on, in 1989, the fourth Labour Government, drawing on the principles that had been delivered to date, included past judgments from the courts and published—I say to Mr Hide—a set of five principles to assist the Government when making decisions about matters related to the Treaty. I have referred to those previously in this House. I have made them available to the member, and to all members. Clearly again, despite putting legislation before this House, that member has not bothered even to refer to that document.

In April 2002 the then Attorney-General, the Hon Margaret Wilson, advised Parliament that the following are the principles that the Government considers to be relevant—and they still are. I ask members who do care, and who keep referring to them and asking what they are, to please take note: first, the principle of Government: the Government has the right to govern and make laws; second, the principle of self-management: iwi have the right to organise as iwi and, under the law, to control the resources they own; third, the principle of equality: all New Zealanders are equal under the law; fourth, the principle of reasonable cooperation: both the Government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern; and finally, the principle of redress: the Government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances, in the expectation that reconciliation can occur.

I turn now to Mr Hide’s bill. The bill, we are told, is being introduced to provide greater certainty of, and to reduce confusion about, the principles of the Treaty. Unfortunately, in my submission, it does quite the opposite. Just as the courts have been required to establish what the current principles are, the principles in this bill will also require significant interpretation by the courts and, like any bill, they will get it if it proceeds.

The bill could have a particularly significant impact on the Waitangi Tribunal by removing its ability to consider claims against its understanding and application of the Treaty principles. That in turn would change the basis on which future claims were considered, and lead to inconsistent treatment of those claims that have already been heard compared with those that are still to come. Furthermore, the compensation requirements in the bill may leave the tribunal to apply a standard of full market consideration in exercising its binding powers. Consequently, the compensation requirements would pose a significant risk to the affordability and durability of previous Treaty settlements. Settlement claims could be compromised to such an extent they would need to be renegotiated.

Clause 7 prevents the Crown from interfering with property rights without good cause. First, that would require the courts to define what is included in the definition of property. Using the two texts of the Treaty—which are included of course as schedules to the bill—as aids to interpretation, as the court would, a court could reasonably apply a very wide definition to that term to include things such as taonga. The strong property protection proposed in the bill would apply to things such as language, Māori family structure, and Māori customary knowledge. The member included those as part of his bill—at some unknown cost, of course—to all of the above, which would mean more uncertainty generated by the bill.

Secondly, the courts would be required to define the term “without good cause” or, rather, what constituted sufficiently good cause. Members can imagine a court being asked to review a decision to take land under the Public Works Act, and trying to decide whether the proposed public work was worthy enough to meet the requirements of this bill. As a matter of fairness, the courts would be bound to apply the property protections in clause 7 to any matter involving property rights. In other words, the principles of the Treaty as set out in the bill would apply to more situations than they do at present. I seriously doubt whether that was Mr Hide’s intention.

Clause 8 sets out a number of very worthy rights, shared by all New Zealanders equally. Many of these rights mirror those already contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. However, whereas the rights affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are subject to other enactments, the rights in this bill have no such restrictions. Parts of existing statutes that require references to the Treaty, and are inconsistent with rights in this bill, could therefore be impliedly repealed. Surely, I say to Mr Hide, that is not the intention of his bill.

Clause 9 tells us there are no Treaty principles other than those included in the bill, but it is unlikely that that will truly restrict the courts to those principles alone. Other principles articulated by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, such as good faith and the duty to make informed decisions, have their roots not only in the Treaty but also in general principles of common law. It will require more express language from this Parliament to extinguish such fundamental concepts of the common law. I am not surprised that Mr Hide wants to do that; I am sure that the majority of members in this House do not.

If it is not the intention to remove these principles from consideration, then one is forced to wonder whether this bill serves any purpose in the first place. If passed, the bill would create uncertainty about the interpretation of existing statutes, and about the extent of private property rights. Most of all, it would seriously undermine the Treaty settlement process, and most certainly delay it. In the end, the only equality the bill will generate for Māori and non-Māori alike is that both will be equally confused about its purpose and effect. For all of those reasons, the Labour Party will oppose this bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: All other speakers have 5 minutes, with a bell at 4 minutes.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I have often asked myself how this country ever got into the state it has when it comes to consideration of matters around the Treaty of Waitangi. As Rodney Hide explained to the House earlier, the Treaty itself is an extremely short and concise document. There are a few points where there are interpretive differences, but it was obvious that we have got into this trouble because of stupid governance when the Hon Mark Burton stood up tonight and said that the best thing Rodney Hide could do was to start reading some of the many volumes that have been written on the Treaty.

He then proceeded to give us a diatribe that could be described as being nothing more than utter rubbish. When he spoke this evening about the five principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, he did not mention property rights, he did not mention freedom, he did not mention the right of people to be able to express themselves freely whenever they like; rather, he talked about the right of the Government to tell people what to do and when to do it. Then he manufactured the idea that, somehow, a treaty written in 1840 with goodwill and looking forward, had an implicit redress clause or principle embedded in it. What utter garbage! It is that sort of woolly thinking that will lead National to support this bill going to a select committee.

We have our reservations about it, and one reason is that if we consider the Treaty of Waitangi, and even look at the way in which Mr Hide has laid out the three articles of the Treaty in his bill and made some explanation of them, we see it is a crying shame that it ever had to be referred to in any legislation at all. I would have thought it obvious that all New Zealanders accept that we have one Government, that we have freedoms and property rights, and that we expect to be treated equally by the law. Because New Zealanders accept those things, we have embarked on the Treaty grievance process. We have embarked on the Treaty grievance process because we believe that New Zealanders should be treated equally, because we believe in property rights, and because we believe that there is one Government that should undertake this so-called redress.

The Treaty is a document that has relevance and meaning for all New Zealanders. I would not mind the Resource Management Act referring to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi if that meant that my rights as a property owner were upheld just as much as those of someone who is Māori. But no, that phrase is there to convey some extra duty, or to impose some extra duty on local authorities, because a group happens to be Māori. One of the consequences of this sort of woolly thinking is that the Māori group in this country is now over-regulated, overlegislated, and over-controlled by Government. Anyone who wants to close his or her mind to the possibilities that a select committee may come up with in considering this bill, is signing up to the idea that a Government should control people’s lives. It really is that simple.

What is wrong with declaring that the principles and articles of the Treaty exist to deliver rights to all New Zealanders? What do Māori have to fear from that—Māori, who are not even allowed by the current Government to control directly their own fishing assets, who cannot have a Treaty settlement unless they convince this Government that their governance arrangements are appropriate, and who cannot get their hands on a Treaty settlement unless the settlement is hog-tied by an Act of Parliament? That is no way for this country to progress. This bill allows the select committee to have a good look at those issues. We will participate in that process fully. We do not agree with every aspect of the bill, but we do think it is time this country got past the sort of woolly woofter thinking expressed by Mark Burton on behalf of the Government tonight.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker, ā, tēnā koutou e noho nei i roto i te Whare i te pō nei. Tēnā koutou! Hari te ngākau mō tēnei wāhanga i hōmai ki a au, ki te whakamārama atu ngā whakaaro a te Rōpū o Aotearoa Tuatahi i te kaupapa i mua i a tātou i tēnei wā.

I am delighted to be able to take this opportunity to express the views of New Zealand First on this bill.

I want to say straight off, so that it is clear to everybody in this House and to those who are listening, that New Zealand First will oppose this bill. Unlike the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill sponsored by my leader and by New Zealand First, this bill does not seek to remove references to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” from legislation. Instead, it seeks to define what those principles should be. However, I do not believe that this comes from any genuine desire to provide clarity for the judiciary, who have to interpret our laws.

Instead, the purpose of this bill is to put property rights at the forefront of any Treaty negotiations or claims. References to property rights that I have heard in this House tonight certainly do not take into consideration the property rights of iwi, hapū, and Māori as such. All the references to property rights have been to those of the individual. This bill extrapolates the ACT party’s own principles and incorporates them into the three articles of the Treaty. I note that the articles used are from the English version. I remind some members that Māori signed the Māori version. When we look at schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the bill we see quite clearly that the versions do not match. This should not surprise anyone, given that the ACT party—of which this bill’s sponsor is currently leader—is right wing, market-driven, and individualistic. Perhaps that party knows it is on a hiding to nothing with its policies, so it is trying to dress them up in a more altruistic guise in an effort to make them more palatable.

New Zealand First is concerned that, should this bill pass, the progress of current and future Treaty settlements will be impeded and past settlements may, in fact, be called into question as well. I think most of us in this House want nothing more than to see fair and enduring Treaty settlements and believe that no impediments to that end should be allowed.

In June last year when New Zealand First’s bill was being debated Stephen Franks, a member of the ACT party, said that the ACT party had consistently maintained that there is no such thing as “Treaty principles”. Now we find that the ACT party is trying to define what those principles are. I know that Mr Hide would be the first to say how consistent his party is in matters such as this, but quite clearly there is no foundation to that assertion.

I suggest to the House that, should this bill proceed into legislation, the expensive and never-ending litigious programme that surrounds the existing legislation over Treaty principles in legislation will continue. Members may recall that that was one of our concerns regarding the original bill. With the retention of the references to Treaty principles in any legislation, we will continue down that track.

Under our confidence and supply agreement with Labour, whereby we will ensure stability and balance over this parliamentary term, New Zealand First has negotiated an agreement with the Government that it will support a New Zealand First bill relating to Treaty principles going to a select committee for consideration. For that reason, we oppose this particular bill.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): The Greens oppose this bill absolutely. It represents just one more attempt to rewrite history and to subjugate the political aspirations of Māori to Pākehā hegemony. It seeks to unilaterally redefine the Treaty in accordance not with Māori values or the values of the Pākehā community but with ACT party values: private property rights and extreme individualism. It is designed to insult Māori and to inflame Pākehā anxieties—and there is considerable Pākehā anxiety about the place of Pākehā in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This anxiety has been accentuated by the growing inclusion of Māori in political and cultural affairs. A growing awareness of the injustices of the past and the effects of our historical civil war has threatened many people’s conception of a nation built on peace. In part, this is because the myth of our exemplary race relations and the “one New Zealand” catchcry have been demonstrated to be false. In the past, many Pākehā were simply unaware of the decades of calls by Māori for their right to cultural, political, and economic self-determination. Today no Pākehā is unaware of this history of wrongs and attempts to right them. This awareness makes some people feel guilty, and some people go on to resent that guilt. A common response to the cycle of guilt and resentment is to return to the historical amnesia that fuelled the problem in the first place.

This bill is a classic example of that historical amnesia. It is an expression of deep-seated denial of the purpose of the Treaty, which was in part to give Pākehā a right to be in Aotearoa. Along with that right came concomitant obligations. This bill sets out one view of the rights and entirely ignores the responsibilities. It perpetuates the myth that Māori gave up a thousand-year history of political and economic sovereignty without a murmur, and it creates a new myth that the Pākehā of this country believe in the individualistic, dog-eat-dog, money first and people second values of the ACT party.

The Greens are not in the business of defending such a redefinition, and a weakening of what the Treaty actually means. I consider this bill to be an attempt to belittle what many New Zealanders see as a covenant between two peoples, and to turn it into a hollow shell of itself. Pita Paraone referred to the two language versions of the Treaty, which are contained in the schedules of the bill. Yet the bill shows no sign whatsoever that Mr Hide is aware of the meaning of the Māori version. Maybe that is why there is no translation of it in the bill.

The Greens consider this bill to be a disgrace, and we hope that it fails immediately.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. E kī ana te kōrero mā te Tiriti o Waitangi anō, āna kōrero e kawe. There is a saying: “The Treaty of Waitangi conveys its own message, but it may mean different things to different people.”

We are pleased to see the House giving consideration for Te Tiriti o Waitangi to guide the nation as its founding document. This bill seeks to give greater clarity to the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, which is included in more than 30 different statutes, by specifying what those principles are. We welcome the new lease of life from our colleague Mr Hide to ensure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is preserved and maintained as a taonga for nation building as well as ensuring power-sharing between tangata whenua and the Crown. To do that, we must ensure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is fairly represented in the constitutional and legislative framework, and in the minds and actions of all peoples of Aotearoa. I commend Mr Hide for his courage in bringing this bill to the House, and his commitment to ensuring that New Zealanders gain exposure to and acquisition of sound knowledge about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and our history.

The Māori Party strongly supports the need to see Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a recognition of indigenous rights. It recognises that through Te Tiriti o Waitangi those rights would be further enhanced and guaranteed by the Crown. At its core, the Treaty acknowledges Māori existence, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirmed yesterday. He said that Māori have been here for over a thousand years prior to the formalising of a compact between the Crown and Māori. The Treaty is a blueprint to guide the nation; a blueprint on which, we are pleased to see, parties on all sides of this House place value. The Prime Minister described the Treaty as “providing the foundation of this nation”, and her Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Mita Ririnui, has said in this House that the possibility that “the Crown should simply walk away from its duties under the Treaty of Waitangi, … [is] both deliberately ignorant and morally repugnant.” The National spokesperson on Treaty of Waitangi issues and Māori affairs, Mr Gerry Brownlee, has raised the prospect of changes to his party’s existing Māori policy. Maybe that is a softening of approach. So now we welcome our friend Mr Rodney Hide to this new environment of enlightenment—and thank him for his kai this evening.

However, sadly, this bill does not do it. Amongst our people there has always been caution about the involvement of politicians in rewriting and redrafting the principles of the Treaty. They have seen this obsession with nailing down the principles as an opportunity for the Crown to reinterpret the Treaty to suit its own needs. We have seen a time line of change in the acknowledgment of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It started with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which stated that the settlers could govern themselves. That was in response to the lawlessness of the settlers at the time. There was an absolute acknowledgment that Māori retained rangatiratanga—absolute authority over our resources. It is interesting to reflect that conservative population estimates tell us Māori numbered around 200,000 at that time, which was in stark contrast to the 2,000 settlers. Now, what do members think possessed those 200,000 people to permit 2,000 strangers to rule them? Does that not sound rather stupid?

Finally, article 3 referred to Māori having the same rights as British citizens, and the ability to practice our own tikanga. Of course, the nub of the issue is wrapped around which of the Treaty versions that one might abide by. I am sure that all members of this House are aware of the notion of contra proferentem, where the Treaty in the indigenous language is the document that takes precedence when treaty versions are in conflict. But successive Governments have, for political convenience, referred only to the English version, where Māori were said to have ceded sovereignty. That is a staggering view.

Moving quickly through history, I remind members that the Lange Government of the 1980s introduced a new animal called the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. That confused the public even more. It was an attempt by politicians simply to appease Māori protest. And here we are again, giving piecemeal debate to what is clearly a very important discussion.

Although the Māori Party will vote against the bill, we commend the member for bringing te Tiriti debate to the fore, where it should be once again, and we in the Māori Party will rise to the challenge of keeping this constitutional discourse on the agenda, for sure.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise to speak to the first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill, and I will be upfront and say that United Future will not be supporting this bill. I will begin, though, by commending the member, because we believe that his approach in this bill is preferential, in our thinking, to that of removing and deleting all references to the principles of the Treaty from the law, as has been suggested by other members. However, that is about as far as we can go in terms of our support for this bill, because we believe that the member’s attempt is shallow.

United Future has always been very clear in its policy, even leading up to the last election. Our preference in regard to this matter is to support the establishment of a royal commission on New Zealand’s constitution, and to include within its scope a very thorough look, by ourselves as a nation, at the Treaty. One of our concerns is that within New Zealand right now there seems to be an overshadowing of the importance of the Treaty by the fact that we are very focused on the historical grievance process. We support the need for the grievances to be addressed, but that process has overwhelmed the discussion that should be had about the current relevance of the Treaty and its future application. We think that a very thorough discussion of those issues needs to be undertaken over a sustained period of time. It is not a process we would encourage to be rushed, but one that should be deliberately undertaken. We believe that it started in the last term of this Government, with the establishment of a select committee to look at and take a stocktake of our current constitutional arrangements. Beyond that, we believe that much more work needs to be done and discussions need to be held, up and down this country.

Although Mr Hide has made what I consider to be a shallow and brief attempt to give his definition of what the principles of the Treaty mean—and I guess he is prepared to admit that it is a starting point—when I compare his three points with some of the other attempts that have been made by groups like Te Puni Kōkiri and others to bring a sense of definition to that term, I find there seem to be some real gaps in what is written. For instance, Mr Hide mentions us being one sovereign nation, but he does not have any reference to the principles that Te Puni Kōkiri has talked about: things like the principle of partnership. When there is no reference to partnership, which implies that one or more parties is involved in the process, then we are all blandly merged into one nation and we lose a lot of the richness of what the Treaty stands for. That is just one small example of our concern about what is proposed in this bill.

The speaker from the Māori Party has just alluded to the fact that more discussions do need to be had. United Future is concerned about the confusion that exists around at least 30 pieces of legislation with references to the principles of the Treaty. We note that there are currently general concessions within the judiciary that the differences between the texts of the Treaty are not as important as the spirit of the Treaty, yet there remains a lot of misunderstanding and a lack of connection when we have discussions on that matter. There is real room for an improvement in our understanding of the Treaty. However, this bill is not the way to do that, so we will be opposing its first reading.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Hoi anō kia ora tātau. Kia ora tātau te āhuatanga o te pire kua takoto nei i runga i te tēpu. Mihi ake ana au ki ngā rōpū tōrangapū i tū atu ki te whakahē.

[Indeed, greetings to us. Greetings in respect of the circumstances of the bill before us. I acknowledge the parties who have stood to oppose it.]

Let me just start by saying that Rodney Hide’s performance in the first reading of this bill is similar to the way this bill has been written: I do not think he has put a lot of thought into it. The reason I say that is that all Rodney Hide is doing is reiterating what has happened in this country over the past 150 years.

I read the proposed principles set out in clauses 6, 7, 8, and 9, and if I had to describe in one word clause 6, “Principle of Article the First”, I would say that Rodney Hide supports the notion of conquest, because that is what it means. In relation to the second article, I would say that Rodney Hide supports the notions of pillage and plunder, because that is what clause 7 means. In relation to the third article, in clause 8, I would say that Rodney Hide supports the notion of assimilation, because that is what it means. In clause 9, “No other principles”, Rodney Hide suggests that we deny Māori access to redress. In other words, he is telling them what the Treaty of Waitangi means for them, and saying that if they do not like it there is no avenue for redress. In a simple statement, that is what the bill means to me. That is why I have stood in this House to take a call to oppose it, and I want to congratulate all the previous speakers who have done the same.

I have never believed in nor supported, since I have been a member of this House, the notion of defining the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. However, I do support reference being made to those principles. I do not believe that the courts should be limited in the way that they interpret the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in their deliberations. That is very important, because that allows the Treaty of Waitangi to breathe—to have meaning—and actually speak to us. Once we start to define those principles, which is what Rodney Hide suggests in his bill, we render the Treaty worthless. One cannot censor the founding document of this nation by limiting its ability to speak to its nation. I hold fast to that belief.

This is not a new debate in this House. What is different about this particular debate is that the previous one we had last year—and it has been referred to already—had been to remove any reference to the principles of the Treaty that are in legislation. This proposal actually attempts to limit the meaning of the Treaty in terms of those principles. Whatever the case, the outcome is still the same: the Treaty is censored, it is suppressed, and it cannot serve the nation it was supposed to serve.

As Te Ururoa Flavell said in his contribution to this House, over the last two decades the Treaty has been widely accepted as the founding document of our nation. But it has been a challenge to us to give meaning to the Treaty, and particularly to the relationship that we have with each other. One cannot say that we are one nation; we are two nations sharing the same country. Mr Hide has stated the obvious in this bill. He has stated that there is one New Zealand—one Aotearoa. Well, that is obvious.

I think the member needs to take advantage of the Treaty education programme that is travelling around the country. It is actually in Tauranga, which is a nice place to go. I am told, and I am sure that Bob Clarkson can verify this, that the programme has been well attended by non-Māori, who do want to know what the Treaty means in practical terms.

Pita Paraone: What about the member? Has the member been there?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I just tell the member that I had a good part to play—

Pita Paraone: No, the member whom you were referring to—the member for Tauranga. Has he been to see it?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Just on that matter, I tell the member that I went to the top of Mauao—Mount Maunganui—on Waitangi Day, and the member for Tauranga was there. He made a very profound statement: “It’s a beautiful place. I’d love to be buried here.” The kaumātua said: “It will be done by lunchtime.”

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): National supports this bill to select committee, not necessarily because we believe in everything it proposes, but because we think that it presents an opportunity to consider what the impact of the insertion of the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” into legislation means. It is timely in this sense. We have seen over the last 6 years references to the Treaty of Waitangi inserted everywhere by the Labour Government, and we have come to the conclusion that it has been put in so many places now that it has been rendered almost meaningless. For that and a number of other reasons, some of which were covered by my colleague Gerry Brownlee, we support the bill to select committee. What we do beyond that will depend on the outcome of the discussions and deliberations that go on in the select committee.

The phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” to my knowledge first appeared in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. As far as I am aware, that is when it was first used. As a person who sat on the Waitangi Tribunal for 10 years endeavouring to interpret that phrase, I can appreciate, I think, exactly why the Parliament chose to include that phrase in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. That Act set up the Waitangi Tribunal to inquire into acts or omissions of the Crown that were seen to be in breach of “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. The legislature at the time could just as easily, I suppose, have made reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. But given that the Treaty of Waitangi, and what it stands for, is to be found in both a Māori version and an English version, I probably agree with the approach at the time of recognising the underlying thrust of the Treaty being found in two versions—in the Māori language and the English language—that someone in his or her wisdom decided to insert the phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”.

Having sat on the Waitangi Tribunal for that length of time, I think it was the right approach, simply because, if one thinks about it, most Māori signatories actually signed the Māori version. The aspirations of the British Government, I imagine, were put to Māori at the time of the signing in terms that they understood, and looking back and leaving to one side the difficulties that have arisen over the years, I think that was probably a wise decision.

I think where we come to now, though, is that we have seen under the current Labour Government a tendency to put the Treaty everywhere. I say that that is actually a cop-out. In a moment I also want to say a few words aimed at te iwi Māori—Māori people. It is a cop-out because in a way it hides a hundred shades of meaning. If one keeps inserting “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”, then we have what has arisen, which is everybody has difficulty trying to understand what that is.

I remember when the Labour Government put through its reforming health legislation, I think in 2001, I stood here in this House and said that rather than insert a reference to the Treaty, one should say instead what it is that one wants to achieve.

If what members want to achieve is that Māori be consulted because they think that that is one of the principles, then they should say that. But they should not put into legislation a clause that everybody then ponders over and nobody knows what it means.

Coming to this present bill, I say that there are a number of reasons why I think we should support it. It gives us an opportunity to think about the way that the clause has been used and demeaned over the last 20 years. Māori people refer to the Treaty as he kawenata, which is a sacred pact. We have to ask ourselves, Māori, if we can allow the legislature to put that clause everywhere, then how sacred is it? Because if everybody can say what they think it means, then ultimately it means nothing. So National supports the bill to select committee.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise to support the first reading of the Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill. I hope that members in the House who have said that they will not support the bill will reconsider their position, because it is a very good bill.

The Green Party member stood up and talked of self-determination and lots of other things. In fact, I think the essence of his speech was that the ACT party is trying to inflame Māori. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was very pleased when the Māori Party member spoke on the first reading and said that the party was very pleased that the matter had been raised in the House and that debate was happening. It is a shame that parties are saying that they will not support the bill to select committee, because that is the place where we could have proper debate and proper discussion and could investigate fully the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is an opportunity that has not arisen. The United Future member wants a commission of inquiry. Goodness knows where we would end up with that. The select committee is in fact the right place to debate and discuss the principles and the role that they have in New Zealand today.

The bill is necessary, because there is a lot of confusion. The phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” has been included in many Government statutes—over 30, I believe—but the courts have been given no guidance as to how to interpret those principles. We have had all sorts of things in more recent times. What we need is greater clarity and certainty with the interpretation of the Acts of Parliament where references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi have been made. Select committees are the places to discuss those fully. The bill is in the name of my colleague, Rodney Hide, who said that maybe he had not got the principles quite right. That is why we present bills to Parliament and send them to select committee, so that discussion can be held. As he said, he would nominate the bill to go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where every party in this Parliament is represented, with the exception of Jim Anderton.

Christopher Finlayson: The chairman would rip it up.

HEATHER ROY: The chairman might well rip it up—Mr Finlayson is quite right—and what a sad case that would be for such a good bill.

We should go through clause 6, “Principle of Article the First”, clause 7, “Principle of Article the Second”, and clause 8, “Principle of Article the Third”. They, of course, are the essence of this bill. Clause 6 states: “The principle of the first article is that there is just one New Zealand, one sovereign nation and the Crown exercises sovereignty on behalf of Māori and non-Māori alike.”—all New Zealanders being equal, and what is wrong with that; all New Zealanders treated the same; and all New Zealanders under one sovereign nation. Clause 7 states: “The principle of the second article is that the Crown has a duty to uphold citizens’ property rights.” Many party representatives have stood up here this evening and tried to denigrate property rights. Property rights are very important to New Zealanders. Property rights are what this country is founded on. People believe that property rights are important.

We had this debate not so long ago and Pita Paraone seemed very confused. He was saying one thing tonight, but the New Zealand First Party was saying very different things when we debated the foreshore and seabed legislation last year. Members from many parties have stood up today and spoken about property rights as if they were a bad thing. In fact, they are very, very important. This confusion must be got over, because New Zealanders hold their property rights very dear.

Winston Peters, as my colleague Rodney Hide pointed out, used to stand up, when he was sitting on this side of the House, and ask what the principles were. He demanded Labour members to explain. One answer we received in this Parliament was that the principles are part of a breathing, living document. What exactly does that mean? Does that explain the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? It is a very good reason to send this bill to a select committee to discuss it properly and fully, and to hear submissions and expert advice.

The principle of Article the Third is that everyone in New Zealand who is a citizen has the same rights and obligations as every other citizen. They have equality before the law and have the right to the rule of law, to a fair trial, to free speech, to vote, and to the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. That is the basis that our country, our society, should be founded on. How anybody can stand up in this Parliament and deny Kiwis those very basic things is quite beyond me. This is simple legislation, because, in essence, this is a simple matter. I commend this bill to the House, and I ask those parties that have indicated they will not support it to think again, to have the discussion, to have the debate, and to hear the advice, because that is what New Zealanders deserve.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I thank everyone for their contribution. I especially thank the National Party for supporting this bill. The ACT caucus is totally united behind this bill, and with National Party support I calculate that we have 50 votes in the House. I have 5 minutes to drag another 11 votes across; indeed, I am hopeful of getting the full 121.

If we cannot define what rights Māori have, then they have none. I was very interested to hear the Hon Mark Burton give a lecture on jurisprudence. He was a member of a Cabinet that voted to take away the ability of Māori people to have their day in court. I understand perfectly why he would be against defining the principles of the Treaty. He is absolutely against Māori people having rights. He is against anyone having rights, because he is a socialist. So I understand perfectly where Mark Burton is coming from. Gerry Brownlee made a good point when he said that when he heard the principles being read out, he heard not one right for Māori in any of them. It was all about how a socialist Government would run one’s life.

Hon Mark Burton: Absolute rubbish!

RODNEY HIDE: Mark Burton says that is exactly what he wants, because Labour knows best! I am quite pleased, in a way, that Mark Burton is not supporting this bill, because then I would have to go back and check my premises. I came across to Mr Pita Paraone, and I say to him that, to be honest, I expected better. He has always made a good contribution to this House, and he has always stood up for principle. Hearing his speech tonight made me realise what a poodle New Zealand First has become. New Zealand First has become a total poodle. Winston Peters in Opposition demanded month after month for the principles of the Treaty to be defined. New Zealand First has the opportunity to have the principles defined—indeed, to make a contribution—and Pita Paraone has said: “Oh no, Labour has told us to vote against it.” So “Poodle Paraone” will do so. That is what has happened here tonight. New Zealand First has completely crossed the floor and gone over to Labour.

I heard Mr Tanczos speak, and I understand where he is coming from. I want to make one thing clear: I do not carry any guilt. I am proud to be a New Zealander. I am proud of this country. I am proud of what I have achieved. I do not want to hear Mr Tanczos suggesting in any way, shape, or form that I carry any guilt, because I do not. I am actually a very, very proud person, and I try to do my best.

I thank the Māori Party for its acknowledgment of my courage in bringing the bill to the House. It is actually just a matter of writing it, putting it in the ballot box, and getting the ballot pool. So it was not all that brave. The Māori Party wants to continue the debate, yet tonight it is voting to shut it down. If we do want to debate what the Treaty means, and if we do want to debate what the Government’s role should be, then we should vote to have the debate and send the bill to the select committee. The Māori Party is saying to the people of New Zealand tonight—and, indeed, to its supporters—that there is to be no debate. Well, maybe Rodney Hide has it wrong, but this is a vehicle for that debate to be held, and the Māori Party is voting to shut it down. Again, I look across at New Zealand First, and I say this: New Zealand First will go down in history—

Hon David Benson-Pope: It’ll go down, all right!

RODNEY HIDE: David Benson-Pope agrees. It will go down in history as the party that sold Māori rights down the river with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. When New Zealand First had the opportunity to define the rights and principles that are embodied in the Treaty, it ducked for cover, because Helen Clark and Heather Simpson told it to do so.

I have one final thing to say to Mita Ririnui. He said if we had one Sovereign it would be a principle of conquest, he said if we have a principle of property rights it is all about privilege and plunder, and he said if we have a principle where everyone is equal before the law, then it is a principle of assimilation. To hear Mita Ririnui make those statements made me realise that there is a big gulf between the Government side of the House and the Opposition side of the House. Why do we have to get rid of this Labour Government? Because it does not fit with the values of New Zealand.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Treaty of Waitangi (Principles) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 71

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): The House has made extraordinarily good progress today. I seek leave for the House to rise a few minutes early and resume again tomorrow at 2 p.m.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Inquiry

Inquiry into New Zealand's Relationship with Latin America

Consideration of Report of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

DIANNE YATES (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Inquiry into New Zealand's relationship with Latin America. I thank the previous Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for the excellent work it did—particularly my colleague Martin Gallagher—on the inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with Latin America.

New Zealand has a very, very good relationship with the Latin American countries. I think that can be seen in relation to our trade agreements with Latin America, particularly in Chile’s relationship with firms such as Fonterra, but also in our relationships with countries such as Brazil, Argentina, and Peru. I pay particular tribute to Peru, because the Peruvian ambassador is the longest-serving ambassador in New Zealand.

Hon Member: Yes, a very good ambassador.

DIANNE YATES: He is a very, very good ambassador, and he and his other ambassadorial colleagues have worked very hard with the New Zealand Government on building up those very good relationships.

The committee did this inquiry—

Hon Mark Burton: Oh, look at all those Tories knocking off.

DIANNE YATES: Are people leaving? I must not mention people leaving the House, but I am very disappointed that people—[Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am trying to hear Dianne Yates.

DIANNE YATES: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

It is very important that we maintain our trade and political links with the Latin American countries and that we keep those links going. I am rather disappointed that members of the House are not actually riveted at this time of the night on what is a very, very important inquiry done by the previous Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Hon Mark Burton: We seldom get the opportunity to debate them.

DIANNE YATES: We do seldom get the opportunity to debate such issues, which are extremely important.

I note that the select committee looked at progressing political and diplomatic relations, at the role of Parliament in developing foreign relations, and at the opportunity to institutionalise inter-parliamentary relationships. It looked at regional issues, which are very important, such as Antarctica, whaling, and the southern hemisphere nuclear-free zone. I am very disappointed that some members opposite are not really listening to this, because I know that they have a new policy on nuclear-free zones.

The committee looked at cooperating on global issues, developing further trade and trade agreements, and the implications for New Zealand and the CER agreement with Australia of Latin American participation in the free-trade area for the Americas. It looked at examining the nature, extent, and expansion of education services provided to South America. It looked at the benefits of increased tourism, including opportunities, in particular, for working holidays for young people from Latin American countries. It looked at developing services and agreements. It looked at the investment relationship. It looked at fostering cultural ties, including links between indigenous peoples, and, in the light of the previous bill debated tonight, that issue is extremely important. It looked at the promotion of languages in the region. I think it is important that many of them—apart from Brazil, which of course is Portuguese-speaking—are Spanish-speaking, and, as we know, Spanish is the second-commonest European language spoken in the world. It is very important to keep those links going with the Latin American countries and with young people in particular.

The committee also looked at other matters in terms of strategy. It made a number of recommendations. It recommended that representation in Latin America should be supplemented with other embassies. It talked about making recommendations on economic relations. Recommendations were also made on official development assistance to some countries in Latin America. The committee also looked at further cooperation with universities and, once again, that working holiday relationship, particularly with Peru, Chile, and other countries. The committee also looked at inter-parliamentary relationships. Since then the Government has responded and looked at those recommendations.

Steve Chadwick: Busy Government.

DIANNE YATES: It is a busy Government; it got the responses back in time.

The committee looked at the recommendations in terms of the embassies, and looked at the Government keeping those posts under review. We note that the Government has given priority to appointing honorary consuls in some countries, particularly in Cuba and Paraguay.

Hon Mark Burton: The Paraguay honorary consul has done a very fine job.

DIANNE YATES: He has done a very, very fine job.

The responses from the Government have been largely positive and, basically, have endorsed many of the recommendations of the select committee in this regard. This is one of the cases where a select committee has made a very, very important contribution to this House through an inquiry. I also thank the many people who made submissions to that inquiry.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.