Thursday, 11 May 2006
Volume 631
Sitting date: 11 May 2006
Thursday, 11 May 2006
Thursday, 11 May 2006
Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next Tuesday, priority will be given to the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, which is a 3-hour debate. At the conclusion of that debate, priority will be given to the first reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill, and progress on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlement to Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day and Thursday is Budget day.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Competitiveness Yearbook—New Zealand Ranking
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “it is time to move to the next level in the economic transformation agenda”, in light of today’s IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook scoreboard, which shows that New Zealand has dropped six places in the past 12 months; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; in part because the issues outlined in the report are under active consideration by the Government.
Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister really expect us to accept that she and her Government are on the right path to economic transformation, when the IMD scoreboard shows that New Zealand has plunged 15 places, from 15th to 30th, in terms of economic performance; and what specific measures will her Government take to make the New Zealand economy perform better?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The interesting thing about that question is that if the member had read the report, as perhaps he might read his emails on occasions, he would see that the New Zealand Government made, in this report—which is based on subjective data, primarily—the sixth-highest contribution to competitiveness of any of the 61 countries measured.
Dr Don Brash: Is the Prime Minister at all concerned that Australia is ranked sixth on the IMD scoreboard, in stark contrast to New Zealand’s 22nd place; and will she now finally accept that her Government’s economic policies are ensuring that New Zealand is left trailing in Australia’s wake?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. Australia ranked ninth in terms of its positive contribution from the Government to economic competitiveness. The main difference between the two countries is that Australia digs itself up and exports itself to China and Japan. Unfortunately, we do not have the gas and coal supplies to do that.
Dr Don Brash: If, as Dr Cullen claims on the Prime Minister’s behalf, she is so unconcerned about New Zealanders moving to Australia for higher after-tax wages, why is her Government today launching an expensive Australian advertising campaign to lure expat Kiwis home?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We are not in the least saying that we do not want to see New Zealanders coming back to New Zealand, but I was stopped outside and told that Dr Lockwood Smith was chasing people around and finding out they were going to Australia. If Dr Lockwood Smith was chasing me, I would think about going to Australia.
Dr Don Brash: Has the Prime Minister seen the IMD scoreboard, which states that New Zealand is ranked 55th out of 61 countries for both personal and corporate taxes, and will she now admit that her Government’s high-tax, low-growth policies are anything but the economic transformation that New Zealand so desperately needs?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We have had over 20 percent growth. On the numbers released today, we have created 313,000 jobs, and we have the highest labour force participation rate in our country. The figure the member cites shows the danger of subjective surveys. [Interruption] Almost every country that rates higher than us in this survey has a higher proportion of tax as a proportion of GDP.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Was it the level of noise?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: That barrage from the National members was a disgrace to any parliamentary democracy and any debating chamber, and they should be stopped now. I have never seen that level of behaviour in the House before and it is happening every day.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—
Madam SPEAKER: No, please be seated.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker, I am on my feet. I have not finished my point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: No, the member has done his point of order. I am on my feet. I thank the member. His point of order on the level of noise is well made. I was looking to see whether people could hear at the back, and I could see that some were straining. I say to members at the beginning of question time that, of course, they are allowed interjections, but the barracking that is so loud that members cannot hear is discourteous to the House. Could we please just keep the level down.
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the very sensitive leader of the New Zealand First Party has not seen barracking of that order before because he has never had the opportunity to watch himself in Parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: That was not a point of order.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. First, when I was making my point of order National members recommenced another barrage. That is totally outside the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, and those members should be ejected. The second part of my point of order arises from Mr Brownlee’s penchant for rising in the House without any Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings to back him up, throwing out an insult, and setting his big frame down. With respect, he should be told that if he does not have a point of order and he abuses the Standing Orders process, then he will be ejected from this Parliament. He has done it over and over again. Yesterday he made an allegation that was totally false, and he knew it. The person concerned has denied it and sought parliamentary time to put their side of the story, but Mr Brownlee got away with it. [Interruption] There is no use Dr Brash raising his hands. He wrote the emails. I have evidence of what he did.
Madam SPEAKER: The member who interjected “Is this a point of order?” during the point of order will please leave the Chamber. Points of order are heard in silence, whether or not members agree with the content of the point of order. As members know, most points of order that are raised are not points of order, and we have already had some examples of that today. I have been asking members to please comply with the Standing Orders so we can conduct question time in a way that all people can hear and questions can be asked and answered. I do not know who the member was who interjected, but while that point of order was being made I clearly heard a member ask “Is that a point of order?”, and it came from the Opposition side of the House.
Hon Bill English withdrew from the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. I appreciate that. It is just until the end of question time, unless he has a question, in which case he may return for that.
Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The leader of New Zealand First routinely abuses the point of order process. He made a lengthy speech that was not a point of order. I very much regret that you felt it necessary to expel my colleague. He was making a point that all of us were feeling. This is an abuse of parliamentary procedure.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member but that was not a point of order, either. That makes the point really—people want to express themselves. The point of order raised by the shadow Leader of the House was clearly not a point of order, it was a comment on the proceedings. The reason the member had to leave is that yesterday there were numerous breaches of the point of order process when members were speaking, laughing, joking, and interjecting. I am asked to apply the Standing Orders in an even way. I appreciated the member’s honesty. Can we please proceed in a proper way.
Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You put members in a difficult position. I would like you to give this matter some thought. The Standing Orders, of course, do require—and Speakers’ rulings require—that members should be quiet during a point of order. But that requirement is built on a presumption that points of order will be legitimately taken and that there will not be an abuse of the point of order process. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that if you wish to retain order in the House, then it requires you to vigilantly police whether members indeed have a legitimate point of order that they are pursuing. Otherwise, it is very difficult for members who take exception to something that has been said—an abuse of the Standing Orders process—to restrain themselves from correcting this matter, or indeed, to directing your attention to the fact that an abuse has actually taken place. That, I believe, was the cause of Mr English’s undoing—indeed, he was trying to draw your attention to the fact that a flagrant breach of the point of order process was being engaged in by Mr Peters. I think the answer to that is for you to give some thought to the enforcement of the requirements of a legitimate Standing Order.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I want to support the member in that respect. I think it would be very helpful if you started clamping down further on members who continue to raise frivolous points of order that are not points of order, and perhaps those who continue to act in transgression in that respect might be invited to leave the Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. I thank members for their comments and I am sure all members have noted them. Can we please now proceed.
Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister accept that in explaining yesterday Australia’s higher after-tax incomes by reference to Australia’s generous endowment of mineral resources, she was implicitly accepting that, on present policies, New Zealanders will never again enjoy Australian living standards?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, because even the Lucky Country will, sooner or later, run out of gas and coal.
Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister concerned that as a trading nation, New Zealand’s competitiveness will be severely affected by the impact of peak oil; if so, what strategies does the Government have to future-proof New Zealand from those impacts, given her recent acknowledgment that New Zealand should be preparing for a post-oil economy?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, because I regard, in this context, oil as being rather similar to taxation. We ranked 22nd in this survey and by my count, of the 21 countries above us, 12 have significantly higher tax rates than New Zealand, while of the 39 countries below us, 28 have significantly lower rates than New Zealand. A fairly high proportion of the countries above us in this survey have little or no oil, for example, Hong Kong, Japan, Switzerland, Iceland, Finland, and so on. Clearly, oil is not the key matter in terms of competitiveness, when some countries that are relatively oil-rich can rank quite low in these kinds of surveys.
Science—Environmental Challenges
2. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What is the Government doing to ensure that science contributes to addressing New Zealand’s environmental challenges?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): I was pleased to announce today in conjunction with my colleague Mr Benson-Pope a package of $20.5 million over 4 years that aims to enhance New Zealand’s environment. This initiative provides an additional $16 million over the next 4 years for Vote Research, Science and Technology, and $4.5 million over the next 3 years for Vote Environment to clean up contaminated sites. The research through Research, Science and Technology will improve pest management of things like possums and rabbits, and improve the understanding of freshwater ecosystems and streams, rivers, and lakes, and help to combat such pests as didymo in South Island rivers. This, once again, recognises the Labour-led Government’s recognition of how important investment in the environment is.
Moana Mackey: What contribution does this make to the Government’s overall environmental programme?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The new funding will mean this Government will be spending a total of $90 million per annum from Vote Research, Science and Technology alone on environmental research in areas such as climate change, freshwater and marine environments, and land productivity. That money goes alongside $13 million on Enviroschools; the $33.2 million to safeguard biosecurity, announced by Jim Anderton; $16 million today on environmental research; and $4.5 million for contaminated sites. That is $66.7 million of new funding for this area.
Gordon Copeland: How much of the $20.5 million announced today will be directed towards the eradication of didymo, and what results does the Minister expect from this funding boost over the next 12 months?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The answer to that, of course, lies very much in the hands of the scientists who will do the work, but, as the member knows, since didymo was discovered in this country, New Zealand has become the leader in the understanding of how to deal with this pest. What we expect over the next year is that that leadership will be consolidated because about a quarter of this money will be going into that area.
Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister how much of the $20.5 million would be directed towards the eradication of didymo. He did not address that part of the question.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to repeat that bit. It was obviously not heard by the member.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I did say—about a quarter.
Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware of the development in South Africa of solar panels, which will make it possible for houses to become totally self-sufficient for energy supplies; and does he believe that such an innovation would be good for our environment and a good way to address our power supply problems; and if he does share that view, will he be making contact with the South Africans to see whether such an innovation could come to New Zealand?
Madam SPEAKER: The question is a bit broad.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: It lies slightly outside my area but I am responsible for a research programme around energy efficiency—
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the member is responsible.
Hon STEVE MAHAREY: —and for looking at new initiatives, like solar panels. The answer is no, I am not aware of what is going on in South Africa personally but I am sure the scientists are.
Peter Brown: In the light of the Minister’s answer, I would like to table an extract from a scientific magazine that outlines the details of the—
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Budget 2006—Personal Tax Changes
3. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Finance: Does he intend to make any reductions to personal tax rates or increase personal tax thresholds in Budget 2006; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): No, because at this point neither the fiscal nor the macroeconomic position would make that a sensible move.
John Key: Does he seriously think, in a week when Australia announced $45 billion of tax cuts, that a New Zealand campaign launched today in Australia and costing $400,000, with such clumsy billboards as “In New Zealand a cultural wilderness is a concert at a vineyard”, will really make a blind bit of difference in attracting back the half a million Kiwis who now call Australia home?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member lived as close to the Church Road winery as I do, he would not sneer at concerts in vineyards. Also, if he lived almost next door to a New Zealand family that has just returned from Australia, he would not sneer about New Zealanders returning from Australia.
John Key: Is this ham-fisted campaign not just further confirmation that privately this Government is deeply concerned about the impact that Australian tax cuts are having on attracting and retaining New Zealand’s skilled and motivated workforce, and if he is not concerned about that, why is the Government bothering to launch the campaign in the first place?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, we want to attract New Zealanders back home to New Zealand from Australia, and we are so generous that we would like to attract Australians to come to New Zealand. There is a competitive market out there in the world in that respect. We can be sure that if we saw a National Government again, people would flee the country, as they did during the 1990s.
John Key: Has it come to his attention that 680 people leave New Zealand each week for Australia, in which case will the Government be running this clumsy campaign not only in Australia but here in New Zealand as well, in a bid to stop the flood of talent across the Tasman—or has the Government reconciled itself to the fact that those New Zealanders already know that this administration will not be cutting taxes, as he pointed out in his answer to a question today, at least as long as he is Minister of Finance, which we all mercifully know is not for much longer, when Mr Cunliffe will move along one seat?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that is what psychologists call projection, though in his case it is two seats.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he received reports in a historical context about political parties and tax cuts, namely in the late 1980s and in the latter part of the 1990s, and does that not suggest that although the National Party talks about tax cuts, in contrast to the Labour administration under Douglas and Caygill, the record of the administration under Ruth Richardson and Birch is not to have introduced tax cuts when it got into office, and that the last and biggest tax cuts of $1.1 billion happened when New Zealand First provided the Treasurer in this country?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is certainly true that the top tax rate when we became the Government was 33 percent and the company tax rate was 33 percent. It is certainly true that National became the Government in 1990 and the top tax rate was 33 percent and the company tax rate was 33 percent, and that those rates were put in place by a Labour Government. It is also true that the highest level of net out-migration to Australia from New Zealand occurred in late 1998, 1999, and early 2000.
Shane Jones: Does he intend to introduce a general capital gains tax, impose stamp duties, or introduce a dedicated health tax in Budget 2006?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, certainly not. However, of course, if the Opposition wants to talk turkey and lift the top tax rate to 45 percent and the second rate to 40 percent, introduce a stamp duty, and have a general capital gains tax, we could talk about some tax gains for low to middle income New Zealanders.
John Key: Why is Jason Walker from Hays Specialist Recruitment wrong when this morning he said on National Radio that the impact of tax cuts would have “pretty serious ramifications, with individuals crossing the ditch.”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I invite the member to think for a moment and look in the mirror. In the year 2000 this Government put up the top tax rate; Mr Key came back to New Zealand.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it correct in a historical context that the highest-ever personal taxes in this country occurred under a National administration with a Minister of Finance called Ruth Richardson, when she imposed a surtax increase in 1991 of effectively, in its worst case, an impost of 92c in the dollar?
Gerry Brownlee: Why did the member vote for it?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Again Mr Brownlee shouted out during the question.
Madam SPEAKER: No, it was after you had finished the question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: And the answer is that I did not vote for it. I was expelled from the National Party.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is certainly true that in the 1991 so-called “mother of all Budgets” the National Party attempted to introduce a very rigid income test on the State pension, which it subsequently had to abandon. I do note that in Australia such an income test still exists, so presumably we can expect to see New Zealanders come home again when they get to about 55.
John Key: Why is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry wrong because it believes that low taxes play a part in attracting skilled workers and welcomes the fact that the Australian Treasurer has had the courage to cut personal taxes in Australia for 4 years in a row, and why does he think that that has a significant impact on attracting New Zealand workers over to Australia?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If we look at the total migration flows we see, in fact, that over the last 5 years net migration flows as a percentage of population have been higher in New Zealand than in Australia.
John Key: Is it not a fact that when it comes to tax cuts, Kiwi workers contrast his inaction with the action of an Australian Government that, for 4 years now, has cut taxes and shared prosperity; if so, does he agree it will not be Australia but New Zealand that will wake up one day soon looking for its skilled and motivated workforce and asking the most obvious question: “Where the bloody hell are ya?”
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am over here. I do not know where he is, but I am right here and I intend to stay here for the long-term future. The public was offered the chance to have unsustainable tax cuts at last year’s election, and it did not get over the line, and now all National can do is to wobble across the plank and try to get to the future.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the context of the history of tax reform and tax changes, can he recall the commitment made by a political party to remove the surtax “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”, and then having got into power on that promise—much like a used-car salesman, with plenty of pre-sales talk but no after-sales service—can he recall that it increased the worst impost of that tax to 92c in the dollar; and what was that party called?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the Minister of Social Welfare at the time the promise was made, I well recall a former member of the National Party—who has since seen a great deal more sense about life—promising in an address in the Wellington Town Hall that “no ifs, no buts, no maybes” the surtax would go, then trying to introduce an income test, and never removing the surtax until it was a condition of coalition Government with New Zealand First. That was the National Party and, indeed, in 1999, once no longer in coalition with the New Zealand First Party, National cut New Zealand superannuation again once it had a tax cut legislated for.
John Key: Can the Minister of Finance recall a Government that left office telling the people of New Zealand there was an $89 million surplus, when there was actually a $3 billion deficit, and can he name that Government?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member had bothered to check his facts—[Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: If I cannot hear the member, then I am sure those at the back cannot. Would the Minister please start his answer again.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I wish the Leader of the Opposition would not wave his pinkie at me when the rest are waving their forefingers. In fact, if the member cares to consult his facts, he will find out that the party he belongs to was saying before that election there was a $1.8 billion deficit.
Youth Justice Residences—Siting
4. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): What progress has been achieved in confirming a preferred site for a youth justice residence in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato area?
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): In February of last year I established a group to look for a site for a youth justice residence in the Waikato - Bay of Plenty area. In November of last year the group recommended Kaharoa as the preferred site. Submissions from the community were received until 18 March, and at the request both of Kaharoa residents and the local member of Parliament, Steve Chadwick, alternative sites were also pursued. Between now and September all feasible sites will be investigated, and, following that, public consultation on a preferred site will recommence.
Dr Pita Sharples: What developments occurred in the 9-month period between March 2005, when construction costs for the Te Wairenga Road site in Kaharoa were projected at $30 million, and November 2005 when the facility was estimated to cost $40 million to build, and what services were sacrificed in the vital area of youth care and protection, in order to cover the shortfall of $10 million?
Hon RUTH DYSON: There were a number of contributing factors to the increase in cost. Fortunately, there is a proper process for public consultation to be gone through. That time delay means that those costs often accumulate. Because the site has not been signed off, no services have actually been lost, at all, in the youth justice area.
Steve Chadwick: What opportunity has the local community had to contribute to the selection of a suitable site?
Hon RUTH DYSON: The department has gone through an extensive public consultation process to identify a suitable site in the Bay of Plenty and Waikato area. In response to the number of submissions received on this issue, and at the request of the local community and the member asking the question, I extended the consultation period on the preferred site, and agreed to further investigate alternative sites.
Judith Collins: Can the Minister assure the House that the department has not adopted the collaborative working arrangements model used so unsuccessfully by the Department of Corrections in its prison building?
Hon RUTH DYSON: No.
Ron Mark: What confidence can the people of Kaharoa have in this consultation process, knowing that the land at Te Waerenga Road has already been purchased?
Hon RUTH DYSON: Not only is it the absolutely accepted process, but it is also common sense, that before a preferred site is announced, the land is purchased. Otherwise, the price would go up.
Dr Pita Sharples: What is the average length of stay for someone on remand in youth justice facilities; and what plans are in place to remedy that situation, given the concern over young people being remanded in police cells?
Hon RUTH DYSON: There are two parts to the answer. In response to the former question, my understanding is that it is 6 weeks. In answer to the latter, I tell the member that young people are generally not remanded in police cells. They generally stay in police cells because there is no alternative suitable facility for them to stay in—and that is not acceptable.
Dr Pita Sharples: What preparations are taking place for the Kaharoa facility to respond to Ron Mark’s “Putting Children in Jail Bill”, given I am advised that 12-year-old children are already locked up in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services’ Korowai Manaaki Youth Justice North Centre in Manurewa?
Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, indeed, there are children detained at the facility. But in relation to the primary part of the member’s question, I say that no action is being taken on the Kaharoa site at the moment, because it has not been decided that that will be where any future youth justice facility is located.
Dr Pita Sharples: I seek leave to table an article from Rotorua Review on 1 March 2005 about the Bay of Plenty entitled “Rotorua area penned in for prison ‘site’?”.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Dr Pita Sharples: I seek leave to table an article from the Daily Post from 23 November 2005, “$1 million paid for controversial youth prison site”.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Question No. 3 to Minister
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a speech entitled “Low Flying with the Erebus Economy”, given in mid-1991, because I know that it rebuts what Maurice Williamson is about to say now. It refutes the view that I supported the National Government’s Budget.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Hon Maurice Williamson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier in this session, an interchange occurred between the leader of New Zealand First and the deputy leader of the National Party. Gerry Brownlee actually called out and asked why the Minister voted for it, when we were referring to a move introduced by the National Government on 30 July 1991 to increase the rates of taxation on national superannuation. Mr Peters took the point of order, said that he had been interjected on when you quite clearly pointed out that he had not, but went on to say that he did not vote for that move. I seek to table Hansard, Volume 517, at page 3287, which shows that on the voting record one of the people who voted for that measure was Mr Winston Peters.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Question No. 5 to Minister
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that he is now advising the acting Prime Minister and essentially running the Government, I seek leave to ask my police questions of the Hon David Cunliffe.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Police—Recruitment
5. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement yesterday in the House that “this Government is committed to providing all the resources needed” to recruit an extra 1,000 front-line staff?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): Yes, and I thank the member for all the opportunities he is giving me to reinforce the Government’s commitment to providing the resources necessary to the New Zealand Police to recruit and train 1,000 extra front-line sworn and 250 non-sworn police staff, plus the infrastructure needed to support them over the next three Budgets.
Simon Power: Why are civilians being dressed in police uniforms and being put out on the streets to do the work of fully trained front-line staff when the public could easily mistake them for sworn and fully trained officers, or are these decoy cops designed to give the impression that this Government is putting 1,000 new police on the streets?
Hon ANNETTE KING: No, they are not decoy cops put out on the street to appear as if they were part of the front line. We will have 1,000 front-line sworn officers. But what I can say to the member is that for almost 10 years—I repeat, almost 10 years—under a National Government and under a Labour Government we have had temporary sworn staff helping the police. I know that this Government will not count them as front-line sworn police; I cannot guarantee to this House that the National Party did not.
Keith Locke: Is the Minister aware that under the Police Act it is illegal to impersonate a police officer; if so, why has she allowed the police to dress non-sworn security guards in a police uniform, and what sympathy does she have with people who seek protection from a police officer, only to find out that that officer is a mannequin modelling an official blue uniform without any power of arrest?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I am advised that it is not necessary. I can assure the member that these temporary sworn officers are allowed to wear a uniform because they are sworn. Non-sworn officers are not allowed to wear police uniforms. Sworn officers are allowed under section 51A(b) of the Police Act.
Simon Power: How does a member of the public know, when he or she approaches a person in police uniform in an emergency situation, whether that person is a sworn and fully trained police officer, and if the police have all the resources they need, why are they forced to engage these decoy cops?
Hon ANNETTE KING: As I have said, for around 9 to 10 years the police have been using temporary sworn police officers—
Hon Member: Not in uniforms.
Hon ANNETTE KING:—in uniforms—and I will get to that in a moment—in a number of roles, including jailors, observers in jails, and transporters of prisoners, and sometimes they are used around crime sites after the crime has been committed. The member makes a good point, though, that over those 9 to 10 years, there has been no consistency in what uniform they wear. In November last year the board of commissioners decided there would be a national standard in terms of the uniform that temporary sworn police would wear, and they will be wearing a similar uniform around New Zealand. I have seen temporary sworn police officers wearing overalls, I have seen them wearing part of a police uniform, and in some places I have seen them wearing jackets and trousers. It is not good enough, but I am pleased that the board of commissioners will have a national standard. It did not happen under the previous National Government, but it will happen under this Government. [Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: If members wish to remain in question time, would they please be silent when the member is about to ask his question.
Simon Power: Can the Minister give an assurance that these civilians will surrender their uniforms once they have ceased duty, in light of the fact that triple murderer William Duane Bell wore a police shirt to gain access to the Panmure RSA; if not, why is such a practice being encouraged?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I can give that assurance. I am advised by the office of the Commissioner of Police that that is correct. I cannot guarantee where people will get second-hand clothes and I cannot guarantee that people will not make their own shirts to look like police shirts, but any temporary sworn officer who leaves the police does have to give back a uniform.
Simon Power: Can she tell the House today how many of these temporary constables wearing police uniforms there are right now, when George Hawkins was able to tell the House on 9 September 2004 that there were 15; and is it true that there are now 330 decoy cops to cover the 379 officers who have left the force in the last 12 months?
Hon ANNETTE KING: In reply to the last part of the member’s question, no, that is not correct, they are not—
Simon Power: How many?
Hon ANNETTE KING: To the last part of the question—the member should read it—no is the answer. The answer to the first part of the question is that there are currently 330.
Simon Power: Can she confirm that the use of these “temporary constables” is completely justified under the vague wording of the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and New Zealand First that agrees to provide another 1,000 police staff?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I can give an absolute assurance to this House, so members should watch my lips—
Simon Power: I’m trying not to.
Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I realise that; I know that it is very attractive to the member. I can assure the member that the 1,000 extra sworn police will be full-time sworn officers. They will not be temporary sworn officers, which we have had in New Zealand for about 9 to 10 years. The issue was never raised by National members when they were in Government and it has not been raised for the last 6 years, but I can give an absolute guarantee—the member is watching my lips now—that there will be 1,000 new sworn police officers in the police force. Watch our lips!
Ron Mark: In view of the debate, can the Minister tell the House which Government implemented a policy of bringing civilians into the police force to do police work, which Government introduced a policy of using Armourguard security officers to do police work, which Government promised the country 900 extra police and then did it by merging the Ministry of Transport with the police, and which Government slashed the number of police officers by 450 and then gave the police a computer to chase crooks with; and was it not New Zealand First that forced an increase in the police establishment in 1996 of 500 police officers—and has now, again, increased it by 1,000 police officers, with, on top of that, the Government’s agreement to another 250 non-sworn staff as well? What is bad about that?
Gerry Brownlee: If it’s so good, why did the member walk away?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I would not be surprised if that member walks away—out of the House. That was an excellent question. The answer is the National Party, and what I think members get upset about is that big “h” word that comes to mind whenever—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a genuine point of order. My colleague asked a very serious question. I am dying to know which party it is but I cannot hear, again because of the barrage from the National Party.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please answer the question. [Interruption] Please be seated. I know it is Thursday but would members please keep the level down. I was straining to hear what the Minister was saying, as well. I also say that questions should be questions and not speeches. Answers should also be given as succinctly as possible.
Hon ANNETTE KING: Very succinctly and in capital letters, I tell members that it is the National Party.
Keith Locke: I seek leave to table section 51A of the Police Act about the misuse of police uniform.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.
Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a clipping from this morning’s Dominion Post with a photograph of a woman who looks suspiciously like a fully trained police officer with powers of arrest, but is not.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.
Police—Rural Police Stations
6. DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) to the Minister of Police: What progress has been made on instituting and reinstating sole-charge and small police stations in rural areas?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): There are 64 one-person police stations currently situated around the country. New Zealand Police is looking at opportunities to improve the conditions of those stations, both for the public and the police. The Government has already started with 15 new, improved police stations for rural communities, which are either already opened or planned to be opened over the next year.
Darren Hughes: Has she seen any reports on policing in rural communities?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I have seen a rural policing report prepared by the police, which highlights the establishment of a rural liaison portfolio. [Interruption] The member for Whangarei, who is trying to interject, would be very pleased to know that the leader of that team is the district commander in his own area: Viv Rickard, who is a very good district commander and I know that the member will agree. In rural policing the police are establishing opportunities for relief, training, covering leave, time management, and supervision for the police who work in those areas. I have also seen a report from the Manawatū-Rangitīkei Federated Farmers meeting with local members of Parliament, which sets out very positive actions that have been taking place for rural communities in the central region. I understand that the Opposition spokesperson on police was at that very meeting.
Simon Power: How do rural members of the public know, when they approach a person in police uniform and in an emergency situation, whether that person is a sworn and fully trained police officer, a decoy cop, or the lead singer from the Village People?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I am advised that from the time that temporary sworn police officers have been used, they have been used mainly as jailers—as the people in jails who observe those at risk of taking their own lives, and who transport prisoners. I think mainly the public who interact with temporary sworn officers would probably be either on the way to jail or in the jails themselves.
PlunketLine—Quality of Service
7. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, “What I’m satisfied by is that PlunketLine, in terms of calls picked up, was not providing a good service”; if so, why?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. As she has now told the member twice in the last 8 days, the rate of calls not picked up by Plunket was high, at some 87.3 percent in the year ended December 2005.
Hon Tony Ryall: What was her Government’s long-term plan when it inserted into its contract with McKesson New Zealand, the following clause: “McKesson will use its best endeavours to ensure that Healthline, incorporating PlunketLine, will be delivered via one nationally available 0800 number by 1 July 2005. Funds for this contract will not be used to promote the PlunketLine number after this date.”; and was it always her plan that PlunketLine would cease to exist?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Most certainly not. That was certainly never the intention. Of course, as one might recall, some little time ago the National Party severely criticised the Ministry of Health for letting out contracts without going to tender. As a consequence, the Ministry of Health went to tender. An independent panel made the decision that the contract should go to McKesson.
Hon Tony Ryall: Is it not a fact that Plunket is answering calls to PlunketLine as we speak, and Plunket is meeting every term of its contract; if so, why is she culling this vital extension of PlunketLine?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes and no. The decision was not made by the Prime Minister.
Hon Tony Ryall: Is she the same Helen Clark who said: “The reasons why the Government and its many health bureaucracies won’t fund PlunketLine go beyond mere penny-pinching.”; and is it not time she admits that she has read the country wrong if she thinks parents enjoy listening to the Prime Minister bag Plunket in the House day after day?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: She is indeed the same Helen Clark who quite rightly criticised the National Party for failing to fund a 24-hour well child health service. She is the same Prime Minister who heads a Government that still provides a 24-hour well child health service. She is somewhat bemused to find that the party that supports competition in New Zealand opposes competitive tendering for a contract worth some millions of dollars.
Hon Tony Ryall: Is she the same Helen Clark who said: “But would it not be tragic if the result of cutting back on Plunket Line’s hours or its closure altogether was to be an increase in the number of infants’ and children’s deaths … Plunket Line does deal with real emergencies and with situations which if not dealt with speedily could become emergencies,”; and is it not time that the Prime Minister admitted it is not good for her to be attacking Plunket day after day in the Parliament?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: She is indeed the same Prime Minister who supported then, and supports now, a 24-hour well child health service—a service that a National Government Cabinet, of which he was a member, refused to fund.
Jo Goodhew: What would the Prime Minister say to the Plunket volunteers who today are out raising money to help Plunket and who formerly believed that the Prime Minister always supported PlunketLine?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: She would say to them that she still does, and that the Government is providing $34 million a year to the Plunket Society.
Telecommunications—Local Loop Unbundling
8. Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) to the Minister of Communications: What will be the benefits to New Zealanders of the Government’s decisions announced last week to require the unbundling of local loop and sub-loop copper lines and the associated policy decisions?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications): Cheaper, faster broadband to all New Zealanders. Access to advanced broadband services means economic growth. Along with initiatives such as the digital strategy, it will ensure New Zealand’s transformation to a knowledge-based economy.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Is it correct that the benefits to rural users of the local loop unbundling are not likely to be commensurate with the benefits accruing to users living in higher-density areas, resulting in risks to future investment and rural infrastructure; if so, what is the Government doing to ensure rural broadband users will get equitable provision?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: All New Zealanders should benefit from this package. The Government recognises that rural New Zealand is the heartland of the economy, and we will not ignore this vital sector. Existing relevant initiatives include Project Probe, the Broadband Challenge, and the Digital Strategy Community Partnership Fund. A rural services package will be developed for next year’s Budget.
Maryan Street: Has the Minister received any reports suggesting significantly different approaches to telecommunications?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have not seen a substantive alternative policy, but I have seen a report stating: “The National Party has not got a policy or a consideration of one in place regarding telecommunications.” A second one states: “We are not putting many fresh ideas up, deliberately.” The third one is my personal favourite: “National would not reverse the unbundling decision.” The first is a quotation from Tony Ryall; the second one is from Maurice Williamson; and, wait for it—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Down at the back of the House here we are dying to hear to whom those three quotes are ascribed, but we cannot hear it from down here. Some of the elderly colleagues from the National Party at the back over there cannot hear, either.
Madam SPEAKER: The member has made his point.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am making this request on their behalf as well on my own.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister also talk into his microphone, please. That would make it a lot easier.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have not seen a substantive alternative policy, but I have seen reports stating, firstly: “The National Party has not got a policy or a consideration of one in place regarding telecommunications.”; secondly: “We are not putting many fresh ideas up, deliberately.”; and, thirdly: “National would not reverse the unbundling decision.” The first is a quotation from Tony Ryall, the second is from Maurice Williamson, and, wait for it, the third is from Dr Don Brash.
Hon Brian Donnelly: Is the Minister aware of responses by groups including the ACT party, the National Party, and the Business Roundtable—which advocate the efficacy of market mechanisms for both business and the delivery of social services—to the Government’s decision to establish a level of competition in broadband supply, and is he able to describe the nature of these responses without using the “h” word?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I think National’s position is best described by a letter to the editor in the Dominion Post last Monday: “Have I got this right? The National and ACT parties are in favour of free competition in the marketplace and opposed to monopolies, unless the monopoly is owned by a private company, and then it is Okay?”. [Interruption]
Madam SPEAKER: I do not want to ask the Minister to start from the top. Would he please now just continue on, and would you please lower the tone.
Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Because of the barrage of noise coming from that side I was not able, in fact—and I asked the question—to hear the answer from the Minister, and I ask whether he could repeat it, please.
Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please address the question, with some rapidity.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The quote was: “Have I got this right? The National and ACT parties are in favour of free competition in the marketplace and opposed to monopolies, unless the monopoly is owned by a private company, and then it is Okay?”. The answer is that no one knows. Maurice Williamson hates our policy but has none of his own. Don Brash says that National would not reverse it.
Nandor Tanczos: How does the Government intend to prevent Telecom from delaying the benefits of local loop unbundling by deliberately obstructing negotiations over reasonable terms of access, as has happened overseas; and will the Government provide for regulation of the price Telecom charges its competitors for access to the local loop?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: By implementing internationally accepted principles that will be enshrined in legislation, which I hope the member’s party will fully support.
Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister agree that businesses in New Zealand would be better off with a 50 percent or more reduction in their mobile phone bills, and with other reductions in their telecommunication charges, than with tiny tax cuts; and can he understand why the National Party keeps wittering on and on about tax cuts, yet opposes reducing telecommunication and mobile phone charges, which would greatly benefit businesses in New Zealand?
Madam SPEAKER: That question was outside the Minister’s responsibility. Would you like to rephrase it so that it is within the Minister’s responsibility? It was relating to tax, as I heard it.
Sue Kedgley: Does he believe that unbundling the local loop, and thereby reducing mobile phone charges and telecommunications charges, would benefit business more than a tiny little tax cut; and can he, therefore, understand why the National Party continues to witter on and on about tiny tax cuts, while refusing to support unbundling the local loop and reducing telecommunications charges to business?
Madam SPEAKER: If the Minister could address the first part of the question, quickly.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The international evidence is that the measures that this Government has promised to introduce will make a significant positive impact on the New Zealand economy to the tune of billions of dollars of GDP.
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Management of Housing Stock
9. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Does he have confidence in the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s management of its housing stock?
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Yes, because in the past year the Housing New Zealand Corporation has allocated houses to 10,000 families, it has upgraded more than 2,000 houses to make them drier and more energy efficient, and it has added more than 1,000 State homes to the housing network to meet demand, and because since July 2003 more than 1,500 tenants have been moved to smaller, more suitable houses, freeing up homes for larger families on the waiting list.
Phil Heatley: Why has the amount of damage done by Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants risen by a staggering 75 percent this year compared with last year, up from $6.9 million to $12.1 million, with a good part of this financial year still to go?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: Social housing always presents any Government with challenges, but I am proud to say this Government is working very actively to provide decent homes for all New Zealanders.
Georgina Beyer: Prior to 1999, was any programme in place to upgrade older State houses for modern living—for example, ensuring kitchens could accommodate basic appliances like fridges?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: No; disturbingly, it appears that there was no programme in place under National. It took the Labour-led Government to introduce one, in 2001. Since then, 2,618 properties have been modernised—an example of the good stewardship occurring under this Government of the State’s second-largest physical asset.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many more houses would the Housing New Zealand Corporation management be managing were it not for the fact that a National Government, under Murray McCully, engaged in the wholesale sale of them; and is that not a reason for me to report the outcome of today’s question time as to the results, side by side, to the SPCA?
Madam SPEAKER: I do not understand the second part of the question, but the Hon Chris Carter can answer the first part .
Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When are you going to ask a member of Mr Peters’ standing and long experience actually to ask a question that is reasonable? Time after time, you either turn his question down or, in fact, ask that part of it be left out—in other words, not answered—which does indicate that there are aspects of his question that fall outside the Standing Orders. Will there not be a time when you simply say the question cannot be answered? I would have to argue that that question was extremely thin in its relationship to the primary question.
Madam SPEAKER: The first part of the question seemed to me to be within the Standing Orders, and, as I have indicated, the Minister should address just that part. It is not for the Speaker to comment on the quality of questions, whether primary or supplementary questions—just to make sure they are within the Standing Orders.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can report to this House that under the National Government 13,000 State houses were sold. Less than one-third of them were sold to tenants, and most were sold to speculators, who made a great deal of money out of them at the State’s expense.
Phil Heatley: Why has the amount of damage done by Housing New Zealand Corporation tenant guests risen by a staggering 73 percent this year compared with last year—up from $1.5 million to $2.6 million—with a good part of the financial year still to go?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member seems to be confusing damage and repairs, and adding the figures together. What he is doing is trying to distort the figures that the Housing New Zealand Corporation has provided to him.
Phil Heatley: What is going on at the Housing New Zealand Corporation; the clientele has not changed, and by the Minister’s own admission the number of properties has gone up by only 2 percent, yet tenant damage and guest damage are set to double this year compared with last year—why are they getting so out of control?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member makes a number of allegations that are manifestly false. He says, for example, that the number of State houses has gone up by only 2 percent; in fact, this Government has added 6,000 houses to the housing stock. What I can say is that the Housing New Zealand Corporation—
Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: —which has been the repository of over $2 billion of Government spending—
Phil Heatley: Point of order—
Hon CHRIS CARTER: —since 1999, is working very hard to provide—
Phil Heatley: Point of order—
Madam SPEAKER: I am terribly sorry; I could not hear over the barrage.
Phil Heatley: In the Minister’s answer to the first question he said that the number of State houses had gone up by 1,000 this last year. I referred to the number of houses going up by not more than 2 percent in the last year. There are about 60,000 houses, and 1,000 is certainly less than 2 percent. The Minister then abused me in the House, saying I have not got my facts correct, but they are laid out right before us—the number of houses did not go up by 2 percent in the last year, and vandalism is up by 75 percent.
Madam SPEAKER: I am not sure what the point of order was, but would the Minister please address the question. If we could have a little less rowdiness, then we might be able to hear the answer, and maybe that confusion would disappear.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: As I said in my initial answer, the Government has added almost 1,000 houses in the last year. That might be only 2 percent of our existing total, but 1,000 houses is an enormous investment. I would like to remind the House again that Mr Heatley seems to be confusing repairs with damage. He is adding both figures together to give a distorted amount of money.
Phil Heatley: What ramifications will Maryan Street’s damage insurance bill, which forces landlords to insure tenants for damage caused by their guests, have for this country’s largest landlord, the Housing New Zealand Corporation?
Madam SPEAKER: I just note that the Minister has no responsibility for a member’s bill, but if there is a general—
Phil Heatley: It is the impact on the Housing New Zealand Corporation.
Madam SPEAKER: It is the impact. That part of the question is in order. Would the Minister please address just that part.
Hon CHRIS CARTER: The bill has not been passed yet, so we are still working through, at the moment, theoretical policy. But we are, of course, looking at it.
Phil Heatley: As the Housing New Zealand Corporation owns 15 percent of all rental properties, will not its atrocious performance at curbing vandalism drive up the insurance premiums—I am talking about Maryan Street’s bill—for every mum and dad landlord renting out a house?
Hon CHRIS CARTER: That remains a very theoretical point. What I can say is that the Housing New Zealand Corporation is engaged in a very active programme of enhancing and modernising the housing stock, which, I remind this House again, is the State’s second-largest asset.
Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Housing New Zealand Corporation vandalism bill for last year, and its vandalism and damage bill for this year, to date—not repair bill, but damage and vandalism bill.
Leave granted.
Contaminated Sites—Clearing
10. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister for the Environment: What recent initiatives has the Government taken to assist with the clean-up of contaminated sites?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment): Protecting and enhancing the environment is a key priority for this Labour-led Government. New Zealand has, unfortunately, an unwanted legacy of potentially contaminated sites from activities like pesticide manufacture, coal gas production, mining, rubbish disposal, timber treatment, sheep dipping, and so on. Budget 2006 is providing an additional $4.5 million over the next 3 years, through Vote Environment, to clean up contaminated sites. This new funding represents a 150 percent increase in the amount of money that will be available annually to councils to clean up such sites in New Zealand.
Steve Chadwick: How has the Government been addressing the issue of contaminated sites?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The Ministry for the Environment’s Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund is an example of local and national government working together to make a real difference to the environment and local communities by returning high-risk sites to safe and productive use. Since 2003 the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund has allocated a million dollars a year for the clean-up of the Māpua site near Nelson, considered New Zealand’s most contaminated, with the other $1 million being available to councils on a contestable basis. Setting the ongoing funding for the clean-up of Māpua to one side, this new funding represents a 150 percent increase in the amount of money that will be available annually to councils to clean up such sites.
Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that at this rate of funding for cleaning up contaminated sites it would take about a further 50 years to clean up the other 30 to 40 most heavily contaminated sites in New Zealand, and centuries to clean up the 8,000 to 10,000 contaminated sites in New Zealand that pose a threat to our environment and to human health?
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I can confirm, given the financial constraints and demands on ratepayers and constraints on local government, that I believe the funding is set at what is currently an appropriate level.
Question No. 11 to Minister
KATHERINE RICH (National): I seek leave to hold my question over until the Minister is in the House and available to answer it.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
New Zealand Focus Store—North Asia Sales
11. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What are the total sales for the New Zealand Focus store in Hong Kong from November 2005 to April 2006, and is the store on target to create an increase in sales of New Zealand products to the North Asia region of approximately $25 million over the first 3 years?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: The Hong Kong focus centre is a New Zealand - branded retail and information centre that provides a business platform for New Zealand exporters to reach the Hong Kong and Greater China markets. I am advised that the centre is on track to achieve the goal of increasing exports by $25 million over the next 3 years. That is a net economic benefit target and does not refer just to sales from the centre itself. It is as yet too early to provide accurate total sales data encompassing all of the relevant channels.
Katherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would have thought that in order to be able to address that question, which asked what the total sales were for the store, an answer would have included a dollar figure and some numbers.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister did address the question. Members know that they cannot require specific yes or no answers, or specific facts, in answer to their questions. But the question was addressed—at great length, I might say. I take this opportunity to remind members that when they give answers, they should be as succinct as the questions should be.
Katherine Rich: Does the Minister know the total sales for the New Zealand Focus store in Hong Kong; if so, will he tell the Parliament?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am advised that total sales data are not yet available. I seek leave to table a statement, dated today, by Malcolm Harris, chief operating officer for New Zealand of Fisher and Paykel, one of the tenants at the centre, who says that he applauds the Government initiative, it is about time for it, and he hopes we can open more centres.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Darien Fenton: What New Zealand products and services are featured at New Zealand Focus?
Simon Power: Tell the member it was page 2.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It was indeed page 2. The ground floor is home to a display and retail area showcasing New Zealand food, beverages, and natural health products. The mezzanine floor provides a showcase of New Zealand education and travel, and the top floor offers an area for exhibitions, business presentations, functions, and other promotional activities.
Katherine Rich: When the New Zealand Focus store in Hong Kong cost approximately $1.4 million to establish, and costs an estimated of $1.3 million per annum to run—that is $3,500 a day—what kind of commercial retail operation is New Zealand Trade and Enterprise running if it does not have basic figures like sales data and information that any other retail business in the world collects?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It may help if I explain to the member that this is not a retail business. It is not a supermarket. It is a regional headquarters and sales and marketing hub for the entire greater region. It covers multiple distribution channels, and the data on some of those channels are not yet in.
Katherine Rich: Does the Minister think the store is a success, when we have had contact with nine companies that have products in the New Zealand Focus store in Hong Kong, and eight report not one single inquiry from the store, and none attribute new sales to the placing of products in that store since it opened in November 2005?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: For reasons that I have already explained, this is a multichannel operation. But I can report anecdotally that Dominion Breweries has successfully launched new lines in China, that two new wine brands have been launched in China, and that one skin-care brand has been launched in China as a direct result of this operation.
Mark Blumsky: Can he confirm a recent report from one of the suppliers who recently visited the store that the key feature of the New Zealand Focus store, which is promoted as a fully functional Fisher and Paykel kitchen fitted with operating appliances to be used for business demonstrations and training, 5 months after opening still had not one single kitchen appliance working up to that time because of the lack of an electricity supply, and can he tell us how many food demonstrations and how much training have now been held in the Fisher and Paykel kitchen, 8 months later?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I do not have all that data in front of me, but I do have a statement from Fisher and Paykel that it applauds the Government’s initiative, it wants us to open more stores, and it is about time for this initiative.
Mark Blumsky: When he said, in an answer to a parliamentary question, that previous trading experience and an understanding of the New Zealand - Hong Kong trading environment were two key criteria for picking the company to manage the retail store, why was the company selected when, in advertising for a manager prior to opening, it called itself a new trading company, looking for someone with knowledge of New Zealand and a knowledge of the retail trade?
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am advised that of the three short-listed candidates, the company concerned scored the highest total points against the assessment criteria.
Families—Separation
12. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister for Courts: What initiatives has the Government put in place to assist New Zealand families when a separation occurs?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): Today I launched a new parent information programme called How to Help Your Kids When You Separate. When parents determine that there is no option but to separate for the good of their own mental health and that of their children, parents can also look to free professional support to help them and their children. This programme is about supporting parents to support their children when no option is left but to separate. It ensures that we are doing our part to maintain strong, healthy families in whatever form they take.
Martin Gallagher: In terms of helping families, what precisely will the programme do and, specifically, what resources have been allocated to this programme in order to help families?
Hon RICK BARKER: The programme will focus parents on the most important issue, the children, and how they cope with separation by alerting parents to the issues for children, and will advise them on communicating with children in order to seek their kids’ views and involve them in decisions, and on a range of matters that can help kids when parents separate. The initial cost of the programme is about $6 million, with an ongoing allocation of $1.7 million. This is money well spent on assisting children at a time of stress and need for support.
Judy Turner: Can the Minister confirm that in the early pilots of this programme, 97 percent of participants said that this programme should be a mandatory part for those using the Family Courts to settle custody issues; and if he can confirm that, can I expect the Government to take up my offer to use my already drafted member’s bill to amend the Family Proceedings Act so that family education is a standard part of custody proceedings?
Hon RICK BARKER: I can confirm that the figures quoted by the member are in fact the case. I can also confirm that the strong support from Judy Turner and her party for this programme has been very gratefully appreciated. With willing partners we have made a success of the pilot. Now that the programme is being rolled out nationwide and is available for 15,000 parents per annum, we will be able to assess the success at this point and consider how effective the voluntary aspect has been. I thank the member for her support so far and look forward to that continuing into the future.
Questions to Members
New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill—Evidence
1. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: Has the committee yet heard evidence on my New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill?
LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): No.
Gordon Copeland: Does she recognise that today is the first anniversary of the first reading of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill and its referral to her committee; if so, does the committee yet have a firm date in mind to both hear evidence on the bill and report it back to the House?
LYNNE PILLAY: The Justice and Electoral Committee is a conscientious and hard-working committee. It has already reported on three bills this year, and has a further seven bills and two inquiries before it. The committee will decide on the progress of the bills.
Points of Order
Questions for Written Answer—Overdue
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do apologise to the House for doing this on a regular basis, but it is something I just cannot allow to keep going. Again I have a couple of questions for written answer that are way overdue. They were due on the 2nd of this month. They are important questions to the Minister of Transport about gross vehicle mass, and I need the information for a speech that I was going to give. I just think it is unacceptable that Ministers keep missing their deadlines by a long, long way.
Hon Annette King: What numbers?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Well, OK, question for written answer No. 4246 due 2 May 2006, and question for written answer No. 4247 due 2 May 2006.
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): When this kind of matter has been raised I have said that if members do have problems after a few days, I am very happy for them to approach my office, and we will do what we can to save troubling the Speaker’s office in terms of obtaining an answer.
Madam SPEAKER: The normal procedure, of course, is to approach the Minister first, then approach the Speaker’s office, and not to raise it in the House as a point of order.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to be very fair, and I think I was unfair to the brand-new Minister of Transport. The questions are actually assigned to the Minister for Transport Safety.
Bills
Communications Legislation Bill
First Reading
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications): I move, That the Communications Legislation Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Commerce Committee and that the committee present its final report to the House on or before 28 July. This bill is a largely technical measure that is designed to prevent unintended consequences, to correct certain anomalies in the wording of the present legislation, and to deal with some timing issues. The bill is narrow in scope, as demonstrated by there being just one substantive clause in Part A, which amends the Telecommunications Act. The bill is not related to any decisions on the broader telecommunications stocktake. It was introduced to Parliament on 6 April, well prior to finalisation of stocktake decisions. Those broader matters will be considered through separate and later legislation.
This bill contains a number of urgent, technical matters that need not, and should not, await that wider review process. The Communications Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill that amends both the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the Radiocommunications Act 1989. The bill will contribute to improving the efficient operation of the communications sector of the economy as part of the economic transformation of New Zealand society.
A robust, up-to-date communications sector is an essential part of an innovative, growing economy. The bill maintains a commercial environment of certainty and confidence for both telecommunications services and use of the radio frequency spectrum. That will benefit both producers and consumers of goods and services, be they providers of telecommunications services, radio spectrum licensees, or customers, viewers, or listeners.
Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act 2001. It extends by 2 years, to December 2008, the regulation of 10 of the services originally regulated under the Act. Regulation of those services is due to expire in December 2006, unless extended by an Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister, following an investigation by the Commerce Commission. The necessary investigations by the commission are under way, but final decisions may not be able to be acted on by December 2006. Full investigations necessarily require a thorough process, utilise the scarce resources of the commission, and, of course, take time to finalise. However, telecommunications service providers and customers need as much certainty as is practicable, and it is undesirable for recommendations on renewal of regulation, or otherwise, to be made without proper scrutiny. This bill therefore extends until 2008 the existing regulation of the 10 telecommunications services mentioned. However, the commission can still make any necessary investigations, and regulation of servers can be discontinued, if that is seen as appropriate, by a similar process of recommendation and Order in Council that would normally extend regulation.
Part 2 amends the Radiocommunications Act 1989. Again, the amendments are largely of a technical nature, but they are critical for the efficient functioning of the regulatory environment for services that require use of the radio frequency spectrum. Present legislation provides for proposed new licences to be assessed against existing licences, to ensure that the new use is technically compatible. The Act requires a certificate to be provided by a suitably qualified and approved radio engineer, attesting to technical compatibility prior to registration on a public register. Put simply, accommodating poor-quality receivers can limit the spectrum available for new licences and lower the economic utilisation of the radio frequency spectrum as a whole.
The bill therefore establishes a process by which inappropriate receivers are not to be taken into account in the certification of new licences. The need for that provision is underscored by current issues regarding receivers in vehicles for VHF-FM broadcasting reception. Used vehicles imported from Japan are normally fitted with an FM receiver that can receive only two or three FM stations in New Zealand, because the FM band used in Japan is different from the international band used in New Zealand. The best option for consumers or vehicle dealers is to fit a new radio on importation, but some importers or dealers have fitted a cheaper device, known as a band expander, to allow reception of more stations. Those devices have inherent limitations and, in some cases, will give degraded or no reception of certain stations.
Although it is a consumer choice not to install a New Zealand - specification radio receiver, or to purchase a car that has one, that choice should not destroy or deny normal, efficient use of the radio frequency spectrum for other listeners with New Zealand standard receivers. That becomes increasingly important, as further use of the VHF-FM band is being planned.
The present Radiocommunications Act provides for management rights and underlying spectrum licences to be created for periods of up to 20 years. That gives certainty of investment for services using the radio spectrum. In addition, management rights—termed “successive management rights”—can be created prior to expiry of existing rights, but as separate rights. The bill allows, in limited circumstances, the aggregation in time of an existing management right and a successive right. That will facilitate an efficient transition from one right to the next, and will give improved certainty and efficiency in the radiocommunications sector as rights created from 1990 onwards reach their 20-year expiry date from 2010 onwards.
The bill includes provisions to allow radio licensees to resolve any contentious issues by arbitration, in a similar manner to the existing provisions for commercially allocated spectrum licences. Issues concerning radio licences, which are issued administratively, have previously been resolved by decisions of the ministry. The other provisions facilitate electronic processing by removing references to duplicate copies, correct wording relating to the expiry of successive management rights, improve the efficient recovery of unpaid regulation fees, and give amended regulation-making powers. All of those amendments are intended to maintain and enhance the efficient operation of the regime prescribed in the Act.
The communications sector is subject to rapid changes in technologies and, therefore, in services. It is also characterised by long-term investment in physical infrastructure issues. Those characteristics require a regulatory environment that allows a fair return to those who own the infrastructure assets, while protecting consumers, and one that is able to keep pace with the rapid changes in technologies and services.
This bill is a relatively small but important step in New Zealand keeping its regulatory environment up to date. The issues are narrowly focused; however, they are relatively urgent, and need to be dealt with now. Wider legislative changes will be proposed later this year, in order to progress decisions arising from the telecommunications stocktake, but those provisions are necessarily more detailed, and will benefit from a full discussion at the select committee in due course.
In conclusion, I say that the Communications Legislation Bill is an important though narrow piece of legislation. It is acknowledged as being largely technical in nature, but it is critical to maintaining and improving the efficiency of the communications sector. It does not pre-empt decisions of the Commerce Commission, but allows its expert view on continued regulation, or otherwise, of communication services to be adopted in sensible time frames within the resources available. It deals with matters in the sector that are both urgent and necessary. The bill will avoid unintended consequences in both telecommunications and radiocommunications by preventing the unplanned expiry of regulation on a narrow range of communications services, and by giving the legal certainty to allow the full use of the radio spectrum, despite some listeners choosing to use inappropriate radio receivers, such as band expanders. The bill also deals with enhancing the regime in the Radiocommunications Act in several minor but important ways. As such, I commend this bill to the House.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I rise to speak for the National Party. I make it clear from the outset that we will most certainly support the bill going to the select committee, and, unless there are small modifications to it, probably support it going right through the whole process.
But I raise, first of all, an issue of process. One of the things I find interesting about this bill is that it seeks to extend the expiry date of some of the regulated services by another 2 years so that the Commerce Commission can consider those services and report to the Minister of Communications. I have to ask the Minister, David Cunliffe, outright—in fact, I have to ask the whole House—what the point is. We have a regime at present whereby there is a dedicated person called the Telecommunications Commissioner. The commissioner, Douglas Webb, beavered away for as long as he did and used all the resources he could use—because there were a lot of meetings, research, and consultation—then he made a recommendation on the unbundling issue, which was not to unbundle. The Government of the day accepted his recommendation. Nothing has changed in terms of any of the commissioner’s recommendations to the Government, yet suddenly, one day, out of the blue, from a leaked Budget paper, we found that the Government is going to completely ignore the commissioner.
I actually think there is no problem with Ministers making the decision. I think that Ministers are elected and Governments are there to make hard calls and tough decisions. But I say to the member that I find it absolutely unconscionable that we spend the level of public money we do on a Telecommunications Commissioner’s office and all the resources that go with it, and say that we want the very best possible advice we can get from the commissioner, then when the Government finally gets that advice, it says that actually there will be some political consequences unless it does something different, so it announces that it will unbundle the local loop anyway. Douglas Webb’s office should just be closed down and he should be given another job—maybe he could become a decoy cop or do any of the other jobs that are going at present. It is a silly thing to have that office.
It is a little bit like the issue we had with the Minister of Conservation and Whitianga Waterways. The case went right through all the process—through courts and environment courts—then the Minister said that he did not care what the courts had said and that he would override them. Well, let us cut out the middleman and just have the Minister make the decisions. We should forget about needing to extend services for another 2 years while we wait for the Commerce Commission to report. Why do we not just ask the Minister what he will do, because it might be that the Minister will completely ignore the commission’s report.
Having said that, I think it is worthwhile to canvass the two parts of this bill—the amendments to the Telecommunications Act, which basically give the extension of time, and, more important, some of the stuff around the Radiocommunications Act. I have to say, as a member of Parliament—probably the only member, I think, in this House, although I might be wrong—who can solve Faraday’s differential equations governing the propagation of the electromagnetic spectrum—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What a sad member!
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Well, I understand it if other people have more interesting things to do at night-time. We will not canvass Mr Cosgrove’s nocturnal activities here. I often go home at night and solve Faraday’s differential equations under the duvet, because I find them quite elegant and exciting. But I think the electromagnetic spectrum is probably the most misunderstood issue, and this bill will play around with some of the rights and licensing.
I will let members know some interesting points about the electromagnetic spectrum. It used to be that there was really only one part of the spectrum—the short wave, long wave, and microwave part. As the years have gone by and technology has got smarter and smarter, we have found new ways to use it. The spectrum is actually in the same part of the world; it is in the ether, the atmosphere, and it travels through whether there is air there, or it is outer space, or whatever else. It is just the frequency at which the electromagnetic signal beats. If it beats at quite a low level, it can start off down in the chunk we call the AM band, and as it gets faster it can go into the VHF band. Halfway through the VHF band it locks into a space, and in that space is the FM band. Then there is the VHF second band up—VHF means “very high frequency”, and it is called that because everyone thought that that was about as high as it could get. But then we moved into UHF, which is ultra-high frequency, and now we are up into the gigahertz parts of the spectrum, where it beats thousands and millions of times a second.
I want members to hear this analogy, because I hope it puts this in perspective. The chairman of the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva gave a speech a few years ago and said that if all of the spectrum that is currently utilised in the world could be represented by a sheet of A4 paper, then the spectrum that is not yet used, but that one day will be, would reach past the sun. I think that puts into perspective how much further we can go—to the trigahertz, then to the gigatrigahertz and the gazilliontrigahertz, and so on, of frequency. We cannot do that at present, because we do not have the devices or the microchips that are smart enough and capable of using the spectrum. So if members think that a Radiocommunications Act is a thing that is passed once and then it is all over, I tell them that we will need a regular tranche of radiocommunications amendment bills to address issues along the way.
One of the most important issues that needs to be dealt with—and this bill goes some way to doing it—is that of interference. Again, a lot of people do not understand it. Let us consider Lake Taupō on a lovely, smooth, glassy day. If someone down at the southern end of Lake Taupō, by Tauranga-Taupō, and someone up at the township end each dropped a pebble in the lake, then the little circles that emanated out from the pebbles would not touch each other—actually, they would, but so slightly that it could not be measured. However, if those people each dropped a very large boulder in the lake only about a kilometre away from each other, the outgoing circles would hit each other and form a whole series of diversion patterns. That is one of the serious problems that goes on in this country all the time. Clayton Cosgrove is sitting there completely flummoxed by all of this. After he left standard 4 he never studied any of this stuff, but I can tell him—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That’s not fair!
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Is that not fair? Well, the best 5 years of his life were in standard 5. I will tell the member about the situation we have now. If a new radio station starts up and is on a particular frequency—let us say it is on a 702 kilohertz band in Auckland—it may be that a radio station in Hamilton is on the same frequency, and there may be interference. But the interference may be about an integral number of harmonics. It is interesting how much of the sign wave of a harmonic we can get interference from. It happens regularly. Members of this House may not know it, but a new radio station will start up, and within days there will be a complaint from someone in an unexpected area who says that something has happened to his or her reception and that it has gone very fuzzy and hazy. Then we get into some of the rules about who has first right to that frequency. As this bill makes clear, somebody might already own the licence and not be using it. Someone else might own another licence and be using it, and when the person who has the first licence starts up an operation, he or she will want to claim incumbency rights. But the person who has been broadcasting to customers for some years might think that he or she has incumbency rights. This bill goes part of the way to addressing that issue.
The bill will define what new spectrum licences are and give very specific limits. The duration of a new radio spectrum licence will be 20 years. It will clarify and refine the disputes resolution process—again, I refer to the two boulders falling into the lake and the interference. I know that Clayton Cosgrove is totally flummoxed by this; I might draw him some little diagrams later of the boulders and the lake. We might say to a radio station that we will let it stay on a frequency but that it will have to tweak its dipole. It would have to broadcast at a certain number of watts or kilowatts, but only into, say, an elliptical area in one direction and with none of its frequency being broadcast back behind that area, or into a basin in another direction, or wherever, because that is where the interference goes. Let me tell people that a lot of broadcasters—radio and television stations—hate being told that, because they say they have customers there. The disputes resolution can become really nasty.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What’s it called—a dipod?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I am talking about tweaking the dipole—a dipole is the little unit that carries out the transmission of the device. There are all these contour graphs—again, another concept the member will be struggling with—that show which area the frequency covers and at what power. As I pointed out, the real issue is that a lot of people will say that they have been broadcasting somewhere and that now we are taking away their rights. So this legislation goes to address that matter.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the bill addresses the issue of a number of those telecommunications services that are currently regulated and about which the Commerce Commission says it cannot complete its investigations into those services within the 5-year time frame. The fact that the commission cannot do that should send shivers down people’s spine to start with. The commission will receive a 2-year extension, but I would like the Minister, if he takes a right of reply call at the end of this debate, to tell us whether he will accept the recommendations of the Commerce Commission this time, or whether he will just say that he does not care what the commission says because he will override it, anyway—in which case, there is no point in having such a commission.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues): I must concede that Maurice Williamson was right about one or two things. I was quite perplexed by some of the very elegant scientific arguments he was making. We now know what Mr Williamson spends his time on in respect of his duvet, so he tells us, and he talked about this concept of tweaking one’s dipole. I suspect he may have spent too much time tweaking his dipole, because I think that what he said did not have a substantial amount of relevance.
The purpose of the Communications Legislation Bill, as we know, is to set out mainly technical amendments to provide sufficient communications in a regulatory environment. In view of Mr Williamson’s comments, I would say that the National Party has a problem with this telecommunications bill, and with other legislation that will soon come forth from this Parliament. It is called a lack of credibility. I should declare my interest. As one who worked in the telecommunications industry for a time—not for Telecom, but for, as it was then called, Clear Communications—I may not have as eminent a knowledge of the technical parameters as Mr Williamson does, but I do have a knowledge of the industry, and I understand competition policy and a number of the things contained within this bill. Mr Williamson, as I recall, as the Minister of Communications—
Hon Maurice Williamson: A very good Minister, too.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —he is on his dipole again—was the staunchest advocate for Telecom. In fact, when I worked for Clear Communications, it was well known in the industry that no one was more staunch an advocate for Telecom than the then Minister of Communications, Mr Williamson.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Who privatised Telecom?
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Indeed, the former Labour Government privatised Telecom.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Without any conditions.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No, with the Kiwi share condition. There were a number of conditions surrounding the Kiwi share, as the member knows. Mr Williamson spent a good 9 years defending like a fortress the monopoly position that is, and was, Telecom. The question is why. The National Party has zero credibility.
As the Minister of Communications said earlier today, we have had three versions of telecommunications policy from the National Party. Mr Williamson, of course, says the National Party does not have a telecommunications policy in place and is not undertaking any consideration of a policy. It is interesting that while we debate this bill Mr Williamson can stand up and pontificate on the technical aspects of it, and tell us honestly—and he is an honest guy; I will say that—that the National Party has zip in terms of telecommunications policy. Then, as Mr David Cunliffe has said, there is Mr Ryall’s point of view, which is that National is not putting up any fresh ideas deliberately. Well, “deliberately” is right—National members are incapable of putting forward any fresh ideas, full stop. That is the truth.
The third National Party position on telecommunications policy is that of its leader. Interestingly, at 10 to 10 last night—for those who were not here—he chose to walk in on the one bill he should not have walked in on, and that was the Coroners Bill. The walking dead walked in on the Coroners Bill. I thought that was quite ironic. Dr Brash says that National would not reverse the unbundling announcement that Mr Cunliffe has made. What I am getting to in this speech in respect of the Communications Legislation Bill is that the National Party has been hard at it in respect of its dipoles but it has no policy and no credibility on telecommunications issues, at all. So even though Mr Williamson was a staunch advocate for Telecom—not for the telecommunications industry but for Telecom—as Minister, for nigh on 9 years, my advice to National members would be to go home and think again, because no one views that party as having any credibility.
In my own patch, there are telecommunications issues that will be dealt with by this bill in part, but there are other telecommunications issues, like toll boundaries, for instance, and the issue of what rural people will get out of this bill. Well, I can tell people that after Mr Cunliffe executes his policy, in my patch there will be no more monopoly in terms of telecommunications. No more will it be the case that the people of Kaiapoi have to make a toll call—using technology that possibly may be addressed in this bill—to Rangiora, yet can make a local call to the southernmost extremities of Christchurch. Why has that been the case? Because of an absolute monopoly in respect of local calling. The question is why that position was protected for so long by Mr Williamson, and why, when his leader said he will support the new policy, Mr Williamson again staunchly defends that position.
Even after the chief executive of Telecom has told us that the company has been hoodwinking the market, delaying, dragging the chain, and treating us as if we are ostriches with our heads in the sand—that is a good, truthful statement, and I am glad it is finally out there; it substantiates what I knew about the industry when I worked in it—Mr Williamson gets up and defends the good old position. He does that even after his leader says that National will support the new policy. Mr Williamson is staunch to the end. The last of the mavericks still stands up and supports his mates. [Interruption] I just say that I look forward to the ongoing debate about the Communications Legislation Bill. [Interruption]
The member talks about the share price. Well, if the member knew anything about the telecommunications market, he would know that in whatever form an unbundling announcement is made—have a look at Australia—if the company, the monopoly incumbent, has never had a plan B, has never invested, and has never prepared for a day when a Government of some shade may unbundle the local loop, then what happens? The share price takes a knock. Who is responsible for that? The dopey directors and board members are responsible—for not having a plan B, not having invested in the network, and not having a contingency plan for when market conditions may change.
Members opposite show their ignorance of business if they assume that boards of directors never prepare for a market change. So, for the good old Kiwi battler who had telecommunication shares, the responsibility is sheeted home to those who did not have business plans, to those who did not invest in the network, and to those who did not have a plan B if market conditions would change. Those members show their ignorance.
But, we have a Telecommunications Commissioner to give good, learned advice, and learned advice has been given on this. Then we have these wonderful things called Ministers of the Crown in a Labour-led Government, who have this wonderful skill called decisiveness. They actually make decisions. I know that for 9 years the then Minister of Communications in a National Government was incapable of making a decision—or just did not want to—in respect of trying to create a competitive environment for Kiwis and lowering the price of telecommunications. Was he incapable of making a decision, or did he just not want to, and if he did not want to, the question is why. I will leave that for him and his conscience to answer.
On this side of the House we listen to the Telecommunications Commissioner, we listen to a number of experts within industries, and then we come up with a policy, and then we do something that is unique to us—we make a decision.
Hon Maurice Williamson: Is that why we have a Telecommunications Commissioner? [Interruption]
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Is it not great; listen to them! The headless chooks on the other side of the House show their ignorance by their comments. I love it! I hope they do it at the next election. I love it! They show their ignorance by their silly comments.
When average Kiwis consider the Communications Legislation Bill we are debating today, and the other decisions that David Cunliffe has made, and when they consider what they will face—they may be in rural communities like Rangiora, where they have been screwed to the floor by artificial toll boundaries—they are loving it. They are licking their lips, because those rural communities will get a competitor in there and they will get a choice as to who provides their telecommunications. Then the prices will drop. There will be no more street by street pricing and no more regional pricing. They will get a choice.
I just say to Maurice Williamson, a former Minister of Communications, that I wonder what history will say about him. I am going to be complimentary. I say that history will say Mr Williamson, as communications Minister for 9 years in a National Government, preserved the castle, preserved the status quo, and preserved a monopoly position. Every Kiwi who pays more than the average Australian for his or her local calls, rental, and toll calls can thank Maurice Williamson. Every Kiwi who lives where there is a toll boundary and who does not have a choice with regard to local calling can thank the mystery man, Maurice Williamson. I suggest he goes back and plays with his dipole a little bit more.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): That was an interesting speech. It is all very well for that member to be standing there shouting and gloating that the Labour Government has made a decision. Less than 3 years ago Labour did not make that decision, and why not? Why did it not make the decision 3 years ago, if it is as slick and as smart as that? Why did Labour not make the decision back in 2003 when the Telecommunications Commissioner said to unbundle, then said not to unbundle? This Labour outfit must have known that at some stage in the future it would unbundle, anyway. So, if Labour is so smart and so slick, why did it not make the decision then?
It calls to mind some comments that Paul Swain, the then Minister of Communications, made in 2001 when he was speaking about the Telecommunications Bill: “For the first time we have established a framework for ensuring that the telecommunications industry can move forward in an orderly way.” Well, how orderly is it when the commissioner, after spending time, money, and resources beavering away in looking at the issue, comes up with a tentative decision in which he says to unbundle, and a short time later says: “Do not unbundle.”? This Government decided to take that course less than 3 years ago when that happened, yet it must have known then that at some stage it was going to unbundle. If it is so important to do it why did the Government not do it then?
As my colleague Maurice Williamson has asked, why set up a system where we have a Telecommunications Commissioner, when the Government ends up doing whatever it was going to do anyway? Why put the taxpayers to that expense and waste time when the Government was always going to make the decision? It is all very well for the previous speaker to stand up and say: “We made a decision.” The Government may as well have made it back in 2003, and all the things it is saying the New Zealand public will benefit from might have been flowing now. I do not think there is any reason for that member to stand up, be smug, and smile about it.
We are considering the Communications Legislation Bill this afternoon. Communications and the regulatory regime that support them are critical to the efficient functioning of both our economy and our communities. Improving the regulatory regime is vital for the efficient operation of the telecommunications sector. National members recognise that, which is why we support the bill. We are advised that the bill addresses urgent, largely technical, implementation issues, which will cause significant disruption to the effective regulation of communications unless they are resolved. On that basis, and in the context that those provisions are largely technical, National supports the first reading of the bill and its referral to the select committee.
My colleague Maurice Williamson is a bit of a technohead. He knows a lot about communications, and his point about our probably having to review this regime from time to time because of emerging technologies is a good one. National clearly supports a regime that is supportive of the efficient functioning of our communications. That is wholly important for our economy and for our communities.
I address now a particular point in the Part 2 amendments to the Radiocommunications Act. Clause 6 indicates that the bill’s purpose is to amend the principal Act in order to provide a number of things, including the allowing of radio licences to be allocated other than by competitive tender or auction. I will be interested to see in the select committee exactly what that means. Our concern in recent times, obviously, is the way the Government, from time to time, seems to dole out assets that are wholly valuable rather than deal with them on a competitive basis. Perhaps the Minister, or someone who speaks after him, might expand on the allocation of assets other than by competitive tender or auction. If we are talking about a competitive framework, then I am not certain what that relates to. I would certainly be concerned if it meant that at some future date the Minister was able to dole these assets out to activities that do not necessarily deserve it, or to friends and associates.
National supports the bill. We support open processes and a regulatory regime that gives certainty, is simple, and gives clarity—although simplicity is possibly a word not to be used in this context, given the technologies we are dealing with. But we certainly support proper, open competition, clear rules for access and use, and clear and open processes, and, given this Government’s tendency to sometimes make decisions that are not necessarily transparent, we would want to make sure that in this area at least that value is catered for.
Equality of access is very important. We are talking in terms of access to frequencies and to licences. We have to be mindful that these are valuable property rights and are hugely sought after. A number of players seek them, and we want to make sure that the processes by which they attain them are open. We also need to make sure that those who are looking to invest their money have a clear vision of what the rules are.
All in all, National supports the bill, although in the select committee we will want some clarification on one or two areas. Also, we rely on the Minister’s undertaking that this bill is largely technical and is aimed at making sure that in this area we have efficiency and certainty.
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): As the Minister of Communications said in his introduction, this is a very narrow bill. In fact, the challenge is to try to spend 10 minutes talking about it. That probably explains why the contribution from Clayton Cosgrove, I think, did not refer at all to any of the elements in the bill. In fact, it was not until the last minute of his speech that he actually mentioned the name of this Communications Legislation Bill. I thought he was talking about something else and was in general debate mode.
Nevertheless, I have to commend Maurice Williamson for his contribution. It is true that Maurice has a better understanding of the physics surrounding this particular issue than possibly anybody else in the House, and he has the elegance of language to be able to explain it very clearly. I just wish he would explain to his colleague Tau Henare that 2 plus 3 does not make 6, as Tau tried to argue last night in the House. Maurice is one of those people who are fascinated by the physics involved. I totally believe that before he goes to bed each night he tries to solve Faraday’s differential equations as well as spending some time tweaking his dipole.
New Zealand First, although it will not have a member on the select committee, will be supporting this bill, and we are very, very pleased to see that National will, as well. We will have a lot of confidence if Maurice is a member of the select committee the bill will go to. I have worked in select committees with him, and he is a very, very good member in that particular role. He certainly works assiduously at the detail and, because of his knowledge of physics, he will make a tremendous contribution to the details within this.
Dr Ashraf Choudhary: This bill is not one of Maurice Williamson’s.
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: No, but I am making some nice comments, just so Maurice goes away from the House today feeling good about himself.
I refer now to some of the details of the bill. It rolls over a number of controls that were already in existence and were due to expire in December 2006. It rolls over regulation on 10 out of the 13 services, largely because the Commerce Commission possibly will not be able to fulfil the work it has to do by that time. This seems to be very, very sensible, and it is also very sensible that the other three services, which are the national toll-free telephone number portability service, Telecom’s fixed public switched telephone network to mobile carrier pre-selection service, and the co-location of equipment for fixed telecommunication services at sites used by BCL, are not being rolled over. Good justification has been made by the commission as to why none of those things actually need to be rolled over. Certainly, there are satisfactory explanations for that.
The part of the bill that caught our interest, to make sure we knew exactly what we were talking about, is the issue around band expanders. We well know that the band on many of the Japanese used vehicles coming into the country in increased numbers is not big enough to pick up a wide range of radio frequencies here in New Zealand, so people install band expanders. As the Minister pointed out, some of them are not up to New Zealand standards and, therefore, do not get one or two frequencies in certain areas—in fact, I think it happens in only one area of the country. That should not be a reason for that part of the spectrum not to be able to be used. We think this is a sensible modification to overcome some of the unintended consequences of the existing legislation.
The bill also clarifies that the maximum duration of a radio spectrum management right is 20 years from its commencement date. Once again, we think that move is sensible. Also, we think it is sensible to include a limited ability to aggregate management rights in time, in order to simplify the management of the radio spectrum.
To that end, New Zealand First will be voting in favour of this particular bill. We hope that the select committee, which we are not represented on—but we do have confidence in some of its members—will look at the details to ensure that they are right so that the bill can proceed through to its final reading.
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I rise to speak on this bill on behalf of the Green Party and to indicate, as I think all members have so far indicated, that we will be supporting this legislation. I want to put that within the context of the very real commitment the Green Party has to New Zealand developing a world-class telecommunications system. That relates to things like broadband, and the steps the Minister of Communications has taken to regulate and unleash some of its potential in this country. In relation to things like mobile telephone rates, it is well known that we pay very high rates for mobile calls in this country. We have a real commitment to the development of that system, because for us it is about creating a sustainable economy. If we take a triple bottom line analysis of the matter, then for us world-class telecommunications have a social pay-off in that they are about participation—the ability for all New Zealanders to actively and effectively participate in our society. The kinds of technologies we are talking about have enormous potential to increase participation, and therefore to give a sense of inclusion and involvement in our society and our communities.
Regarding environmental issues, the Prime Minister has talked about the need to start thinking about how we move towards a post-oil economy—the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because of the reality of peak oil and the enormous environmental challenge we face in terms of addressing climate change—so having an effective telecommunications system to allow us to interact, communicate, and meet in various ways apart from having physically to move people around is a crucial part of that. Of course, in terms of economics, if we are to overcome our geographical isolation in this country and the disadvantages of a dispersed population with low density, then we have to become serious about taking advantage of the technologies available in the world today.
If any nation is capable of doing that, it is our nation—New Zealanders, the people of Aotearoa—because we are a creative, innovative people. Whether we are talking about the descendants of the Polynesians who came here—the Polynesian pioneers; the “Argonauts of the Pacific”, who made their way here and created a unique and rich culture—or the more recent pioneers, people of European, African, and Asian descent, we know we are descended from people who took risks and chances. In this country we were early adopters of technology. We thrive on new ideas, new challenges, and new technologies, so we are well equipped to pick up the challenges and potential of the technology available to us today.
I thank Mr Williamson for his physics lesson. I thought it was enormously helpful, and I was amazed to hear Clayton Cosgrove say that he still did not quite understand. That is unfortunate, because I thought it was a very good lesson. Mr Williamson talked about the potential frequency available, and I was staggered to hear the analogy he used. I, for one, was not aware that that is what we are talking about in terms of potential frequencies. I thought that his analogy about interference on the airwaves was also a very good way of demonstrating what we are talking about. I think that for many of us in the House it was a valuable contribution. The points he made reinforce the point made by the Minister that while this is a technical bill, it is important. It deals with some serious issues that we have to address. I am pleased we are doing that—that we are debating the bill, and that it is about to go to the select committee and work its way through the process.
Of course, we cannot have discussions about a piece of communications legislation without acknowledging the context we are operating within, following the Government’s announcement on local loop unbundling, unconstrained bitstream separation, and naked DSL. Those issues were raised by Maurice Williamson and Clayton Cosgrove, and are part of the broader context within which we are operating, and it is something the Green Party is enormously supportive of. We are 100 percent behind the policy package the Government has announced. I congratulate Mr Cunliffe on having the courage to take some pretty bold steps, and I look forward to being part of the whole process in seeing that package through to reality.
One thing we need to start addressing, in the context of that package and the whole telecommunications review, is the issue of the cost of mobile calls in this country, because it is an area in which we are significantly disadvantaged. One issue in clause 4 specifically relates to that. It is about extending the cut-off period from 5 years to 7 years, to allow the Telecommunications Commissioner the time to address the 10 issues set out in new section 65(1A), inserted by clause 4. New section 65(1A)(j) lists “co-location on cellular mobile transmission sites.”, which is actually a big issue. It relates to a question I asked the Minister during question time today about how we will prevent Telecom from deliberately delaying negotiations around access to the copper wire network in order to delay the benefits of local loop unbundling. I think the same applies to co-location, because at least some people would say that the difficulty in negotiating a fair price and terms for access for co-location has hindered the entry of other mobile network players into the New Zealand duopoly environment. So we are disadvantaged by the duopoly we are subject to, and we have to take seriously how we can start to create conditions that make it feasible for new entrants to come into the market to create real competition and, therefore, to benefit New Zealand consumers.
I support competition in terms of service provision, and that is why I am supporting local loop unbundling and this issue I am just speaking to. But I think it can be shown that in the provision of infrastructure, competition is not always helpful. Competition can create perverse incentives for inefficient behaviour. But it is in service provision that competition is most important. If we look at the way the infrastructure around mobile phones has developed in this country, we can see sites where there are multiple towers within an area. That is hugely inefficient in terms of resource use, it is economically inefficient, and it has been caused by the environment in which the infrastructure has been developed. I understand that now we are starting to see a move towards cellular mobile transmission sites being built in ways that do not even allow co-location. They are actually being physically engineered so that extra gear cannot be co-located, because it is physically not up to it. I think that that is an enormous problem. How we get into that and actually create meaningful regulation for co-location, is a very important issue.
It is perhaps going a bit beyond this bill, but there is another issue where the regulator has recently made a finding around termination rates. Those are the costs that mobile phone companies charge landline companies for calls that terminate in the mobile phone. Although there is the ability to regulate termination rates, I understand there is no ability to ensure that any savings that landline companies get from the regulated termination rates are passed on to customers. To me, that is ridiculous. That is a clear flaw in the Telecommunications Act, so although that is a bit beyond this legislation, it is one of the things we need to start looking at, as well. I though it was important to raise it in the context of the debate, because we have to look at these things within the context of the broader picture. I reiterate that the Green Party is supporting this bill, and we congratulate the Minister on the work he has been doing.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare. When Te Māngai Pāho first started, it was looking for a mission statement. Kāterina Mataira, one of Te Māngai Pāho’s first directors, coined the most beautiful of phrases to express its role. That phrase was: tuhia te hā o te reo ki te rangi; to suspend the essence of the language in the heavens. Being able to communicate is the life-force of a people’s language and culture. Being able to communicate well should be the focus of this bill.
The 2000 ministerial inquiry into telecommunications found that there is a risk that differing capacities to participate in the information economy can create, or amplify, inequalities—or, in simple language, if one is behind the start line, one will come last. The Māori Party wants to know that if the Government wants to put more rules on the telecommunications industry, Māori will not be disadvantaged or left out the back when it comes to investment, competition, opportunity, and consumer benefit. We know that Aotearoa’s digital future means having a low-cost, efficient, and competitive telecommunications set-up. We also know that Māori interest will be best served by ensuring that such a set-up is available to all. Those interests are, of course, reinforced by the 1999 Waitangi Tribunal finding that the Radiocommunications Act 1989 was in breach of the Treaty, in that it permitted alienation of spectrum rights without consultation with Māori and without allowing Māori a fair and equitable share of those rights.
The Māori Party also notes the further finding of the tribunal that the Crown had breached its obligations to protect Māori language and culture, and that the measures taken by the Crown to remedy the decline of the Māori language were insufficient. These are not merely issues for interesting policy chatter. These are vital matters of survival for Māori. They are about who we are, how we communicate, and how we preserve and develop our unique language and culture.
In this regard, we will forever be indebted to the legacy left by the claims of Huirangi Waikerepurū on behalf of Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo, Sir Graham Latimer on behalf of the New Zealand Māori Council, and Piripi Walker, Whatarangi Winiata, and other pioneers. It was through their efforts that Māori involvement in the communications industry now plays an increasingly more positive role in promoting our culture and language. It is not just the impact of www.maoriparty.com that has set the world on fire—although that is the place where one can buy the T-shirt, do the blog, have the chat, vote, translate, and google away to one’s heart’s content about anything and everything to do with Te Ao Māori.
The Internet is also having a positive effect in education and long-distance, real-time communication. We recognise, also, that efficient access and price competition have as many benefits for Māori as they do for all other Kiwis. The question is whether the proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Act 2001 and the Radiocommunications Act 1989 will make a difference. Will the regulation of the communications sector be improved by this bill, and how will these changes ensure our survival?
The Waitangi Tribunal acknowledged a Māori right to develop resources as a Treaty right, resulting from article 2. It also recognised that that right could not be fossilised as at 1840, and limited only to resources used back then. The resource existed in 1840, even though, like oil, grazing land, and orange roughy, it had zero value until it was discovered and developed. Who owns the wind, the airwaves, and the water? These are not trick questions. The Waitangi Tribunal finding that Māori had a legitimate claim on the radio spectrum provided an opportunity for Māori to create economic benefit, as well as add huge social capital to the wealth of this country.
As we all remember, of course, the Tribunal’s report was another one the Government chucked into the rubbish. It refused to accept that generation of radio waves was a taonga under article 2 of the Treaty, that Treaty principles required spectrum rights to be allocated to Māori, or that the Radiocommunications Act was in breach of the Treaty. But here we are today, with a flourishing Māori radio industry, and Māori Television—the only national television channel dedicated to the promotion of home-grown programmes. Yet, despite those successes, there is scant evidence to suggest the telecommunications industry gives Māori knowledge equal standing, or that equal Māori involvement in spectrum decision-making is provided for.
Other initiatives prove indigenous success in managing and producing economic return from telecommunications, and I wish to refer to an interesting case study from our whanaunga from overseas. The Native American population of the United States is just over 2 million, half of whom live in rural areas and one-third of whom live on reservations. Most of their tribes are now heavily involved in telecommunications, ranging from Internet access to the full provision of telecommunication infrastructure. Along the way they have had to deal with critical issues of cultural preservation, ownership, tribal identity and values, and the culturally appropriate management of technology. That technology is seen as a key to improving their educational and economic options, particularly given their large rural populations. Although America is not particularly noted for its support of indigenous programmes and values, it does have numerous sponsorship and support programmes to assist with the development of communication technology.
I contrast that situation with our own efforts back home. The 2000 ministerial inquiry into telecommunications recommended that Telecom improve the quality of its services in rural areas, and that the Telecommunications Commissioner monitor and, if necessary, enforce those obligations. That requirement is particularly important to Māori given that good telecommunications have always been limited by geographic location and the fact many Māori still live in rural areas. Six years after that inquiry I can confirm there are many, many areas in Te Tai Tokerau, Tainui, Waiariki, Ikaroa-Rawhiti, Te Tai Hauauru, and Te Tai Tonga that still suffer from a lack of quality telecommunications. Although the promotion of third-generation cellular telephone technology as the new wave in wireless communications is an admirable exercise, it is pointless when the favourite phrase one’s phone keeps saying is “Searching for network”. That does not just limit our ability to communicate for social and economic reasons; it also severely hampers the capacity of our tamariki to receive their full entitlement to education.
I congratulate those from Te Rūnunganui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori o Aotearoa for their foresight in trying to build a videoconferencing system for the wharekura network, but I also note that 6 years after that initiative was launched, the current telecommunications network appears to be unable to supply the required bandwidth for various wharekura around the country, and that despite the wider coverage of Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) as a high-speed digital telephone service, Telecom has indicated that ISDN will not be available for all wharekura because of the functionality requirements and associated costs and Telecom’s commitment to develop other parts of its network.
In a society where Māori are consistently labelled as welfare dependent, having management rights to radio spectrum—and thereby having the means to participate effectively in the telecommunication industry—will give Māori an opportunity to create economic independence, and, as a consequence, benefit the nation as a whole. The Māori Party will support this bill in order to provide an opportunity for further debate to consider allowing opportunities for other providers to compete for clients and force New Zealand’s mobile phone prices down to a realistic world price, and to ensure that mechanisms are in place to allow Māori to participate effectively in the telecommunications industry.
I return to the phrase with which I opened my speech, because I love it so much: tuhia te hā o te reo ki te rangi; to suspend the essence of the language in the heavens. Being able to communicate is the life force of a people’s language and culture. Being able to communicate well must be the focus of this bill.
GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to take a brief call on the first reading of the Communications Legislation Bill. There are a number of things I would like to mention in particular, as we debate this bill. The first is that one of the objectives in Part 2 is to clarify and update the radio spectrum management regime.
The commentary on the bill states that a well functioning regime is critical for a number of important sectors, including the communications and broadcasting sectors. That statement, of course, is self-evidently true if we want to keep moving New Zealand communications—telecommunications and radiocommunications—into the modern world. But I want to mention that I would like the select committee to pay careful regard to submissions that it will likely get from the community and charitable sector.
The community and charitable sector, through things like Access Radio and other arrangements, at the moment has what we might call preferred status when it comes to the New Zealand radio spectrum. But, of course, they cover niche markets. That sector covers special-interest groups in ways that mainstream radio will not do, and it would be very, very keen to ensure that it retain that status in the future. United Future, as a party that is very, very much focused on the need to grow and expand community and charitable services in New Zealand, wholeheartedly supports those objectives, and we hope the select committee will take special care to ensure that the access of that sector to the radio spectrum is protected going forward.
The other thing I would like to comment on briefly is a point that has been commented on already by Nandor Tanczos of the Green Party. I sometimes marvel in life, particularly in parliamentary life, at the succession of events. As members know, last week, on Wednesday night, the announcement was made about unbundling the local loop, which is something that United Future supports. We believe it is a necessary step if we are to move broadband and other high-end spectrum telecommunications and information technology into the First World.
Over a dinner party on Thursday night we were talking about it, of course, and there was a person there who said he had just been in Ghana and Nigeria. He said he was amazed that the Ghanaians and Nigerians were all walking around with cellphones on their ears virtually all day. He said he found it quite amazing that in countries that experience relative poverty—in fact they are definitely part of the Third World, not the First World—people find themselves able to afford to use mobile phones to that extent.
On Friday morning a delegation came to me as United Future’s spokesperson in this area to talk about mobile phones, and the expansion of the network in New Zealand. This is the same point that Nandor Tanczos was talking about earlier. I told them what had happened the night before, and they said that that was exactly right. They told me that the cost of mobile phone services in New Zealand at the moment is 10 times the cost of equivalent services in Nigeria and Ghana. I was staggered to hear that, so I asked them why. They said that it is very, very simple. They said that in those countries this sector is unregulated. They said that it is quite cheap for people to set up competition in mobile phone services and to keep the costs down. It is just basically that people are allowed to go there, they are allowed to establish without much regulation, and they are getting services going. As a result, virtually everybody in Ghana and Nigeria is able to use mobile phones.
I thought that this was a very interesting phenomenon, because when we talk in New Zealand about unbundling the loop and getting people on to broadband, the examples that the Prime Minister gave were Singapore and South Korea. Countries of that kind are clearly First World. I wanted to probe a bit deeper. I asked how this has come about. They said it is because of the duopoly that we run in New Zealand mobile phone services. We have just two major players. We have created enormous barriers to the entry of new technology—some of which is now simple and cheap—and we are keeping it out of our markets. They went on to tell me, and this will be of interest to the Minister, the Hon David Cunliffe, that at the Harvard Business School the New Zealand regulation in relation to mobile phones, and particularly the way we have allocated the spectrum, is now a case study on how not to do it. We have made it to the Harvard Business School, for all the wrong reasons.
When I heard that, I reflected on it in anticipation of this debate. I thought to myself what a phenomenal cost New Zealand has had to bear in the telecommunications and information technology area, for bad regulation over a long, long period of time. We go back to the days when the New Zealand Post Office had a monopoly on our telephone system. We remember that we were so delighted if we managed to get a phone connected within 6 weeks. That was the kind of environment we had. It was dreadful. We all used to save money so that we could ring a relative in England occasionally. By the time we had got through talking about the weather, we would say that we had to go because it was costing a phenomenal amount of money. We then went into the sale of Telecom and left it with a monopoly on the local loop, and, boy, has that cost us a lot of money. [Interruption] Others will be able to pinpoint where these decisions were made, but it is a tragic history, is it not?
In respect of the unbundling of the local loop I have to say I have very little sympathy for Telecom, from this point of view. Some of Telecom’s competitors tell me that all they wanted from Telecom was the ability to put their high-tech devices into exchanges.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: For a market price.
GORDON COPELAND: For a market price, exactly right. They were prepared to pay a market price to put their devices into exchanges. Telecom said that, no, it had put its choice of the latest technology, in its view, into those telephone exchanges and it would let them share that. But even though those competitors were prepared to pay for it, Telecom would not allow them to put their more expensive, faster, and better equipment into its exchanges. That is just one example.
Another example that comes to mind is one that got my brother-in-law on to television. He was doing a subdivision in Nelson and asked Telecom to put in the wiring for it. Telecom did it and sent him an account for $20,000 for wiring up that fairly small subdivision. He was on television, because Telecom in its letter thanked him for choosing to use Telecom. What a joke. The tragic thing about that is that he paid for the wiring in that new subdivision. Guess what the people who built houses in that subdivision are doing every day? They are paying Telecom to use those wires, which Telecom did not have to pay to put in.
I sincerely think that we as a Parliament still have a long way to go in this area. Goodness gracious me, if we cannot even get our costs down to the level of cost in Nigeria and Ghana, then we need a big wake-up call as a country. We are holding back our economy. I am sure that every MP in this Parliament, privately, has already come to the conclusion that what we should be doing now is looking after the interests of our consumers—not the companies, not the guys who lobby us, but the people who use these technologies in New Zealand. They are the people we have to keep in mind, and we just have to keep working hard to bring this about.
I do not know how we can undo some of these regulations—I simply do not know—but we cannot logically continue as a nation to aspire to moving our economy forward and our standard of living up, for the benefit of all New Zealanders, while we keep paying 10 times as much for our mobile phone calls as do people in Nigeria. It is dumb, it is crazy, and we need to get real and do something about it quickly.
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I rise to speak to the Communications Legislation Bill. As previous National speakers have indicated, we are supporting this bill to its first reading. Many speakers have pointed out that this is quite a technical and narrow bill, but we have just recently heard what happens to Mr Maurice Williamson before he goes to bed at night, and about dinner parties at Mr Gordon Copeland’s house. Interestingly, for the previous speaker, who was talking about Ghana—actually I think Nigeria was the one—he may be pleased to know that I believe it is a New Zealand company that has built and is supplying the billing software and network for that. The reason mobile phones are so active over there is that there was never any fixed-wire network. But he also may be interested to know that that same New Zealand company is suffering and is under threat, because of the proposed changing of the “grey list” country legislation. The investors in that company will be suffering and they may not be able to expand further into the rest of Africa.
As I said earlier, we do support this legislation, but I have some reservations and some misgivings. They are pretty much about the context, the current environment, all things concerning communications, data, and recent events. At the moment there is a context of total incompetence, of total commercial naivety, with the way the recent unbundling leak has happened and the reactions from the Beehive afterwards.
There is a very interesting phrase in the bill. It talks about inappropriate receivers, and perhaps that can be applied to someone in Telecom surrounding this. But because of the way this leak has been dealt to, $1.5 billion has been knocked off the share price of New Zealand’s largest listed company. That is $1.5 billion taken from the wealth of New Zealanders; that is mums, dads, superannuation funds, trusts, and individual savings—$1.5 billion. The bills for those are starting to arrive. They will arrive in New Zealand over the coming weeks when investors get the new valuations for their share portfolios, when their brokers send them their analysis. The share price was about $4.80 today, I think, down from $5.60 or $5.70. In fact, it was $7.30 not so long ago. So, in fact, about $2.5 billion over the last year or so has been knocked off the share price of New Zealand’s largest listed company. Mr Cullen is on record as saying he believes that a leak has been going on for quite some time. Well, perhaps in fact it is not a $1.5 billion leak; it may well be a $2.5 billion leak.
Also in the context of incompetence and incredible commercial naivety around spectrum, radiocommunications, and telecommunications matters, in the past week we have had a donation—an asset giveaway—of three frequencies to CanWest, another listed company; a giveaway of three frequencies to Kiwi FM. Even Neil Finn has come out saying: “That is absurd, that’s silly, what on earth are you doing?”.
In the context of the current incompetence and total commercial naivety surrounding all things communication at the moment, we actually have dormant mobile licences not being used. I believe they were partially owned and bid for by a Zimbabwe or South African consortium, as well as a Māori consortium.
There is also evidence of this. The Minister, in answer to a question today, mentioned Project Probe. Project Probe is a failure. The company that has just lost $1.5 billion off its share price—New Zealanders’ investments have gone down by $1.5 billion—received $34.3 million from the Government for Project Probe. It did not measure the outcome. It had no measures of success. It had no quality control. I have written answers from the Minister here—$34.3 million went to Telecom as the winner of some of the Project Probe regions, out of a total of $48 million - odd. Yet the same Government, in its total incompetence, has essentially led to a write-off of $1.5 billion of New Zealanders’ wealth.
There is further incompetence, and again total commercial naivety, around telecommunications and communications from the Beehive at the moment. There is an absolute shambles surrounding the current auction of the 3.5 gigahertz spectrum, also known as WiMAX. Now that might not mean much to many members in here—in fact, I would not expect it to. But essentially a new spectrum has been opened up for allocation for bidding to various regional players around the country. All well and good. It was supposed to have started last November. It was supposed to have been completed by now. It has been delayed, and delayed. Rules have been changed. It is absolute incompetence.
On the commercial side, in fact, there are allegations against one large player—in fact, I will give members a bit of background to the way the WiMAX spectrum has been set up. It has essentially been set up to stop one player getting dominant control of the spectrum. Basically, for those who do not understand, this is Wi-Fi, as some people know it, but much better. With holes in the regulations, with holes in the set-up, and general incompetence in the way it was set up, one large player has got control of this spectrum nationwide. Yet it was set up for regional players to start to create competition, as the member over there constantly refers to, to try to compete with the one large player. It is total incompetence.
The commercial reality is that the basic price for this auction was set at 17c per potential receiver of this spectrum. Well, with one large player exploiting the regulations, or basically just walking through the side door of the regulations of the auction set-up—a set-up of about $10 million—it has taken control nationwide of a spectrum, squeezing out local players, totally destroying any competitive activity, and absolutely nailing and basically cementing the status quo. It is absolute incompetence and naivety.
There is further confusion around the communications sector at the moment: the total contradiction of the Television New Zealand charter. Members may ask: “What’s this got to do with this current bill?”. Well, we are talking about radiocommunications, and we are talking about telecommunications. No one has done any work on the threat to the charter of different digital mechanisms, like Internet protocol television, and high-definition television. Again, these terms may not mean much to many people in the House, but the people out there know that they have not even been considered, and are waiting again for another knee-jerk reaction from a Government that is just totally incompetent.
There is no direction. There is no delivery or consideration, as I said, of new platforms for television. Again taxpayers’ money is at stake. Data will be delivered down different channels. This legislation is all about simple data. Perhaps some of those reasons above are why New Zealand was rated down today from No. 16 to No. 22 in the world competitiveness index. Perhaps that is why Australia has gone from No. 9 to No. 6 in the same survey—16 places higher—and that was before the awesome Australian tax cuts. New Zealand needs a better competitive environment. New Zealand needs a more productive environment. New Zealand needs more productivity. New Zealand needs more reward for taking a risk and investing in our future. Some of the points I outlined earlier are totally why we are absolutely going nowhere under this current administration.
Again I will go back to Project Probe—$34.3 million was given by this current administration to a company that it has just defected from, and it has taken $1.5 billion from that company’s value. Well, why did the Government give the $34.3 million in the first place? It has given about $4 million to another company in which about $100 million has been invested, and there are questions about the survival of that, I believe.
Again, as I said at the start, National will support this bill going to the select committee, but I have grave reservations about it in relation to its context and environment. Those who are supposed to be driving this country forward are totally inept, totally incompetent, and in charge of a country that is going downhill rapidly in the world’s competitiveness index.
Bill read a first time.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister of Communications: I move, That the Communications Legislation Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee, and that the committee report back to this House on or before 28 July 2006.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill
Second Reading
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a second time. The main aim of this bill is to extend eligibility for the higher single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care. This Labour-led Government is delivering on its promise of fairer treatment for the partners of people in long-term residential care.
The bill also makes three other changes that will benefit older New Zealanders. It removes the sharing household expenses rule, which previously limited eligibility for entitlement for the living alone payment. It extends the period of time a person can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension, if that person is carrying out voluntary work overseas for a recognised aid agency. Finally, the bill will enable all rates of veterans pensions to be increased by Order in Council.
Four written submissions on the bill were received. Those submissions were supportive of the legislative amendments contained in the bill, and I am pleased to report to the House that the Social Services Committee has recommended that the bill be passed, and has reported it back to the House without amendment. I would like to thank that committee for its prompt consideration of the bill. I would also like to thank the organisations that made those submissions.
The extension of the higher single rates of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions will ensure a fairer treatment for many superannuitants and veterans pensioners living in the community who have a spouse or partner in residential care. The change will remedy the current situation, where spouses and partners of people in long-term care are currently eligible for higher single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions only in limited circumstances. The main situation where that eligibility occurs is where the partner in care is receiving a residential care subsidy. However, access to the residential care subsidy is limited by a means test. The current approach is seen as unfair to spouses and partners in the community. That issue was highlighted by the Barbara White petition, which was presented to the House in late 2004. The extension of the higher single rates will apply from 1 July this year. It will mean up to $60.90 a week more, net of tax, for those affected. Approximately 2,000 older New Zealanders will benefit from that change. I should like to take this opportunity again to convey my thanks to the petitioners who first brought this issue to the attention of the House, and in particular to the lead petitioner, Mrs Barbara White, who was ably supported by my colleague Lianne Dalziel.
As I have previously indicated, the bill also makes other changes to eligibility criteria for New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. From 1 July this year the bill will remove the sharing expenses rule, which currently prevents some superannuitants and veterans pensioners from receiving the living alone payment. That payment represents the difference between the single sharing rate and the higher single living alone rate of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. That difference is currently just over $20 a week, net of tax. The sharing expenses rule currently operates as a somewhat strict and arbitrary form of income testing for the living alone payment. In some cases in the past, for example, superannuitants have been denied eligibility for the living alone payment, because they have been receiving modest contributions to their household expenses from, say, family members. The removal of that rule will mean that eligibility for the living alone payment will be based solely on the actual living arrangements of superannuitants and veterans pensioners, and it will therefore ensure a fairer treatment for all of them who are living alone.
The third amendment contained in the bill will enable a person to be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension for up to 156 weeks, if that person is carrying out volunteer work overseas for a recognised aid agency such as Volunteer Service Abroad. Currently, the maximum payment in those circumstances is for 52 weeks. However, Volunteer Service Abroad, for example, has a standard assignment period of 2 years. The current rule therefore prevents a large number of older volunteers from making a longer contribution to service abroad. That issue was highlighted by the written submission on the bill that was made by Volunteer Service Abroad. The extension of the payment period to 156 weeks that is provided by this bill will allow for a typical 2-year assignment plus an extension of the assignment time for up to a further year, if required.
The final amendment contained in the bill changes the War Pensions Act to enable all rates of veterans pensions to be increased by Order in Council. That change will align the legislative provisions for making adjustments to the rates of veterans pensions with those for New Zealand superannuation, under the Social Security Act.
In summary, the amendments contained in this bill address several anomalies in the current treatment of superannuitants and veterans pensioners. I am confident that those amendments will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders. As I have previously indicated to the House, the bill is further evidence of the commitment of this Government to ensuring that superannuitants and veterans pensioners are able to live in dignity and participate as fully as possible in society. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): This is a good bill. I do not want to shock members, but I say that it is a good bill. The problem is, of course, that it has taken too long to get here. Mrs Barbara White was a very brave lady to come to Parliament with a petition. She came to the Social Services Committee and, yes, she was supported by the member referred to by the previous speaker, David Benson-Pope. Mrs White is one of several people who are in the situation of being aged pensioners whose spouses are in hospital or in care—but the spouses can still recognise their wives or husbands. They are people who have been with their spouses for many, many years, but who are now not only living alone but are living on a smaller amount of benefit, because it has not been recognised that they are living alone. She brought her petition in 2002; we are now in mid-2006. That is too long. It is far too long for a situation like this to continue for Mrs Barbara White and the other people affected.
It is very interesting that a bill was introduced to this House only after my bench mate and colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith also took up the issue for Mr Page. He fought for Mr Page, who is a Nelson resident, to be able to get a single living alone allowance. Mr Page was living alone but, because he had been married for 70 years and his wife still recognised him, he was not able to get the single living alone allowance. He was told that he would have to get divorced, or have his wife not recognise him, before he could get the single living alone allowance.
That is an instance of the cruelty of some of these regulations. They are set in good faith, but unfortunately they do not always take into account human realities. This bill has taken far too long in gestation. It is only a couple of pages long; it did not take an awful lot of effort. I am not aware of any party in this House that did not vote for it. I am not aware of anyone on the Social Services Committee who did not support it. This is a good bill; it should have been before the House a lot more quickly. We could have passed it under urgency—we have had so many sittings under urgency since late 2004. There is no excuse for this bill to have taken so long. It is interesting that only a few people will, in fact, benefit from this bill. That is because not everybody lives long enough to be living alone while his or her lifetime partner is in care.
Given the title of this bill, and considering that it affects veterans pensions, it is appropriate to mention that there are veterans living in the Montecillo Veterans Home in Dunedin who are worried about what happened there. There are Viet Nam veterans who will never ever benefit from this bill, because with the life expectancy of Viet Nam veterans, they will never live long enough. One of the jobs that I have had to do involving veterans—as with the Agent Orange inquiry—has been to go to an awful lot of their funerals. These are men in their 60s—some now in their 70s—who died far too young. Generally, veterans lose about 10 years of their life expectancy. I think that applies to veterans of any war, frankly, because it takes an awful lot off them.
Unfortunately, this bill will not be of any benefit to Nancy Wake, who is the most celebrated war heroine of this country. It will not do her any good. She is now living in England but was born in New Zealand and is of part-Māori extraction, part-French, and part-English. She is a woman of extreme courage. She is now in her 90s. I have asked this Government to award her an honour while she is alive. I hope that the Government actually takes that step. I understand that it is unlikely, given that so many members of the Government in Cabinet have written to me and said that she does not qualify. No, I guess she does not. She is only one of the bravest people in the world. She is only a New Zealander. She still has a New Zealand passport. She is a New Zealander. So of course she would not qualify! She has been honoured by the Americans, and she is not American. She has been honoured by the English, and she is not English. She has also been honoured by the French and the Australians. Australia is the country that she grew up in, but she is not Australian any more. She is a New Zealander.
There are times when we have to make exceptions for exceptional people. Nancy Wake is one of those exceptions. She will not benefit from this bill, but she is someone whom this country should be very proud of. I urge members from all sides of the House to put forward Nancy Wake to the Prime Minister and the Ministers and ask that they please take what might be the last opportunity to honour a woman of courage. Too often in this country we honour people just for sporting prowess and arts prowess. We sometimes have difficulty honouring people who do the work that others of us would rather was not done.
Unfortunately, war is a brutal business, and Nancy Wake’s job was brutal, but she did it. She led 7,000 resistance fighters, and she led them in the most extreme circumstances. This Parliament has the ability to ask the Prime Minister and the Ministers to do the right thing by one of our very few remaining unrewarded extreme heroes. She is undoubtedly the most decorated war heroine in the world. The only country that has not done its duty by her is her own country, New Zealand. My colleagues in the Māori Party have asked that she be honoured, National Party members have asked that she be honoured, I am sure New Zealand First would wish that she be honoured—and I see some nodding from New Zealand First members—I am sure the ACT party would wish her to be honoured, and I am sure that there are many good people in the Labour Party who would wish her to be honoured. I ask them please to take some steps to get their Government to do the right thing by this woman. It is no good getting all excited about heroes and heroines once they are dead, because death is pretty final.
This woman is 94. Days are not getting any longer for her; they are becoming pretty short. We work in a war memorial. I ask that we please respect this woman and honour her now while she is alive. She will not get the benefit of this bill, but it would be one of the things that so many veterans would take as a mark of very good faith and they would respect us very much for doing this.
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): In case anyone had forgotten, we are debating the second reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. This bill is designed to ensure a fairer and more equitable treatment for many older New Zealanders. The Social Services Committee, which was pleased to receive this bill, worked very collaboratively and well together on something that nobody had any real disagreement upon. It was drafted well and the advice we received on the bill was pertinent. We were able to expedite it quite quickly. As chair of the committee, I thank the committee for its good work, and the advisers and committee clerks and staff for the assistance we have had to bring it back to this point in the House.
This bill is delivering on Labour’s election promises, as per usual. It extends the eligibility for the single living alone rate from 1 July 2006 to married superannuitants with a partner in long-term residential care. That was a key election commitment, and the bill does that. It extends eligibility for the single rates of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension to all superannuitants and veterans pensioners who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care in a hospital or rest home. This change will mean nearly an extra $20 per week for approximately 2,000 qualifying older New Zealanders. The bill also removes the sharing expenses rule, which is arbitrary and too strict in places, and it extends to 156 weeks the time people can be paid New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension while they are overseas and undertaking voluntary work for a recognised aid agency.
The bill is further evidence of the commitment of this Government towards ensuring that superannuitants and veterans pensioners are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in society. This is the Year of the Veteran, and what better timing could we have? The Labour-led Government has already made significant progress on issues that are important to older New Zealanders, and this bill builds upon that progress. I commend it to the House and look forward to the rest of its passage.
NATHAN GUY (National): I am from the Kapiti-Horowhenua area, and that area has one of the highest rates of over-65s per capita in the country. We all know that we have an ageing population, and it will be interesting to see how much that figure increases in the latest census. Up in my region those elderly people are struggling to make ends meet, even with the 1 percent lift in the superannuation rate for married couples—which is something to do with the supply and confidence agreement with New Zealand First, I believe—that moves the rate to 66 percent of the average wage. But the trouble is that costs continually increase for our elderly people, and a lot of those increased costs have been passed through this House in the last 6 years, under this Government.
Rates are increasing. Right now councils are out there consulting on their annual plans and long-term council community plans. We only need to look at how the Building Act has increased the level of general rates, on average, by 1 percent. We see that councils have ongoing costs of consultation, with their glossy documents called long-term council community plans. Councils are out there, trying to consult communities with just a handful of people turning up to public meetings, while more legislation has been passed under the Local Government Act.
We should just look at fuel costs and how they are impacting on the elderly. Approximately half of the cost of fuel is collected by this Government in tax. And we can just imagine how much costs will increase for elderly people who have dogs as companions when they have to microchip their dogs.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Only their new ones.
NATHAN GUY: Only the new ones, Mr Cosgrove yells out. But what is next, if that provision moves through on 1 July? The elderly will have their dogs microchipped, so will it be their cats next—who knows?
Ongoing legislation being passed in this House by this Government is impacting on the elderly. Is the $71 million passing through aged residential care services actually moving through the district health boards? In some cases it is, but in most cases it is not. What about the caregivers in this country getting some assistance through an increase in salary? Do they have to wait until next week, the week after, or a couple of years after that? In my particular patch of Kapiti and Horowhenua we have a crisis with caregivers. Kimberly Centre is closing because there are not enough caregivers to look after those people in our local communities.
But let us move to this bill, which has taken a long time to get to the House—a long, long time. I think the fact that it is here at all is due in part to my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, the member for Nelson, forcing the issue through the Human Rights Commission. I was interested to read about Mr and Mrs Page, who were 91 and 88 years of age respectively. Mr Page was advised by Work and Income to seek a divorce so as to receive the living alone payment, and I think that is disgraceful. So this bill will help to get around that issue. It tidies up that situation.
We need to be aware that the veterans are a dwindling population, many of whom have served our country fantastically well. The calculations I have seen estimate that there are about 2,000 eligible New Zealanders who will be affected by this bill. We all know it is expensive to live alone, so it is good to address the sharing expenses rule. The calculations that I have seen show that the bill will add about $100 a month for those people. Although that may seem small, it will go some way towards assisting them.
The other significant aspect of the bill is that it covers service abroad for veterans and superannuitants. That is moving from 52 weeks out to 3 years, which, I think, is a very important initiative. The bill seems to be a common-sense approach, but it has taken a while to get through. I think it has taken far too long.
In summing up, I say that it is great that those people are being acknowledged by the bill, because there is an anomaly. Had the Page family been a de facto couple, or gay, or had Mrs Page had dementia, they would have been eligible. So we have to tidy up that issue, and the bill does that.
National needs to be acknowledged as the party that forced this issue to come before the House. Thanks should be expressed to the honourable member Nick Smith for forcing the issue.
It is hard for the elderly to make ends meet, with more and more legislation being passed through the House, and that impacts on the many, many over-65s in my electorate.
Darren Hughes: Whose electorate?
NATHAN GUY: Just in a couple of years, the electorate has become the most marginal electorate in the country. It was won by 382 votes.
Darren Hughes: You’re a list member.
NATHAN GUY: Do not worry about that. It once was a Labour stronghold electorate; now it is the most marginal in the country.
It was good to see all the back-bench members in the electorate during the recent House adjournment trying to shore up support, but they should have done that last year. It is a case of too little, too late. There is more legislation jammed down the throat of the elderly. The bill will support the over-65s in my region, who need acknowledging. I am happy to support the bill.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues): For those who missed that diatribe, I point out that that was one very humble Nathan Guy, who is a list member from somewhere and is claiming to be a constituent member for the Otaki electorate. The truth hurts—he is not. He is in the Opposition. He is a list member.
I listened with some interest as Mr Guy addressed this bill and talked about council rates increases. I am advised by a very good authority sitting close to me that Nathan Guy was elected to some council or other—I do not recall which council—in 1998, and I am told that when he was elected to Parliament he gave a pledge that he would resign from the council. I am told he still is a councillor. When he talks about rates rises and how awful councils are in imposing rates rises on the elderly, I say to him that he has been on that council since 1998—does he take no responsibility for that? What sort of a council was he part of and what management structure did it run? Governments do not increase rates; Governments look after taxes. Councillors increase rates. He is a councillor. He has been in since 1998, but, of course, he blames everybody else.
As I look at this bill, I see what a superb piece of legislation it is. It is yet another building block that the Government has put in place to look after our elderly folk. That member, who has been here 5 minutes, gets up, pontificates, and tries to be the friend of the battling elderly Kiwi man and woman, when he is part of a party that, when in office, cut the pension three times, did not inflation-proof it, and de-linked it from the average wage. Now, every pensioner around the country knows that. Pensioners are not silly people. They are very wise, learned Kiwis who can smell bull a mile away, and they got plenty of it from him. [Interruption] That member squawks like a headless chook. I invite him to get up again and justify how he can stand there with any gall and any credibility, when he is a part of a party that, when in office, cut the elderly’s pension three times. Does he have an answer for that? No, the silence is deafening. He does not, because he knows he has been done like a dinner.
Every elderly person who heard that speech tonight knows that Nathan Guy stands for nothing. Nathan Guy thinks he can hoodwink every elderly person, and then he claims he is an electorate MP. Well, that is two things. He claims he can hoodwink every elderly person and he thinks that just because they are in their retirement years they may forget it was a National Government that cut their pension three times. And we can see Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber on the other side grinning like a couple of Cheshire cats. They were members of a Government that cut the pension of the elderly. What has Labour done? We have inflation-indexed it. We linked it to 65 percent of the average wage, as we promised to do, and it goes up, with our support party New Zealand First, to 66 percent. We introduced the rates rebate for pensioners. We did that. We raised the rate of the pension, actually, when we became the Government. We had not promised to do it, but we did it anyway. I will stand on my record of standing beside our elderly pensioners.
There was a time when there was a sort of social contract in New Zealand, where one generation had an obligation to look after the previous one. And here I acknowledge our veterans. I have never served in uniform—I acknowledge that. I am a part of only a couple of generations who have not been called to arms, to serve in uniform. Who cut the veterans pension? The National Government did. Who pulled the rug out from under every veteran when his or her national superannuation was cut? The National Government did. Who reversed inflation-indexing? Who cut the rate? Who de-linked it? Nathan Guy gets up and proudly pontificates about every veteran, as if he is their friend. Well, I tell him it was a National Government, and that crew over there, who sold out every one of those people—people who fought to give us the democracy and the Parliament we have now. “Lest we forget them”, is as the ode to the fallen goes, but I say it should be: “Lest they forget what the National Government did to them”—and every Returned and Services Association member knows that.
I invite Mr Guy to learn one or two things from the little 10-minute experience he had. He should not make it up. He should tell the truth. He should not pretend to be something he is not—and he is not an electorate MP. He should not pontificate about rates increases and how hard they are on elderly folk, when he sat on a council—and continues to sit in a council—that put up rates. That member said, on the electorate stump, that if he got elected to Parliament he would resign from that council and would not double dip. And has he? No, and he has so much time on his hands, serving the one or two people who might have had a look at him on the stump, that he is doing two jobs. I invite him to reflect on that. This is a good piece—
Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to clarify something. I am not double-dipping. I am still on the Horowhenua District Council, but I am not—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That was not a point of order—and that shows him up again. But I thank him for admitting he is doing two jobs. I do not know which constituency he is trying to be a part of. I do not know what he does with his pay and rations from the council; I do not think anyone does. But I will stand by the record of this Government, which has stood by pensioners, lifted their standard of living, given them a rates rebate, and looked after them. I compare that with those members over there.
Then we have Mr Finlayson, the “EQC”—the excluded QC. He still is not over it, of course. He is part of a party that, when it was in Government, cut the pension. But, of course, with his wage packet from his previous job, he would not care about pensioners. This Government is delivering on every election promise we made to elderly people.
Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to respond, under Standing Order 116, “Personal Reflections”. I would like to make a personal reflection; I am not double-dipping on the council.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that does not apply to that—
Lindsay Tisch: The member takes offence at being accused by the member opposite of double-dipping and, under Standing Order 116, is asking the member who made those comments to apologise for them.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reason I did not take that from what Mr Guy was saying, although I accept that he said he was not double-dipping, was that he said he wants to make a personal reflection. Clearly, Nathan Guy has taken offence. I ask Mr Cosgrove to withdraw his comments.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw. But I maintain the position. I am advised that he donates one or the other of the salaries somewhere, but nobody knows which salary. That is yet to be proven, of course.
However, this bill is a good piece of legislation. It looks after our elderly folk and our veterans. This change will be positive for a whole lot of elderly people. I acknowledge, of course, that petrol prices and other prices are going up—and that includes rates, which that member, as a councillor, put up. That is why we are including a rates rebate for our senior citizens. This is part of the economic transformation that we, as a Government, are part of and are putting forward.
Georgina Beyer: Veterans are part of our national identity.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: My colleague is right. All the plaques around this Chamber symbolise battles that our veterans, either deceased or still living, have fought in order to protect and serve our country. They were sold out by that crew over there, who cut their pensions. But we stand by them. We acknowledge them. It was this Government that put in place the Year of the Veteran, and it was this Government that put in place funds for veterans’ projects this year. It is this Government that initiated, after many years of veterans asking for it, the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. I am very, very proud of that. [Interruption]
No amount of squawking from the headless chooks on the other side—from the “EQC”, the excluded QC over there, who still has not got over it—will alter the fact that the elderly know which Government supported them. No amount of squawking from those members will change the fact that the RSA, Grey Power, and the old folks in rest homes know which Government put in the dollars to assist them, which Government gave them a rates rebate, and which Government increased their pension. Those folk voted, as they will again, against a party that during its 9 years in Government degraded their economic circumstances, cut their pensions three times—that was Mrs Shipley’s last legacy, I think—and pulled out the rug from under them. I commend this bill to the House.
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, it is with pleasure that I rise to support the second reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. New Zealand First is 100 percent behind this bill, and we would like to see it fast tracked through Parliament. Nobody likes to see our senior citizens or veterans disadvantaged in any way so, we repeat, we would be very happy to see the bill fast tracked through Parliament.
As Minister Benson-Pope said, the bill amends the eligibility rules for New Zealand superannuation under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the War Pensions Act of 1954. It makes some very significant changes to the eligibility rules for New Zealand superannuation in relation to people with partners or spouses living in long-term residential care, and people who are living alone yet share household expenses. The bill also increases the time a person can continue to receive New Zealand superannuation while overseas and working voluntarily.
Hon Member: Ah!
BARBARA STEWART: It may pay some of the National Party members to listen, because the bill will affect them in years to come.
These are all essential changes. It is worth noting that all of the eligibility changes also apply to veterans pensions. New Zealand First wants to see veterans pension provisions mirror those of New Zealand superannuation. We must acknowledge, too, that this is the Year of the Veteran, so it is timely to remember the enormous sacrifice that all of our veterans made, and that many continue to make on behalf of all New Zealanders. It is only just now that the changes have included that group, as well. We owe those people a great deal.
I thought the speech from Judith Collins, the first National Party member to speak in the debate, was a bit rich, given that successive National Governments would not recognise servicemen and women such as Colonel Malone, Sergeant Mānahi, Des Scott, or Nancy Wake, or even the Viet Nam vets in their plight over Agent Orange, or the nuclear test vets. They are all people to whom we owe a great deal. It is worth saying too that in New Zealand First’s confidence and supply agreement with the Government we have agreed that better recognition can be given to the veterans of active overseas service, and we want to investigate ways of achieving that. It is one of our priorities in this particular area.
In New Zealand First we know it is absolutely essential to ensure that the floor for superannuation and veterans pensions does not fall below 66 percent of the net average wage. As previous speakers have said, there have been significant price increases in petrol, in rates, and in all aspects of living, and we do not want to see our superannuitants or veterans disadvantaged in that way. We must say that the start of addressing the needs of senior citizens and veterans here in New Zealand was the raising of the level of superannuation. The next change for our senior citizens in line with our supply and confidence agreement will be the golden age card for all senior citizens, which we will be delighted to see implemented next year. I am sure Nathan Guy will be extremely happy to acknowledge that in his electorate. I can see members opposite nodding and agreeing.
New Zealand First members, like many other members in this House, have heard some very sad stories and received some very sad letters about the situation when someone’s husband, wife, or partner ends up going into care and the remaining member of the partnership is left to cope as best as he or she can on less than adequate funding. The bill will address that issue far better than is the case at present. These people are living single people’s lives but they still have added responsibilities and costs, and it is time we delivered on that issue. New Zealand First members want to see fairer treatment, and we are pleased to see that that will be so.
On the matter of overseas service abroad, which many of our senior citizens now get involved in, it is really great that the Government has seen fit to extend the period for which people can get superannuation or the veterans pension while they do volunteer work abroad. It is absolutely wonderful to see older people giving of their time and experience overseas. It is something that no doubt many of us will become involved in, in years to come. Increasing numbers of seniors are going to the Pacific, and they must be applauded.
New Zealand First applauds this fair and equitable treatment for our seniors and veterans. We want to see the bill fast tracked through the House, and it is with great pleasure that we support its second reading.
METIRIA TUREI (Green): Let me first congratulate Barbara Stewart on her contribution to the debate. It was the first contribution so far that has been relevant to the bill, that dealt with the issues, and that avoided the foolish politicking that is going on. I thank her for that contribution.
The Greens are very pleased to see the bill come back to the House. We would also like to see it fast tracked; we see no need for delay. The issues are urgent and people need to have them sorted so that they can get on with their lives. We fully support the extension of the eligibility for the single rate of superannuation or the veterans pension to those who have spouses or partners in long-term residential care. We agree that the restricted eligibility criteria were very intrusive and very unfair. My colleague Sue Bradford sat on the Social Services Committee, which heard the bill, and she made a first reading speech on the legislation. I know that she feels very strongly about these issues, as well as me.
We also fully support the changes to the sharing expenses rule that the bill sets out. Like all people on low incomes, superannuitants make huge efforts to maintain a reasonable life on a very meagre income. On a day-to-day basis they, like other low-income people, make financial arrangements to help with the inevitable financial shortfalls that occur when one lives on such a poor income. Those people should not be penalised or persecuted for making those arrangements. This bill fixes some of those rules for superannuitants and those on veterans pensions. We would like to see much more work done on fixing the rules that control and dominate the way in which low-income people manage their finances. We know it is extremely difficult for those who live on a very, very low income, and there must be some flexibility and recognition of the incredible work people do in trying to maintain an ordinary life.
We hope that this bill passes quickly and without fuss. I urge members to enable that to happen and to desist from their foolish politicking. This is far too important an issue for that.
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): There is a very ancient waiata that includes the phrase: “He rākau tawhito, e mau ana te taitea i waho rā, e tū te tāhiwi.
[An ancient tree with sapwood just adhering on the outside, and only the heartwood standing firm.]
That is a metaphor for an older person whose body is ailing but whose spirit is indomitable. Within our world the spirit of our elders permeates through every decision, every discussion, and every hui. And we sit up and listen.
I had the privilege of nursing my mother and caring for her in our home, right until the time of her passing. When it came to any decision about whether to attend a hui or travel to a tangi, or to major family decisions, she was the boss. Her word was law. Sometimes we were not always happy with that law. My children remember the way she used to give chocolates to the dog, rather than to them, when they were being naughty. We remember the long ash of her cigarette and how we were scared she would burn the house down with her smoking all the time. But nevertheless she was very much in charge.
I remember, at the tangi for one of our aunties in Hastings, telling mum on the third day that I had to return to Auckland for some key meetings. It went something like this: “Mum, I have to go; I have just been appointed as the race relations executive officer.” She said: “Son, I know that’s important, but you should stay.” I proceeded off to the marae kitchen, though, did my poroporoaki to my whānau—my farewells to all my mates, family, and cousins—and headed for the car. Mum was sitting in the car and she uttered three little words: “Son, you stay.” My cousins in the kitchen could not contain themselves when they saw me walk back in somewhat sheepishly, having been reminded of my obligations, my priorities, and my responsibilities. All it took was those three little words.
The Māori Party, therefore, comes to this bill fully appreciating the vital importance of the continued participation by older people in community life. Our policy commitment has always been to ensure that superannuation provides for an equitable standard of living, and pays for the essentials. We are, therefore, happy to support the amendments proposed, specifically to extend eligibility for the higher, single rate to all married superannuitants living in the community who have a spouse in long-term residential care, to remove the sharing the expenses rule for determining entitlement to the living alone payment, and to extend the period of time a person can receive New Zealand superannuation while he or she is overseas and working voluntarily for an aid agency.
But we support those amendments while also recognising the relatively high rate of material disadvantage amongst older Māori and the ongoing disparities between the living standards of older Māori and older non-Māori. Decades of disparity have resulted in a higher likelihood of poverty and in higher material hardship levels for Māori than non-Māori, as shown in Professor Mason Durie’s report Living Standards of Older Māori. Although we support the three initiatives to extend the eligibility for superannuation, we hope that the Government is also taking responsibility for considering other amendments in the distribution of superannuation that will take into account the disparities evident in life expectancy.
The figures are shocking. The Social Report 2005 revealed that the independent life expectancy for Māori men—that is, without requiring the assistance of another person or a complex device—is a staggering 58 years. The general life expectancy is 69 for Māori males, compared with 77.2 for non-Māori—a difference of 8.2 years. The figure is 73.2 years for Māori females, compared with 81.9 for non-Māori—a difference of 8.7 years. That is 8 fewer years of life for me, for Hone Harawira, Ron Mark, Mahara Okeroa, Shane Jones, Parekura Horomia, Tau Henare—even Winston Peters—compared with many other people in this House, and I ask whether that is fair. It is no wonder that we pack so much into every moment of our lives. I am intrigued that the members on the Government benches can always quantify and qualify the excellent benefits to Māori of every initiative they have ever created, yet when we ask sensitive questions that do not fit with that spin, they are silent.
As in many areas of social policy, the predetermined, arbitrary age-limits for superannuation eligibility, which seem to be set for fiscal reasons, generate inequities. Members of the Māori Party challenge the thinking behind that, because that creates the disparities. It was precisely because of the dramatic life and death disparities that the Māori Party raised the question, before last year’s election, that eligibility for superannuation should be reviewed in the light of the reduced life expectancy of some groups in the population, such as Māori, Pasifika, and Pākeha from the lower socio-economic levels. Dr Cullen was duly asked about that very serious policy issue in Parliament on 26 July 2005, and his response was: “I am advised by Treasury that it cannot cost that accurately, because it has no breakdown by ethnicity of New Zealand superannuation payments.” I ask members what sort of answer that is. Hansard never lies. If the Government does not have the data, why does it not?
That was precisely why the key recommendation from the United Nations special rapporteur Rudolfo Stavenhagen suggested that more targeted research, evaluation, and statistical databases were required in order to respond to the unique needs of Māori. Of course, we are not saying that reducing the eligibility for superannuation from 65 to 60 years is the only way we will achieve change; we are simply saying it is one measure out of many. We must invest in our greatest resource—the diversity of human capital—by addressing access to health services, by assisting State agencies to be responsive to the needs of all communities, by initiating strategies for recruitment, participation, and retention across all areas, and so on. Services that do not recognise the diversity of the population will never work, but it seems that this Government and many people in this House appear to be committed to a one-size-fits-all ethos, and they do so in blind pursuit of the cliché of one law for all.
The provision of responsive services for the elderly must reflect the choices and preferences we can all make about valuing the participation of older people in our society. I was proud that my mum lived out her life in our home. That was the choice of our whānau. Mum always said that she had kids only so that we could look after her in her old age. We were her insurance policy. She had paid the premiums through 70 years of enduring love, of discipline, of washing nappies, and of all that stuff. That was our choice because it is our custom, and I would not have had it be any other way. In days gone by, that was the norm. The intergenerational disparities have taken their toll on whānau in terms of their ability to do what was done in the past. What will we do about that when we know that one in five older Māori face severe difficulties caused by material hardship and disadvantage?
We in the Māori Party believe that the economic miracles that every Government has professed to perform have led, in part, to the fragmentation of whānau and family. Is that fragmentation and the consequential loss of care and responsibility of one human being for another genuine progress? We think not. Will next week’s Budget, and its accompanying fanfare, trumpet out the glorious differential of 8 to 9 years’ loss of life for Māori as opposed to non-Māori, or will it be silent again? The Māori Party will not be silent on critical matters, such as reckoning the national accounts in such a way as to ensure that genuine progress is achieved. We will judge the Budget on the basis of the genuine progress index. Our analysis will expose the deficits of that Budget and propose an alternative. We believe this bill should also have reflected, and every bill should reflect, genuine progress. We support the bill.
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I stand to speak on behalf of United Future on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill. Obviously, we will support this bill, along with all other parties. It is a good move, it is a fair move, and I agree that it is probably long overdue. It is interesting to note there were four written submissions on this bill, no oral submissions were asked for, and all submissions were fully supportive of the bill. No substantive issues were raised in relation to the legislative amendments contained within the bill, and no changes were made by the committee.
I would like to refer to the submitters because I think it is a good time to look at those who did take the time. One submitter that has been mentioned is Volunteer Service Abroad, which was genuinely thrilled at the extended period of time, from 52 weeks to 156 weeks, that someone can receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension if he or she is carrying out volunteer work overseas for a recognised aid agency.
I remember at the time thinking about a lady, whom I was very fond of—and I have to mention her name: Myrtle Whitehead—who served for years and years, including when she was a superannuitant, in Borneo. I remembered a day when we got notice that Myrtle was missing. She was missing for some weeks in the jungles of Borneo. To be honest, we had all come to the conclusion that she had had an accident and hurt herself, and that we would eventually, possibly, get news that her body had been found. However, a very long time later Myrtle wandered out of the jungle into a village. She had just become lost and gone astray. Through all those years of her hard work for that country, with her love of the people of Borneo, she was travelling back and forth to New Zealand to keep current with her superannuation, which was difficult.
I was really touched by the comments made by Dr Pita Sharples about the time he had his mum living with him. My husband and I took my husband’s grandmother in to live with us at one stage, and she lived with us for the last 18 months to 2 years of her life. We look back on that as a very rich time in our lives. We also have some very funny stories that we can tell about that chance to have her live with us. We could set the clock at the time she would open her door to her part of the house, shuffle through, not speak a word to anybody, come into the kitchen where I was cooking tea, and lift ceremonially all the lids of the pots to check that there were green vegetables for our son, and if there were not green vegetables of sufficient quantity, then I got a telling off. My youngest boy, who, incidentally, is not obese and has never been obese, had the best diet of any of our children because nana kept a good eye on it. So all of us who have enjoyed that type of arrangement know how precious it is.
What our family has not experienced, and what this bill is about addressing, is the situation where one elderly relative is unable to be cared for by family or spouse because of the level of care that is required, and has to go into care, and the financial difficulties that that can create for the person living on his or her own at that stage. It is right and proper that this bill is passed and the respect it creates is acknowledged.
The National Council of Women was also keen to add its support, and it made the comment that it felt that this complemented the Ministry of Health’s “ageing in place” strategy, and I think the council is right. Age Concern New Zealand also made its feelings known on this matter. There was a submission that talked a little bit about—and I know this will be dear to Mr Mark’s heart—this whole idea of the portability of pensions. It was not addressed in this bill properly, because it was kind of outside the terms of this bill. But since I have received some letters on this issue, I have been asking the Minister for a briefing on it. I think it is something that needs to be further addressed, and we will be looking to the Government to make some changes.
Ron Mark: It is in the Labour - New Zealand First agreement!
JUDY TURNER: Well, things are hunky-dory—there is action! We would support that, too. We think there is a real need to look at some flexible arrangements around the payment of pensions. So we are very happy to support this bill, and we look forward to its speedy implementation.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters) Bill.
Darren Hughes: The pleasure is all ours.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I am delighted to hear from the junior Labour whip that he is delighted to hear me speak.
I have just been with one of his colleagues having a briefing on disability, and I must say it was absolutely opportune, because there is a very large disabled sector in New Zealand. I think the sector commands a budget of about $2.7 billion, yet from time to time we hear of anomalies. For example, there are situations where, for one reason or another, a person who is very unwell or disabled and living in a residential care home is separated from his or her long-time husband or wife, who is well and living in their own home, and one of the couple is unable to access his or her fair pension. What is extraordinary about that situation is that the Labour Government brought in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act in 2001, and it has taken 5 years for this Labour Government to be prepared to fix that anomaly.
I acknowledge firstly Barbara White, who, in 2002 with 1,519 others, brought to the attention of this House the anomalies that are contained in the legislation, whereby some elderly people are not given a fair deal. The petition was presented in 2002. It was not until 2004 that finally the Labour Government was prepared to respond to it. I think that was almost certainly entirely because my colleague the Hon Nick Smith had raised the issue in Nelson. He had raised the issue because of a constituent of his, Mr Page, who was then aged 91, and whose wife, aged 88, was in a long-term residential care home. Mr Page was told by Work and Income that unless he got a divorce from his wife of 70 years, he would not be able to receive the single living alone allowance that was due to him. Nick Smith, firstly, wrote to the Minister, but there was no response. Finally, he had to go to the extreme lengths of bringing the case to the human rights commissioner—
Lindsay Tisch: And rightly so.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: That is quite the case. It seems extraordinary that despite the petition in 2002, the Labour Government failed to respond, and that despite the many letters to the Minister, it failed to respond. It was not until Nick Smith brought the case of Mr Page to the human rights commissioner that, suddenly and mysteriously, this bill came on to the Order Paper. I think that absolutely reflects the fact that this Labour Government often has large areas of lacunae where it does not look at the simple and easily correctable matters that are so important to ordinary New Zealanders, particularly veterans and old-age pensioners. I see Clayton Cosgrove, who has just come into the Chamber—
Darren Hughes: The Hon. Clayton Cosgrove.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Well, certainly, if the member likes to add that title to his name, he is rightfully able to call himself the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. We had a display of strutting and pirouetting from him a little while ago. He had forgotten that it was the Labour Government—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I can’t pirouette.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: He is suggesting that it was inappropriate to say he was pirouetting or doing pliés.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Twinkletoes.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: No, that is Rodney Hide. Clayton Cosgrove just sticks to strutting.
The point I wanted to make was that he overlooked entirely that the Labour Government, after a petition from Barbara White and 1,500 others, left this huge anomaly unaddressed for 4 long years. It was not until the Hon Nick Smith of National brought it to the attention of the human rights commissioner that, finally and mysteriously, the Labour Government was prepared to address it.
I must say that the Labour Government, prior to the election, also said that it would review the entire aged-care sector. The Hon Pete Hodgson went around the country saying that Labour would sort it out once it got into power again. I can say that the aged-care sector continues to be in crisis. There is the situation where different district health boards, even though they may get the money, do not hand it on to the aged-care facilities. We have absolutely not heard a squeak from the Minister of Health as to how his review will address the considerable problems associated with the aged-care sector.
I also want to acknowledge the various submitters on this bill, which, as Judy Turner pointed out, included Volunteer Service Abroad. It said in its submission that it was very glad finally to see this anomaly being addressed. Judy Turner described the case of Myrtle Whitehead, who had to come back at regular intervals to New Zealand from her excellent service abroad. Now, if she wishes, she is able to spend up to 2 years away doing very important volunteer work. Naturally, once again I want to say that the volunteer sector is hugely important to New Zealand. Clayton Cosgrove and his friends in Labour would again be suppressing the spontaneous commitment and passion of many of these good people, if they possibly could. However, the National Party is absolutely behind the volunteer sector in New Zealand. The second submission came from the organisation known as the RIMPAC Association, and I acknowledge Trevor Humphrey QSM, a 70-year-old pensioner who, with that group, decided that this bill is a very important one. They are pleased that it is before the House.
Mr Hughes is indicating that I ought to finish this speech. But I think it is very important, also, to hear what Age Concern had to say about this bill. It said: “We acknowledge the proposed amendment through this bill will improve the situation and make it fairer, but the changes do not address the fundamental issue, which is that many older people currently do not receive adequate financial assistance from the Government to ensure poverty does not predetermine their health and well-being.”
I finish by saying that we have a Labour Government that came into office 9 years ago, when the Australian average wage, on which pensions are indexed, was 25 percent higher than that here in New Zealand.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is not 9 years; it is 6 years.
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Well, it seems like 9 years. After 6 long years of this Labour Government, the average wage in Australia has now increased to become 33 percent higher than the average wage here in New Zealand. That is one of the fundamental reasons why our old people are not benefiting from an increase in the average wage, and it is due to the utterly inappropriate policy mix that this Labour Government has installed in New Zealand, and has imposed on New Zealand. It is absolutely contrary to the conventional economic wisdom around the world. I see Clayton Cosgrove sitting over there, the strutter from down in the south; he does not acknowledge that the fundamental problem that New Zealand pensioners are facing is that we need economic growth in this country. What are the figures today? The Labour Government came in when economic growth was 4.6 percent; it is now 0 percent. That is the legacy of the Labour Government.
Bill read a second time.
The House adjourned at 5.53 p.m.