Thursday, 15 June 2006

Thursday, 15 June 2006

Thursday, 15 June 2006

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Republic of South Africa—Parliamentary Delegation

Madam SPEAKER: I have pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of South Africa, led by Cornelia Carol September, is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the Local Government Law Reform Bill, the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill, the Historic Places Amendment Bill, and the Protected Objects Amendment Bill. The first item of business on Tuesday will be the 3-hour debate on the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, including the second reading of the Imprest Supply (First for 2006/07) Bill.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I wonder whether the Leader of the House can tell us when he expects the Māori Purposes Bill to be read for its first time.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I imagine that will be in the next mini-sitting of Parliament.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Reporting Dates

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the Social Services Committee to have the authority to make its final reports on Vote Housing and Vote Community and Voluntary Sector by Thursday, 20 July 2006, notwithstanding Standing Order 330(2).

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Elective Surgery—Government Policy

1. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What reports, if any, has he received on the implications of Government policy for patients needing elective surgery?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: The Minister has received many reports, both oral and written, over many months on Government elective surgery policy. These include reports stating that the number of elective surgery procedures has increased by 12.6 percent on a case-weighted basis under this Government, and by more than that when outpatient procedures are taken into account; and reports of a 24 percent increase in hip replacements and a 52 percent increase in knee replacements.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why are patients with serious skin cancers being told that their tumours must get bigger and worse before they can get any treatment; and can the Minister have any idea of what it must feel like for people to have a skin cancer eating into their face, only to be told that the tumour must get worse before they get any treatment, and that they will be culled off the waiting list, anyway?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am advised that the present system is a vast improvement on the one that a National Government implemented in the 1990s, and that no Government in recent times has invested more in the public health system than this one. If anyone in New Zealand believes that Tony Ryall is going to lead any kind of party into Parliament on the back of massive tax cuts, and improve the public health system, he or she has to be dreaming.

Ann Hartley: What reports has he received about the district health board waiting list action?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have received a report of suggestions made by Mr Tony Ryall that boards should ensure, as far as possible, that people are cared for; involve specialists and general practitioners in priority setting; encourage general practitioners to do more minor procedures; and use private health facilities as appropriate. That is a perfect description of what district health boards are doing, right now. The only thing he did not suggest was that the Government should continue its financial investment in health, open new hospitals and operating theatres, and enable district health boards to employ additional specialists—all of which this Government is doing, as we speak.

Hon Tony Ryall: Given that New Zealand has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world and that the Government is telling New Zealanders to be sun-smart to prevent getting skin cancer, why, if someone gets it, is he or she told that the cancer tumour must grow and become worse before the person will even be considered for treatment, and why are those patients being culled from the waiting list, under that Government’s edict?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am advised that the prioritisation system that has been implemented now is the best that the public hospital system has ever had. There is one kind of egregious presentation that I have always abhorred as a member of this Parliament—that is, someone shroud-waving against the indignity that some people may be suffering and trying to make cheap political capital out of it.

Dr Jackie Blue: What would the Minister tell Aletia Hudson, aged 33, who was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer at Christmas last year, had a mastectomy, was promised a breast reconstruction in a timely way, has since completed chemotherapy and radiotherapy, fund-raised $12,000 for taxane chemotherapy, and should be starting lifesaving Herceptin treatment this month but has not, because she cannot raise the $100,000 needed, only to find out last week that her breast reconstruction operation was no longer possible?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Of course, I am not aware of that individual case. But what I will—

Hon Tony Ryall: You should be.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Oh, I should be! Oh, really! Gee whiz, I would like to be over there one day—[Interruption] Unfortunately for the Opposition, that will not be until after I am dead, because I would be better over there dead than any of them are alive! [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Members have had the clearing of the lungs. As they know, barracking is not permitted, though interjections are. Will the Minister start again.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There will be a time when members opposite who ask silly questions will be required to answer them, when they are on this side of the House. Individual cases will be considered, if details are provided and not shroud-waved here. All I say to the member is that she may be interested to know that in the last 12 months there have been 100,000 cases of elective surgery in this country. Very few of them can happen under a Government that gives away $10 billion in tax cuts, as that member’s party has promised to do.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that exhausted doctors working excessively long hours—12 days without a break, 16-hour shifts, 7-hour night shifts for 10 days, and so forth—will inevitably make mistakes and contribute to the number of adverse events in our hospitals, which already cost 30c in every health dollar, or $890 million a year; and does he agree that if we reduce the hours that doctors work and, hence, the number of adverse events, we would have more funding for elective surgery, primary health care, and illness prevention?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I always feel some sympathy for people who work long hours. I feel sorry for most of the people around here, who work long hours too. But in truth it will not be by grandstanding in this House about doctors’ issues that we will get any improvement; it will be by, first, improving the resource base available to the public health sector, which this Government is doing, and by making sure that people fully comprehend that if any party promises to improve the public health system of New Zealand by cutting $10 billion off the Government’s revenue, then people deserve what they get if they believe that.

Dr Jackie Blue: Does the Minister sleep well at night knowing that there are women all around New Zealand who have been cruelly denied breast reconstruction operations, which were promised to them, and does he agree that this is just one more example of a public health system that is falling apart and failing New Zealanders?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: What I do know is that prioritising the most urgent cases and doing them in that order on the advice of senior clinicians is a whole lot better than taking advice from any National Party politician in this House.

Hon Tony Ryall: How serious does the Government consider this: in Auckland, only the most serious skin cancers are being dealt with; children with congenital birth defects are being routinely turned away; in the Hutt there is a wholesale dumping of skin cancer patients; and in the Associate Minister’s own area of Canterbury, skin cancer patients are waiting 5 months to see a specialist, then another 3 months until their worsening tumours are dealt with?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The member quotes some figures that he would claim support his case. We will have to see whether that is true. But he does not quote figures like a 75 percent increase in angioplasty since the change in Government. He does not quote a 50 percent increase in knee replacements, or a 24 percent increase in hip replacements, because it does not suit his shroud-waving approach to health. This Government deals with the realities of health care, puts its money where its mouth is, and carries out over 100,000 elective surgical procedures a year, which is more than anything ever dreamt of when we last had a National Government.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a health board document that shows the state that skin cancer patients now have to be in to get any treatment under this Government.

Document not tabled.

First Home Ownership—Government Assistance

2. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What is the Government doing to help New Zealanders buy their first home?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Homeownership has long been part of the Kiwi dream. The Labour-led Government is committed to active support for Kiwi families to buy their first home. Our Welcome Home Loans have already helped more than 1,600 families to buy their first home. From next year, couples in the KiwiSaver scheme will be able to get up to $10,000 towards a deposit. We are currently developing a shared equity product to assist families in higher-cost housing markets so they can also take a step towards home ownership.

Georgina Beyer: What reports has the Minister seen on the success of these policies?

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that when questions are being asked they are heard in silence.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I have indeed seen reports. Members may have heard Mr O’Hagen of Feilding on Morning Report yesterday, who said the Welcome Home Loan helped his family to get out of the rent trap and enabled them to buy a 3-bedroomed home. He stated: “One of the great things is that we feel we are paying into something that is an asset for us… No one can sell the house out from underneath us.” I also have comments from the National housing spokesperson, Mr Phil Heatley, who said he would scrap the scheme. National would give its leader, Don Brash, a $95-a-week tax cut by destroying the homeownership dreams of lower-income Kiwi families and throwing 1,600 families out of their houses.

Sue Bradford: Has the Government investigated whether a capital gains tax on property other than the family home would help to reduce speculation in housing and make first homes more affordable for many?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That matter is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

John Key: Does the Minister really think $1,000 a year—the contribution the Government is putting up under its KiwiSaver scheme—will make a meaningful impact on allowing young New Zealanders to buy a home; if he really does think $1,000 a year will make a meaningful difference, has he been to Auckland recently?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I know the member has stated publicly that he does not want any State houses in his electorate, for his own political purposes. I say that, along with the KiwiSaver scheme, whereby a couple will get Crown funding of a $10,000 grant, as I have said, we are also investigating a shared equity scheme. Officials are also advising Ministers on raising the 100 percent cap to reflect the current national lower-quartile mean house price. One of the reasons the lower targets are there is that house prices have increased; that is a fact.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister advise us whether—from constituents or others—he has found people who believe that $20 a week does make a difference, despite what John Key has just told us?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I can certainly confirm that. I can also confirm that there are 350,000 Kiwi families out there today—three in four families in fact—getting on average $88 a week from this Government. That is better than the $10 a week most Kiwis would have received under the National Party’s tax cut, in which Don Brash, of course, would have had a take-home pay increase of 95 bucks a week.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Would the Minister be prepared, now that the Government has replenished the stocks of State housing, to consider the reintroduction of the abolished rent-to-buy scheme to assist Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants into homeownership?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I can say this Government has no plans whatsoever to sell State houses, unlike the previous National Government, which sold 13,000 State houses—two-thirds of which went to developers. [Interruption] I also ask whether the person interjecting—Gerry Brownlee—is prepared to agree with National’s housing spokesperson, Phil Heatley, and to go and tell the 88 recipients of the Welcome Home Loans package in his electorate that National is prepared to scrap it and pull the rug out from under those people?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to let that member know there are not 88,000 in my constituency.

Madam SPEAKER: That was not a point of order. The Minister said “88”, as I heard him.

Terrorism—Border Control

3. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Police: Does the consolidated list of designated terrorist entities maintained by the New Zealand Police contain all of the terrorist entities listed in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s consolidated list, as asserted by assistant commissioner Jon White yesterday; if not, how many more entities are listed by Australia but not by New Zealand?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): No, it does not, and Assistant Police Commissioner White did not assert that all terrorist entities on the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s consolidated list were contained in the New Zealand - designated list.

Hon Murray McCully: Does she accept as factual the unanimous report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to this Parliament in relation to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 that states: “The Government has not yet used section 22 to designate any terrorist individual or group that is not included on the UN list … By comparison, Australia has listed approximately 88 terrorist individuals or groups under UNSCR 1373 …”; if so, why did she tell the House yesterday: “there are not 88 terrorists on an Australian list.”?

Hon ANNETTE KING: First of all, I accept the select committee’s report, and I also accept that the same report went on to state that New Zealand does things differently from other countries in relation to designating terrorists under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373. I accept that we do things differently—

John Key: That is wrong.

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I will not accept that it is wrong. Let me get to the crux of what this whole matter has been about. The member Mr McCully went on Morning Report and referred to “the list of 88”. Mr White said he was not aware of those figures. Mr White did not know what figures Mr McCully was using. Mr White went on to say that he was referring to a list of terrorist entities designated under the Australian criminal code. That is the Attorney-General’s list. There is not on the website a list that states that “these are the 88”, as that member said.

Hon Murray McCully: Would the Minister have expected Assistant Police Commissioner White, as the Government’s primary adviser in relation to the Terrorism Suppression Act, to have read the select committee report on the Terrorism Suppression Act; can she tell the House why he did not read it and why, therefore, he did not know about the Australian list?

Hon ANNETTE KING: That member is making assumptions about Assistant Police Commissioner White, which I refute. Assistant Police Commissioner White is a very well-informed officer, and he is responsible for putting forward the names of those who should be designated in New Zealand—he coordinates that. He also has a lot of information around people who are acting in a way we would not want them to—that comes from international lists and intelligence. His job is to ensure, along with other agencies, that we keep New Zealand’s borders safe. I am very confident that that is what they are doing.

Hon Murray McCully: Can the Minister confirm the advice that officials gave to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that they were “finalising and implementing a process” for making section 22 designations in New Zealand; and can she explain why Australia has been designating terrorist entities under the same UN resolution since at least 2002, while New Zealand officials are still working on a process to do so?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is because we have a different Act from the Australian legislation. Our Terrorism Suppression Act requires us to use the legislation that is provided. Australia does not have the same legislation as New Zealand has. We put in place a very high test to decide who will be a terrorist under that Act. The Australians use regulations. This Parliament decided that it would not do that, so there is a high test. However, I have to say that the officials in New Zealand have been working very long and hard on these issues, and New Zealanders need to be assured that they are very much on top of them.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree, in view of her reference to a high test and because so many innocent people are detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, that we cannot trust either George Bush’s unique terrorist list or the subsidiary list of his deputy sheriff, John Howard in Australia, that we should stick to the UN list, and that we should also follow the lead of the European Parliament on Monday and vote for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Each country will do things that suit its needs. This Parliament decided that it would have a particular Act that takes a different approach from legislation in other countries. But at the end of the day the outcome is the same. We are determined to have safe borders for New Zealand. We use international lists, we use intelligence, and we use our contacts with like-minded countries to ensure that we have a lot of information that I am sure Dr Brash knows a lot about, but that we do not make a song and dance about because we certainly do not want to be telling terrorists what work we are doing.

Hon Murray McCully: Does the Minister wish to revise her statement to the House yesterday: “Assistant Police Commissioner White knows exactly what he is talking about.”, in light of his appearance on Radio New Zealand this morning to admit that the statements he made on the same programme a day earlier were 100 percent wrong?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, and I will tell the member why. He should go back and read the transcript. The member talked about “the list of 88”. There is no such list of 88; there are 88 names of individuals and organisations amongst a list of over 1,600 names. The member did not made that clear on the radio. The 1,600 people include those on the UN list, plus those individuals and organisations that Australia has named because they should not be financed. Under section 8 of New Zealand’s Terrorism Suppression Act, we ensure that those people who are terrorists cannot be financed. We do not list them in the same way as the Australians do, because we do it differently. The select committee report states that we do it differently. Different countries have different approaches. What that member is trying to do is to confuse a whole lot of issues. Let us remember where this started. The member tried to say that Mr Ali was a designated person. He was not designated; he is not on any designated list, anywhere. The member has tried to make a feast out of it.

Hon Murray McCully: How can New Zealanders have any confidence that this country is safe from the threat of terrorism, when the assistant commissioner of police who is responsible for counter-terrorism is an incompetent bungler who has no understanding of who is on and who is off the list of dangerous terrorists, when the Prime Minister will not front up to the House to answer questions, and when the Minister of Police is too lazy to put time into getting her head around a matter that is vital to our national security?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There is only one lazy, incompetent, useless member in this House, and that is the member over there who has just asked this question. I will tell members why. He has one purpose in mind, which is to garner a few votes for the party he belongs to. He does not care one jot about the security of New Zealand. He does not even know Assistant Police Commissioner White, I believe, because if he did he would never have said that about a very fine public servant.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a copy of the motion passed in the European Parliament on Monday, calling for the US Government to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. It is a motion that would fit nicely on our own Order Paper.

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

Aged Residential Care—Nursing Staff Collective Agreement

4. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Does he believe that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation multi-employer collective agreement has had an impact on those providing aged residential care; if so, will he be ensuring district health boards are cognisant of this when quantifying the impact with the aged residential care sector?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I accept that there is some potential for the district health board, New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and midwifery multi-employer collective agreement to impact on non-Governmental providers of health and disability services. The quantum of any impact will be determined by the outcome of negotiations between employers and employees.

Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister aware that district health boards refuse to accept that salary inequalities between district health board nurses and aged-care nurses, resulting from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation multi-employer collective agreement, are causing severe recruitment and retention problems in the aged-care sector; if so, what action does he intend to take?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: This Government has put in $23.9 million to provide for inflationary and demographic pressures in the sector. Because of the assistance that New Zealand First is giving to this Government, a further $17 million a year will be provided from 2006-07 for aged residential care services. That seems to me to be one of the most significant increases in this sector, even though I am not in any doubt that there are labour and skills shortages in it. The truth, of course, is that everyone in this House knows that the real problem facing New Zealand now is not job shortages but skills shortages, and that is another story altogether.

Sue Kedgley: Is he aware that in 2002 the then Associate Minister of Health Ruth Dyson directed that regulations relating to minimum staffing levels in aged care be made; if so, why is the Ministry of Health now backing away from that commitment and recommending that there be no regulations at all for minimum staffing levels, given that a New Zealand Nurses Organisation audit of aged-care and dementia facilities has recently found that many aged-care homes habitually staff way below the number of registered nurse hours that the indicators say are safe?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I must admit I personally find it very hard to believe that any district health board or the Ministry of Health would issue an edict that states that the staffing levels and qualifications of people looking after the elderly do not matter. If the member has such a missive, I will certainly undertake to have a look at it, and make sure the officials report to me or the Minister of Health. But I repeat that this Government is cognisant of the fact that there are difficulties in this sector. It is about to put into this sector, in combination with our colleagues in New Zealand First, somewhere around $40 million extra, which is the largest cash injection in recent memory that I am aware of.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: When will home-care workers receive the travel allowance money that Labour promised them before the election, taking into consideration the fact that the situation is so bad that on the day petrol went up by 6c a litre, one provider lost 300 staff; what is taking so long?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Of course, the Government is aware of those kinds of pressures, and, as I said, it has been putting money into this sector—both the public and the private areas. It never ceases to amaze me that day in, day out the National Party members get up in this House and ask the Government to spend more money, when they actually promised to reduce the revenue that provides the Government with money to spend. When those members explain that to us, will they please put it in writing so that I can frame it and put it up in my office.

Barbara Stewart: Does the Minister perceive any contradiction between himself and his ministry acknowledging that the New Zealand Nurses Organisation multi-employer collective agreement has increased aged-care providers’ costs, and the district health boards denying that the multi-employer collective agreement has increased providers’ costs; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The truth is that delivering fair pay to public sector workers is one of the priorities of this Government, and, of course, other sectors—

Hon Members: What about the others?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: We are the employer in the public sector. Members opposite should go out and tell all the private sector employers that they are in touch with that they intend to increase the pay and conditions of their workers, if they want to do that. This Government is responsible for public sector workers. As a good employer, we have provided that, and we hope that other sectors will follow our lead. But the member should remember that the Government has already committed over $2.2 billion to the primary health sector, and $40 million to the sector that I have just talked about, and that over the last 6 years, since we have been in Government, $6 billion a year extra has gone into the health system, which could never have been managed if the National Party’s tax cut promise had been realised.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a Ministry of Health report that has a recommendation that the Government not proceed with setting regulations for minimum staffing levels for aged care.

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

Wage and Salary Increases—Finance, Minister's Statement

5. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “We cannot afford large wage and salary increases across the board.”; if so, what level of wage and salary increases does he consider would be affordable?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes, in responding to a question yesterday from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. But it is just under 22 years since we had a Minister of Finance who thought it was appropriate that he set the actual levels of wage and salary increases across the economy. He was, of course, a National Government Minister of Finance.

John Key: Does he agree that although oil prices may be beyond his control, he does in fact have it within his power to improve after-tax wages by championing fair and across-the-board tax cuts, or is he happy to sit back and see an overwhelming number of New Zealand workers take a real drop in their income?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is wonderful to respond to that question, when this afternoon we have had at least three National Party members call for large increases in Government spending, and when we have had a member say that a $1,000-a-year grant to assist with housing is not worthwhile and that $10 a week is somehow worth more than $1,000 a year.

John Key: Is he aware that people earning the average pre-tax weekly income of $826 would have seen, under National’s proposed tax plan, their personal after-tax income increase by 4.2 percent—an increase well above the inflation rate?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What I am aware of is that the cost of that was $2.2 billion a year, which is more than the cost of the entire primary health care system to the Government, plus the cost of all elective surgery. I am aware that junior doctors have had an 11 percent pay increase, on average, simply from the interest-free student loan policy, which Mr Key opposes.

John Key: Does he stand by his statement, made in February, that he will be taking a clear line with State sector CEOs on labour costs; if so, does he think he has been at all successful in doing that, given that at least one Government department—Te Puni Kōkiri—has publicly announced that it plans to pay more attractive salaries?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said yesterday in response to the repeated questioning from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who was very worried about inflationary pressures, indeed we still have to ensure we do not lose highly skilled staff. On that basis, of course, we could afford a reduction in income for the members of the Opposition.

John Key: Does he consider that private sector employees may find it just a little rich to be told that wage increases are unaffordable when, under this Government’s big-spending policies, wage growth in the public sector has been higher than wage growth in the private sector in every single quarter since 2001?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I was not referring specifically to the private sector, but I wonder whether the member took the earplugs out this afternoon as his colleagues Mr Ryall, Dr Coleman, and at least one other member called for large pay increases for public sector workers. National Party people say that as long as people go on strike, they will give them whatever they want. What a Government that would make!

John Key: What contact has he had with the unions on the issue of wage increases and what has he said to them, given that the Council of Trade Unions says that his call for wage restraint is “unfortunate and misplaced” and the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, which is affiliated to the Labour Party, says that calls for wage restraint are out of order and that it is pressing on with its campaign to lift real wages in New Zealand; does he think they will be supporting National in their drive for tax cuts, given that National will be delivering a 4.2 percent wage increase if they do support it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is interesting to note that the member continues to argue that we can afford whatever number of tax cuts one would like to think up with no impact upon social services and no impact upon Government borrowing, no matter what the economy does and no matter what the Government has done in the meantime. But for his information, I advise that I met the Council of Trade Unions this week. It has no intention of supporting Mr Key or anybody else in the National Party.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker; tēnā tātou te Whare. On this International Justice for Cleaners Day, which recognises the below-poverty wages earned by cleaners, what level of wage and salary increase would the Minister support for cleaners around the country, including the people who clean our offices here in Parliament?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not interfere, as did a previous National Minister of Finance, in individual wage settlements. Those are a matter between employers and employees. But in responding to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who was so worried yesterday about inflation, I repeat for the benefit of National members that large, across-the-board wage increases are inflationary in the current situation. If those members were a responsible Opposition, they would not be winding up those kinds of increases.

Arms Trade Treaty—New Zealand Support

6. DIANNE YATES (Labour) to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What is the Government’s response, if any, to the Million Faces petition delivered to him today by Amnesty International, Oxfam, and the International Action Network on Small Arms, which calls for New Zealand support for a draft arms trade treaty?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): I had the privilege this afternoon to receive that petition, on the forecourt of Parliament, together with the member and a number of other parliamentarians. The Government very much welcomes the petition, which supports our view that there needs to be an international treaty to combat the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons. In fact, we have spoken out publicly in support of that before at the UN and at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and we will again promote it at the First Review Conference of the UN Programme of Action for Small Arms and Light Weapons, which starts in New York in about 10 days’ time.

Dianne Yates: Why does the Government believe that taking action in this area is important, and what evidence is there of the seriousness of the problem?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The evidence suggests that each year up to an estimated 400,000 to 500,000 people die as a result of small arms. Illicit trade into countries that are suffering from internal conflict is a key part of that problem. Kofi Annan has stated that in terms of the carnage small arms cause, they could well be described as weapons of mass destruction. With the conflict situations that New Zealand soldiers are dealing with right now in Timor-Leste and in the Solomons, I think that the importance we are placing on the issue of controls on the illicit trade in small arms is well justified.

Dianne Yates: What would an arms trade treaty do?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The concept is at an early stage, but it is a response to the fact that, unlike weapons of mass destruction, there is no treaty that governs the transfer of conventional weapons, despite the widespread havoc they are causing. As a first step, New Zealand is working with other Governments on a transfer control initiative, for a discussion at the UN review conference. That will try to put in place a mechanism that allows States to screen legal transfers of small arms, based on undesirable end-users. For example, legal sales of arms to countries that were major abusers of human rights would not be allowed.

Electricity Supply—Cabinet Policy Committee

7. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Energy: Did the report to the Cabinet Policy Committee yesterday identify why power to 700,000 people could be disrupted for hours by the failure of a single earth wire, and when will this vulnerability be fixed?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Energy): Yes, and the report we will receive next week may be able to give a time-scale on reducing the vulnerability.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did Helen Clark tell Parliament yesterday that “Transpower has been investing, on average, around $300 million per annum in its system.”, when the annual report for Transpower shows capital expenditure of $61 million in 2000, $65 million in 2001, $89 million in 2002, $104 million in 2003, $93 million in 2004, and $106 million in 2005—making the Prime Minister’s statement grossly incorrect?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am not sure which years the Prime Minister was averaging, but I can give the member an assurance that current levels of capital investment are about 500 percent more than the level approved during the time he was a Minister.

Maryan Street: Has the Minister seen any evidence that previous Government policy may have led to under-investment in the national grid?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes. Under the previous approach, in which the market was supposed to sort everything out, investment in the national grid fell as low as $52 million a year. By contrast, this Government is spending about $300 million per year on improvements to the national grid. This year it is spending about $300 million a year on capital expenditure, and I expect Transpower to spend substantially more in the future because of the need to do more catch-up work as a result of gross underexpenditure following the negligent approach Nick Smith and his colleagues led.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the Government stated that Transpower has no issues with the Resource Management Act because the Government addressed all of its issues in the amendment bill last year, when Transpower in its submission to the select committee identified eight areas where the bill fell short of the changes that were needed to ensure it could provide a secure national grid; now, having had Monday’s massive blackout, will the Government reconsider those proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act from Transpower?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No amendment to the Resource Management Act will stop an attachment to a pole coming loose.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Government today issue a press statement saying that Transpower had no issue with the Resource Management Act now, when it was specifically mentioned by its chief executive officer, Ralph Craven, in a presentation to the Energy Law Association on 10 November last year, where he said that the time and cost associated with resource consents was impacting on getting timely upgrades, when in March this year, at the Commerce Committee, Transpower again raised the issue of the Resource Management Act, and when on Monday after the blackout its spokesperson specifically raised the issue of the Resource Management Act; is the only reason Transpower is not saying the same today that the bully-boys in the Government who are squirming have sat on Transpower and told it that it should not tell the truth any more?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: We do not take that approach to State-owned enterprise chief executive officers. It may have been the approach that occurred previously. I can give an absolute assurance that I have made no such threat and, in fact, I have not spoken to Dr Craven since the events of Monday.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why, in response to parliamentary written questions about a Transpower failure affecting 30,000 Nelson households on 25 March, in which I asked what caused the failure, what investigation would be undertaken, and what steps would be taken to fix the problems, did he duck all those questions, saying it was “just an operational matter”, and can he today assure the House he will not use the same technique to deny the public and the Parliament the information on what went wrong on Monday?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: In fact, it appears a wire did not break; it appears the thing the wire was attached to broke. That is clear; that is undeniable. We will have some more reports next week that the member can salivate over.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why, in February last year, when the chief executive of New Zealand’s largest electricity company, Dr Keith Turner, warned the Government very explicitly that the transmission system was in trouble—saying that the grid was overworked, that lines could not be taken out for servicing, and that this was unheard of in the developed world—did the Minister not seek an urgent report and action plan to address those shortcomings, given that he was the Minister of Energy responsible for the sector at that time?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Because I was aware of a massive increase in the investment in the transmission system between that year and this year—in fact, more than a doubling.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the annual reports from 1995 to 2005 showing the capital investment programme of Transpower, making a lie of both the Prime Minister’s claims and those of the Minister with regard to the changes in investment.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document, but the member, in seeking leave, said that the Prime Minister and a Minister had lied—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I will say they were incorrect. I change it to “incorrect”.

Madam SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise for his comment about a lie.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I seek simply to say that the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy were incorrect with regard to the capital expenditure of Transpower.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the news release today from the Government that states that Transpower had no difficulties with the Resource Management Act after it had been amended, and Transpower’s own submission to the select committee, which tells a very different story.

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

Road Toll—Initiatives

8. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Transport: What initiatives are being taken aimed at further reducing the road toll?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): On Monday I announced a consultation programme, See You There—Safe As, which aims to seek the ideas of communities and stakeholders on ways of reducing the road toll that would have broad community support. The programme has a specific focus on the disproportionate risk faced by young and novice drivers. In order to make further substantive road safety gains, we need to engage with communities and enlist community support. This is the start of an ongoing process of improving the dialogue between communities and those developing and deciding policy in these areas.

Hon Mark Gosche: Can the Minister outline what progress this Government has already made in reducing the road toll?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes. The road toll is coming down, but we cannot afford to be complacent. Since 1999 the road toll has dropped by approximately 30 percent. In addition, the number of deaths per 10,000 vehicles now stands at 1.2, down from two in 1999, and is heading towards a target of 1.1 by 2010. But we have to do more. Our young people are at risk, particularly those between the ages of 0 and 14. The greatest cause of death of children in New Zealand is road accidents.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister expect that by significantly increasing the funding for roading, as the Government is at long last prepared to do, the road toll will be further reduced?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, I think it all helps, not only in terms of road construction but also in terms of the road safety programme.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that the road toll would further decrease if greater use was made of coastal shipping to move freight; if so, will she be supportive of implementing favourable measures to encourage the development of our shipping; if not, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I think we need to utilise all our transport routes to move freight around New Zealand: road, rail, and sea. I have not considered the proposal put forward by the member. He may have further ideas on it.

Significant Community Based Projects Fund—Karori Wildlife Sanctuary

9. MARK BLUMSKY (National) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when she reportedly said that the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary was the sort of project that the Significant Community Based Projects Fund aimed to help; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes.

Mark Blumsky: Does he agree that the sanctuary had proved itself against the fund’s criterion of securing commitments for significant community support towards the project cost from funding sources other than central government, given that it had secured an $8 million interest-free loan from the Wellington City Council, and only after extensive community consultation?

Hon RICK BARKER: Yes, it is true that the project for a visitors centre and car-park at the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary did meet many of the criteria set down by Cabinet. There were some concerns, however, about some financial aspects of the project.

Russell Fairbrother: What does the Significant Community Based Projects Fund aim to do, and how much has been distributed this year?

Hon RICK BARKER: The Significant Community Based Projects Fund aims to help those significant community projects that have been stifled of capital over a number of years. It is to be a funder of last resort, and a number of very, very good projects have been funded. An amount of $19.3 million has been allocated, including to the velodrome in Invercargill, the Chinese gardens in Dunedin, the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust in Waikato, the Ōparara Valley project on the West Coast, and Auckland’s agricultural and pastoral showgrounds. Those are excellent, deserving projects and won support in their own right.

Madam SPEAKER: Just keep the level of chat down, so we can hear the member.

Hon Peter Dunne: How does the Minister reconcile his officials’ advice to the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary—that its application had been declined because it had failed to secure significant community support for the project from sources other than central government—with the fact that at the time that the Wellington City Council approved a loan of $8 million to the sanctuary in June 2005, those same officials had advised the sanctuary that the loan would not pose a problem with its application, and also with the fact that of the $15 million previously raised by the sanctuary, 64 percent had come from the community at large, and is he therefore now prepared to request his officials to review their decision?

Hon RICK BARKER: The application was not for the sanctuary itself; the application was for a visitors centre—[Interruption]

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sitting not very far from the Minister, but with the noise I cannot hear a word he is saying.

Madam SPEAKER: I sympathise with the member.

Hon RICK BARKER: The first point I would make in answer to the member’s question is that the application was for a visitors centre and car-park, not for the sanctuary itself. Secondly, the officials did acknowledge to the group that the loan was there and told it that it was not a problem, but that is not to say there were not other financial concerns about the entire project. There were concerns, and they have been outlined to the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary.

Mark Blumsky: How much confidence does he have in the grants process, when the Wellington City Council was absolutely certain, in giving the $8 million interest-free loan, that the loan would be repaid, whereas his officials sat in their office and, without consulting the council and without consulting the sanctuary, deemed that the loan could not be repaid, and used that as one of the main reasons for declining the grant?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am confident about the process. The criteria were clear and the process was transparent. Every application had to go through exactly the same process. They were all judged fairly and equally. I have to say to the member that it was not just the loan that was at issue; the officials have explained to the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary their concerns. I make the point to the member that another funding round is coming up next year.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a slight dilemma, in that I have used up my party’s allocation of supplementary questions for today but the Minister has failed to answer the first part of my original supplementary question, which was whether he would order a review. I cannot ask a second supplementary question, but he did not answer the first part, so perhaps he could be invited to comment on it now.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to add to his answer.

Hon RICK BARKER: Is this a supplementary question, Madam Speaker?

Madam SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] I have in the past ruled in the same way when members have not phrased their questions properly—and, yes, Mr Hide, I remember quite clearly that once I gave you the benefit. Would the Hon Rick Barker please add to his answer.

Hon RICK BARKER: No.

Mark Blumsky: Can the Minister understand why his colleague the Hon Marian Hobbs found the decision “bloody hurtful”, when the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary clearly met a different criterion of securing demonstrated community support, given that it attracted over $13 million in community funding, that 350 volunteers had put in over 250,000 hours of volunteer work, and that the sanctuary has 5,500 members—yet his department deemed that it did not have enough community support?

Hon RICK BARKER: What the applications to this fund have shown is that there is an enormous amount of energy out there in New Zealand for significant projects. All the projects we had to turn down were deserving, and it is very difficult to judge one as being better than another. I am well aware of the outstanding work being done by the Karori sanctuary, but I would say that it is rather ironic that criticism based on public concern comes from that member, as 70 percent of Wellingtonians said they opposed the sale of Wellington Airport, yet that member, Mark Blumsky, sold it.

Mark Blumsky: Can the Minister understand the statement made by his colleague the Hon Marian Hobbs that she had huge doubts about the decision and about the process around the decision, when she and many others cannot see the logic behind criteria that result in the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary’s application for $6 million of taxpayers’ money failing, but that would have approved an application from it for $8 million of taxpayers’ money?

Hon RICK BARKER: The member’s last statement is simply not correct. I can understand the frustration felt by Marian Hobbs, but I am confident that the process was clear, transparent, and robust.

Hon Jim Anderton: Can the Minister tell the House when the grant policy for significant community activity and events was put in place, and was it in place when the National Government was last in power?

Hon RICK BARKER: I can say that this is a fantastic policy that shows Labour’s commitment to strengthening communities. We are prepared to invest in communities, unlike the National Party. This is a Labour process, and if National has its way, which it will not, and imposes huge tax cuts, then all these sorts of activities will be gone—gone well before lunchtime.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We notice that the Labour whips have indicated to Marian Hobbs that there are not enough supplementary questions left on their side for her to ask a question. If you were to recognise her, you could take the question off us.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It goes on the list of “not points of order” that I am keeping at the moment.

Electricity Supply—Auckland Issues, Minister

10. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: What responsibility does she accept, if any, for Monday’s power blackout in Auckland, and what steps is she taking to ensure it does not happen again?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues): Like the Minister of Energy, I am deeply concerned about the power outage and I will keeping in close contact with the report he is seeking, to make sure that this matter is fully investigated and that all possible steps are taken to ensure that it does not happen again.

Rodney Hide: As the Minister responsible for Auckland issues, what issues exactly does she take responsibility for?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: This Government is determined that Auckland will have infrastructure so that it can be internationally competitive. I do not intend to duplicate the work of other Ministers, but to enable Auckland’s messages to get through to Wellington and to work with this Government, which wants to support Auckland.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister’s title is “Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues”. It is not an unreasonable question in the House to ask her what issues she is actually responsible for. We just heard the Minister completely miss the question, not address the question, and leave the House wondering why we have this Minister. I say to you, Madam Speaker, that if we are to have a question time, Ministers do have to address the question. I cannot imagine a question more to the heart of the business of this Minister than simply asking her what issues she is responsible for, because that is her title.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question as to how she saw the responsibility, so the question has been addressed.

H V Ross Robertson: What is the Government spending on the national grid in the Auckland area, and how does that compare with spending under a previous administration?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: This year in the Auckland area we spent $83 million on grid projects. In comparison, the previous National Government spent just $52 million on the entire national grid in the 1998-99 year.

Paula Bennett: Does the Minister remember producing a glossy booklet entitled Growing an Innovative Auckland in 2003 with her mate the Prime Minister, which states: “We’re carefully managing electricity and energy supply risks.” and if she does remember, is the Government going to take responsibility for Monday’s power blackout or is 7 years not long enough and was it just another of her vacuous promises?

Madam SPEAKER: The Hon Judith Tizard. [Interruption] I ask the member to be seated until the barracking has stopped. As members know, interjections are permitted; barracking is not. Would the member now please address the question.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it is important to note for the record that the barracking was from Government MPs who, I think, were supporting Paula Bennett in her question.

Madam SPEAKER: Another non - point of order.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: The booklet was put out to explain to Aucklanders what this Government is doing, and I am happy to table this document later. It describes the cross-Government work on the strategic direction of Auckland, sustainable development, infrastructure particularly relating to transport, and other infrastructure including energy, social policy, economic development, and regional and local governance. This Government is extremely busy on working for Auckland and is starting to deliver infrastructure that will make Auckland internationally sustainable.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Did the Minister find any time within her onerous schedule, or any respite in her back-breaking workload over the last 7 years, to advise the Minister of Transport that building the biggest shopping complex in the country at Sylvia Park, without building any extra roading, was a recipe for chaos; and if so, could this House have a copy of those reports?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: The Minister of Transport did not, of course, build the shopping complex. But the situation at Sylvia Park does demonstrate how the Ministry of Transport and Transit New Zealand need to work with developers rather than just having to deal with the consequences of developments. Otherwise, taxpayers—particularly petrol-tax payers—bear all the costs.

Rodney Hide: In light of Auckland’s recent power blackout, can the Minister give an assurance to the House that there are no known risks the Government is aware of to other major Auckland infrastructure such as that for gas and water supply; if not what are those risks?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: No Government and no Minister can give that assurance. The idea that there are no risks—

Hon Maurice Williamson: What do you do?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I do not have a magic wand.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the House please settle.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am well aware that the Minister does not have a magic wand, but my question was about whether the Minister was aware of any known risks to Auckland’s gas and water supply. Once again, this Minister chose not to address the question.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Of course there are known risks.

Rodney Hide: Now she wants to try to speak on a point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps we could ask the Minister to add to her answer.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: Of course there are known risks. How can any system not have known risks? What this Government is doing is undertaking to evaluate those risks and try to avoid them causing a collapse of Auckland’s power or gas system, as happened under the National Government for 5 weeks.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was excellent because we got the first part—

Madam SPEAKER: I ask you, Mr Hide, to make it a point of order and not a statement.

Rodney Hide: I am going to, because we are making progress. We got the first part of the question addressed; now we need the second part of the question to be addressed. That is: what are they?

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, the question has been addressed.

Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a booklet that states: “We’re carefully managing electricity and energy supply risks.” That was written by the Minister in 2003.

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

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Does the Minister take an interest in occupational safety and health issues in Auckland; if so, what is she going to do to stop attractive young women being dropped head first by podgy middle-aged men who have lost their grip?

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a legitimate question. Can we move now to [Interruption] Order, please. We have a point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I feel obliged to tell the House that I have not lost my grip. I was asked to appear on Dancing with the Stars with Beatrice, but the Earthquake Commission had a few objections.

What reports has the Minister received on known risks to infrastructure in Auckland?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: The Minister of Energy has received reports on this issue. I have discussed these with him—

Hon Member: What about you? What are you?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I am part of the Government. Actually we work quite collaboratively. I would like to point out that having been a member of the Auckland Electric Power Board from 1977 to 1983, I have seen innumerable reports about the risk to Auckland infrastructure. Unlike members opposite, I take them seriously.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister confirm that the 12 known risks for which Transpower sought approval and funding consent in Auckland last year have all been approved, and work is scheduled to fix all of them?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: I am delighted to confirm that.

Paula Bennett: I seek leave to table a document prepared by Treasury, which is a stocktake of Auckland policy work streams as at 15 June 2006—a monthly report.

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

Māori Purposes Bill—Responsible Minister

11. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Is he the Minister responsible for the Māori Purposes Bill introduced on Tuesday, 13 June?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes.

Gerry Brownlee: What are the technicalities being rectified by the amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: There are several technicalities in relation to the retrospective decisions that need to be made in relation to a whole lot of other issues, and the member knows that.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I knew, I would not have asked the question. What about an answer?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: If the member is now implying it is an undertaking of the Opposition members that they never ask questions if they know the answer to them, that is going to be a very interesting matter to consider in the future. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I ask members to settle down. We are nearly through question time, but I cannot hear members if they keep laughing and chattering amongst themselves. We have a point of order where I think Mr Brownlee is asking that the Minister further addresses the question. Would the Minister like to further address it.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Certainly the bill is about time limits on historical claims, and that party knows about that. It is about retrospective validation of court orders. It is about changes to the Māori Land Court, and changes to the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. I am sorry that the member did not know that.

Dave Hereora: What is the objective of the Māori Purposes Bill?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Māori Purposes Bill is an omnibus piece of legislation. It provides tidy-up amendments that do not warrant enactment as separate amendment Acts. It can also validate and authorise matters of a private or public nature relating to Māori.

Gerry Brownlee: How many cases did Judge Norman F Smith make decisions on or preside over without proper delegation or a warrant, and why is he so keen to validate his decisions against the rights of those who lost those cases?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Judge Smith is an experienced judge, and it is recognised that he is able to make those decisions. There were 88 decisions in that sense, and I remind that member very clearly that this issue is not just of this year. This is not the first time that legislation has been introduced to validate decisions made in the Māori Land Court. I understand that the National Government introduced legislation in 1991 to validate the decisions of deputy judge Ashley McHugh. Does the member remember that?

Gerry Brownlee: Does he agree that a court, with no right or warrant to do so, can or should deprive people of their customary or ancestral rights; if not, why is he advancing retrospective legislation to do just that?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It is for exactly the same reason that you lot did.

Madam SPEAKER: The Speaker is not involved in this matter. Would the Minister rephrase his answer and maybe add to it a little.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: As those members do understand past Government history, I say it is for the same reason that the National Government did that in the 1990s. They should ask John Luxton, or ask Mr Kidd. I was going to say they should ask Mr Tau Henare, but he did not do much.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question related to the Minister’s own view of things. For him to simply turn round and say that last time we were in Government we operated a similar shonky sort of policy that had to be fixed up after we went out of office is not acceptable. I want to know whether he thinks it is right and fair for people to have had their rights deprived by a court that had no authority.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: This Government is about putting wrongs right. It certainly is about changes in the court, and ensuring that the decisions are put beyond doubt and not left there wobbling, like you people left them.

Gerry Brownlee: Does he have confidence in the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court now that he knows the chief judge has not even understood the law that gives his court the authority to act?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: This issue goes back some time. Yes.

Gerry Brownlee: Can he tell the House why it is a necessity in this day and age to put an extra six judges into the Māori Land Court, and can he be confident that the current chief justice of the Māori Land Court, now that his appalling record of administration is exposed, is capable of handling such a large court?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It has been a pleasure, certainly, to be part of this Government over the last 6 years. The Māori fisheries legislation and the settlement of the aquacultural issues means that there is a lot more work. If those people understood the better side of the economy—that Māori are taking their rightful place—they would know that is what this business is about. There is a lot more business about us going forward, not backwards or downwards as that party would want us to be.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That question was entirely about the extra judges, and the confidence that the Minister may have in the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court. He may want to say that regular appearances in court by Māori are part of the progress this Government wants for them, but that does not actually address the question that was asked of him.

Madam SPEAKER: Could the Minister amplify his answer, please.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I have the utmost faith in the judiciary of this country—as a New Zealander, but firstly as a Māori.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Given that the Māori Purposes Bill seeks to validate decisions made without legal mandate, does that mean the Minister supports the Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act of 1893, which Moana Jackson has described as “validating the illegal acquisition of Māori land”; if so, why?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: This Government is about putting things right. Certainly, I respect a lot of the things that Moana—[Interruption] I am so sorry that we have some trolls in this House; they are in the wrong water. Certainly, there needs to be some correction in these courts. Some people want to lock Māoridom and believe that Māori are not there, and we are not about that. I do not agree with Moana’s point at the end of where he is.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Will the Minister carry out extensive consultation with whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations, given that this bill has a significant impact on Māori, or will that be considered a tedious and tiresome exercise?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Yes, and I agree with Dr Sharples when he said in August 2005: “It is in the country’s best interests that we move forward in these claims and the issues in this proposed bill, and it is settled as fast as possible to remove the negativity.”

Biotechnology Industry—Development

12. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: What steps is the Government taking to support the development of the New Zealand biotechnology industry?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): I am advised that biotechnology was worth $811 million to New Zealand in 2004-05, up from $475 million in 2002-03, and that the sector employs over 2,400 people. Some of the highlights emerging from the biotechnology industry in recent months have included a possible treatment for Parkinson’s disease, a possible treatment for diabetic heart failure, and diagnostic tools to test for bladder cancer and to predict the risk of colon cancer. It is almost universally accepted that biotechnology will be an essential part of creating a dynamic, knowledge-based economy. I am heartened by the warm welcome we have received around the country for the $1.2 million that our Government is providing in support of this vital and forward-looking industry. I also welcome the fact that there has been a total absence of criticism from members opposite, which is something that I consider comes pretty close to support.

Bills

Local Government Law Reform Bill

Second Reading

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to refine the legislative framework within which local authorities operate in order to reflect recent policy decisions, clarify existing provisions, and improve the effectiveness of regulatory tools.

I first acknowledge the hard work of the Local Government and Environment Committee, in hearing submissions and preparing the report we are discussing today, within a relatively tight time frame, and I also acknowledge the excellent work of the officials from the Department of Internal Affairs local government policy group, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Ministry of Transport. The time frame was driven by the provisions of Part 7 of the bill, which deal with two anomalies in the Rates Rebate Act 1973. Those amendments must be passed by 1 July in order to ensure that those eligible for assistance are able to receive their full entitlement, as intended.

From 1 July there will be a significant increase in the number of people eligible for assistance to pay their rates. In most cases, the income threshold under which people will be eligible for a full rebate is to increase from $7,400 to $20,000. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr Burton. There really is just far too much chatter. Would those people who are standing up please move and talk to others outside the Chamber. Please be seated, everyone.

Hon MARK BURTON: I am sure members will want to hear this part; it is of great interest to their constituents. In addition, there will be increases in the maximum rebate from $200 to $500, and the additional income allowance for each dependant is to increase from $156 to $500. Therefore, whereas in the 2004-05 rating year fewer than 4,000 people actually received a rebate, members will be thrilled to know that up to 300,000 New Zealanders will be eligible for a rates rebate as a result of these changes. These changes will have a positive impact on many New Zealanders, particularly on older people and others on low incomes. I am pleased to note this part of the bill has been reported back without amendment. A number of complex issues were raised in submissions; they will be the subject of further policy work.

Much of this bill is technical in nature, reflecting the robust nature of the policy and legislative process this Labour-led Government ran in 2001-02. That process led to the rewriting of the three main pieces of local government law: the Local Government Act, the Local Government (Rating) Act, and the Local Electoral Act.

The committee has responded to the 49 submissions it received by recommending several changes to the bill as introduced. I will now address some of the more important of them.

Part 1 deals with amendments to the Dog Control Act. A number of changes were introduced in this bill in order to help to further improve public safety around dogs. Those changes include clarifying that dangerous and menacing dog classifications apply across New Zealand, which provides enhanced abilities for dog control officers to seize dogs that have attacked; dealing with disqualification; and increasing the penalties for irresponsible dog owners. The Government does not agree with the amendments made by the select committee that would limit microchipping to only dangerous or menacing dogs. Microchipping is not—and never was—intended to be the complete answer to dangerous dog issues. A microchip cannot stop a dog from biting or mauling, nor can a microchip stop a dog from behaving in a menacing fashion. The value of microchipping, however, is as a simple and permanent way of identifying dogs and linking them to a particular owner. That makes it easier for councils to keep track of lost, stolen, roaming, menacing, or dangerous dogs.

The committee has amended Part 2 on litter control, to allow local authorities to retain an infringement fee where a litter control officer appointed by the local authority issues the notice. I concur with the committee’s concerns about littering and the unlawful dumping of waste, and I concur that a local authority should be able to retain the infringement fees to help offset the costs associated with enforcement, without recourse to the courts.

Part 4 makes amendments to the Local Government Act 2002. The committee has reported this part of the bill with several additional amendments. The committee has recommended that council-controlled organisations formed in the last half of a financial year should not be required to complete a statement of intent for the balance of that year. The committee recommended clarifying the scope of local authority powers to donate money and resources outside of the district, to include donations of money and resources to support international initiatives that share information and experience. The committee also recommended clarifying the consultation requirements around the disposal of parks, in recognition of the special nature of parks as a source of recreation and visual amenity for all. The committee has made amendments to clarify that development contributions levied under the Local Government Act 2002 are not available to be challenged through the processes under the Resource Management Act 1991 or the Building Act 2004. It was always the intent of the legislation that like should be treated as like, and that all challenges in respect of funding mechanisms should be treated in the same way.

Most members will be aware that local authorities are in the final steps of adopting long-term council community plans for the period from 2006 through to 2016. Some of the changes in this bill would require further information to be included in those plans, though most of them will be finalised in the coming days and weeks. I note that the committee has addressed this issue by including transitional provisions that clarify that those plans do not have to immediately incorporate amendments that are otherwise required by this bill. Rather, local authorities will be expected to attend to such matters when they first amend their new plans, and I think that makes sense.

Part 6 contains amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. In particular, the bill empowers local authorities to offer ratepayers the option of making a lump-sum contribution towards the cost of a capital project. The provisions are quite detailed, but, as the committee notes, that is necessary in order to provide the clarity and certainty that local authorities were looking for. A lump-sum contribution is a contract, in effect, between a ratepayer and the local authority. The ratepayer undertakes to pay the contribution, and the local authority commits to funding the project in a certain way. Those decisions are binding on the future ratepayers of the relevant land, and on future councils. All parties must be very clear about that and have full information on the costs, benefits, and risks involved in taking up an option to make a contribution.

Part 8 contains amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. The select committee has confirmed this part of the bill as introduced, clarifying that local authorities and Transit New Zealand may enforce bus and transit lanes, and that the police may issue infringement notices where a third party, such as a local authority or Transit New Zealand, provides the police with evidence of a breach. The committee also confirms that the Minister of Finance has discretion as to the amount of the infringement fee that an enforcement authority may retain for infringement of the rules relating to special vehicle lanes.

The committee has also noted that the amendments contained in Part 8 expire on 1 July 2009. That is the expiry date of the Transport Act 1962, which contains local authorities’ traffic enforcement powers. The timing of the expiry will allow the transit lane enforcement powers under the Land Transport Act 1998, and the traffic enforcement powers under the Transport Act 1962, to be reviewed at the same time.

In the course of deliberating on Part 8, relating to offences in special vehicle lanes, the committee received requests from three councils to validate infringement notices issued for those offences in the period from August 2002 to December 2005. Validation in those circumstances would undermine the principles of natural justice.

It is highly desirable that this bill be enacted before 1 July, so that those who need and deserve support under the expanded rates rebate scheme are able to receive the full level of entitlement. I trust members will bear that in mind during the coming debate.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): The Local Government Law Reform Bill is typical of a lazy, hopeless, tired, out-of-touch Government that has lost its way. The bill absolutely reflects a Minister who has no sense of what is happening in local government in New Zealand. The tragedy with this bill is that it touches on little, minor details, when local government is crying out for the need to have a Government that gives leadership and lets local government do things that the people want. And this Minister comes up with a few dribs and drabs! It is an absolute disgrace.

Local government authorities around this country are finally waking up to what this Government is doing to it. When the Government started out, it promised local government so much. It promised to allow local authorities to make decisions on behalf of their communities. It gave local government a thing called “the power of general competence”. Ever since then, local government has become more and more bogged down in compliance, rules, regulations, and costs that have been imposed on them by this Government, this Minister, and previous Ministers of this Helen Clark - led, socialist Labour Government.

I have to say that local authorities are at last waking up across the country. We are beginning to see local authorities starting to tell their ratepayers why the rates local authorities impose on them are going up so much, and it is absolutely sheeted home to this Government that it is continuing to pass responsibilities, costs, and laws that local government has to enforce. This Government is being found out. It knows that, at last—and it has taken a while—local government is starting to expose this Government for what it is.

I now turn to two or three things in this bill that are seriously alarming. The matter of microchipping dogs I will leave to my colleagues Eric Roy and David Carter, who will talk about that matter, but I make this one point on microchipping. One thing the Minister has said is absolutely right: microchipping a dog will not stop one dog biting one person. It will not stop one dog attack.

Hon Member: Is that what the Minister said?

JOHN CARTER: The Minister said that just now. We could just about have supported microchipping if this Minister had said that, after a period of time, every dog that was found not to be microchipped would be put down. Then maybe there would be some sense in the measure. But, quite honestly, that Minister will never do that, and we will have a microchipping regime that does nothing except cost people money and encourage less enforcement.

I will talk about other important things, such as the Local Electoral Act 2001, and the fact that in that Act territorial authorities and regional authorities were given the authority to establish Māori wards or Māori constituency. There is no place for discrimination in our society, but in local authorities that is exactly what is happening—and it works against all races. In the communities of some authorities where the majority of people are Māori, it actually works against them and precludes them from having the say they should rightly have on a democratic basis. In other communities where the majority of people are non-Māori, it works against them. It works against the whole of society. The National Party has consistently spoken out against this issue and, when given the opportunity, it will certainly change that Act. The Minister referred to that Act.

This bill will allow local government to make decisions to spend ratepayers’ money in order to give cash donations to other authorities and to other countries. The National Party is adamantly opposed to ratepayers’ money being spent in that way. If the good citizens of every local authority, or any local authority in New Zealand, wanted to make a cash donation, then good on them—so they should and so they do. But we do not need to have good, hard-earned ratepayers’ money being spent by the council on behalf of their community when members of the community can do it for themselves.

New sections 139 and 139A, to be inserted in the Local Government Act 2002 by clause 34 of the bill, are about minor boundary changes within regional parks. The hoops the local authorities will have to go through to make some minor change, as a consequence of this law, are just another example of this Government imposing silly, senseless costs on local government—

Anne Tolley: On ratepayers.

JOHN CARTER: —on ratepayers—when just a modicum of common sense could have and should have applied. We would have to go through a huge cost to achieve a minor boundary change, or a realignment, involving an area of 10, 20, or 5 square metres. It is just a nonsense and should not be in the bill.

Then we come to the matter of the long-term council community plans.

Hon David Carter: That sounds expensive.

JOHN CARTER: The member had better believe it. I will use the example of just one local authority up north. For that council to produce the long-term council community plan—people should remember that this is a draft, mind, not the final thing; it has to go through all the final stuff—

Mark Blumsky: Then it has to be audited.

JOHN CARTER: —finally, it has to be audited, as well—cost its ratepayers in excess of $500,000. That was for just one draft. Mark Blumsky, Sandra Goudie, other members, and I have gone around local government authorities throughout New Zealand, and some local authorities have told us it has cost in excess of $1 million to produce this book. The local authority had to go out and consult. It had to advertise that it was going out with this million-dollar document—and three people turned up. It would have been better if the Government had given the council a few bob and told it to go and address three people.

Well, the fact is—here we go again. The principle of the long-term council community plans is actually fine. It makes local government have a look underground and up top and to see what is going on, which is a good thing, so that we do not have any shocks or surprises in the future and can plan ahead. There is nothing wrong with that concept. The National Party actually introduced it in 1995. It is a good concept and it has been working fine.

But the way in which this Government has since insisted it be implemented is so compliance-costly that it is causing huge costs. So far it is estimated to have cost ratepayers across this country—and this is not the audits, but the actual production of the long-term council community plans—in excess of $50 million. It would probably be as much as $100 million to produce a draft booklet. All but three of those booklets have had to be signed off by the Audit Office, and the auditors have said that their costs will now be up around $8 million. Quite honestly, those sorts of things will be addressed by the next National Government when it is in power after the next election.

Finally, I will make one point with regard to the Land Transport Act—and my colleagues might talk about the Rates Rebate Act, because I have run out of time to talk about the costs of implementing that Act. The fact is that this Government is now going to allow the staff of Transit New Zealand to become policemen. That is dopey. The police cannot actually do their job at all properly anyway, and now the Government is giving them the authority to issue tickets for all sorts of silly things. It is nonsense. That was never intended in the Land Transport Act.

There are lots of issues, and we will be discussing those when we come to the Committee stage—probably next week. I conclude by saying that the National Opposition has lots of issues of concern, and we are representing the ratepayers of this nation. But we have been immensely pleased with, and helped by, the staff of the Local Government and Environment Committee. We thank Beth Watson and the people who worked with us for all they did to help, because without them we would not have made the progress that we have. We are very pleased they have assisted us in the way they have done, and I say that especially from an Opposition point of view. But I say to that Minister, and to the Government, that local government is finally finding them out. As we go around the country we are getting more and more negative comments about Helen Clark, Mark Burton, and the Labour Government.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister of Local Government): If National members think that 300,000 people finding they may be eligible for a rates rebate of up to $500 as at 1 July is a trivial thing, then that shows where their priorities are. They are certainly not with the good citizens of New Zealand—certainly not with the ratepayers of New Zealand. The Government is committed to a close and collaborative working relationship with local government, and we certainly value and treasure our investment, and our combined effort, in that regard.

I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members for their hard work on the Local Government Law Reform Bill—to Steve Chadwick and her team, I say thank you. I would also like to thank the officials, the select committee clerks, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who met tight deadlines to ensure that the bill could be reported back here today in the second reading.

To a large extent, I really want to focus my comments on my particular interest around the amendments made to the Dog Control Act 1996, which are covered in Part 1. As reported back, that part makes a number of changes designed to improve the administration of the Act and to better reflect the intentions of provisions in the original legislation. We support those changes, which include the committee’s recommendations relating to entry into houses for enforcement purposes. They provide further tools and powers for dog control officers to be able to effectively achieve the objectives of the Act.

The committee has also made some useful changes relating to the definition of “disability assist dogs”, which means that all the types of dogs listed in that definition—guide dogs, companion dogs, epilepsy assist dogs—are entitled to enter public places and to travel on planes and buses, for example. So that is a good thing. The system for approving new types of disability assist dogs is now much simpler as a result of the committee’s changes. Now, new types are added to the list by Order in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Local Government after consultation with the Minister for Disability Issues—and that is as it should be. Changes have also been made to the schedule of infringement offences and fines in order to fill some gaps in the current Act, and as a result of some of the gaps identified by submitters as additional suggestions.

These changes will enhance the existing comprehensive package of dog control measures aimed at improving drug control and public safety around dogs. However, the select committee also recommended an amendment that we believe would severely undermine the effectiveness of these changes, which are aimed at ensuring more responsible dog ownership and improving public safety. That amendment proposes to replace universal microchipping with microchipping for only dangerous or menacing dogs.

All dogs have the capacity to bite. Only a small proportion of dogs would be classified as dangerous because of their breed or menacing because of their behaviour. It is the Government’s view that a comprehensive microchipping regime covering all dogs is the best way to identify dogs and their owners. I reiterate that all dogs have the capacity to bite, and the Government does not agree with that amendment recommended by the select committee.

We acknowledge that microchipping by itself is not able, and was never intended, to stop dog attacks—just as the current system of having a collar and dog tag will not stop a dog biting. But when used in conjunction with a full range of strengthened dog control measures, such as the national dog database, enhanced powers to seize dogs, and tougher penalties for irresponsible dog owners, the full benefits of microchipping will be felt, and will continue to have effect over time.

The value of microchipping is that it is a simple, permanent, and reliable way of identifying dogs and linking them to particular owners, thus making it easier for councils to keep track of lost, stolen, roaming, menacing, or dangerous dogs. Microchipping also allows councils to take effective action against an owner, in the event of a dog attack, as part of enforcing that owner’s responsibilities. Good owners are responsible—and that means taking full responsibility for a dog’s behaviour. This measure will also mean better dog owner education and, in the case of badly behaved dogs that may bite, there will be strengthened enforcement provisions to hold dog owners to account so that overall public safety can be improved.

Microchipping means that people will be less likely to sell or give away a dog without the new owner being aware of the dog’s history. Microchipping will make it harder for people to pass off someone else’s dog as their own. Lost dogs will be more readily connected with their owners. Owners of microchipped dogs, including collarless dogs that have been seized after attacking people or stock, will be more easily identified and have enforcement provisions applied to them.

Having an integrated national dog database means that councils can share information about problem dogs easily and identify roaming animals that may be from outside their areas or districts. Farmers would benefit from the greater likelihood of tracing and taking action against owners of dogs involved in attacks on stock. Speaking anecdotally, many of those attacks involve registered dogs that are not wearing their collars. At present, dogs are merely shot if they are found to have worried stock. A microchipped dog would enable a dog’s owner to be identified, and enforcement measures could then be taken to recoup costs for the damage done.

Dogs first registered from 1 July will be affected. Let me just say that again: all existing dogs that are registered now will not need to be microchipped. People will not have to take in their already registered farm dog or family pet to be microchipped unless it is classified as a dangerous or menacing dog—I think that point may have escaped the Opposition.

Microchipping is a very small, one-off cost in overall dog ownership, and for farm owners in particular, it is tax deductible. In the event of universal microchipping, that cost is likely to reduce over time as technology improves and the competition to provide services increases. The insertion of a microchip can be done by anyone, as long as a vet or council officer verifies the implant. Both councils and vets may provide an implant verification service.

The Government is committed to doing all it can to stop more vicious attacks from occurring by implementing tighter controls around dog ownership, including, but not limited to, microchipping, and by ensuring dog owners are more accountable in the event of attacks. This measure is being taken in response to public calls for action to improve public safety in relation to dogs. Parliament has also responded to calls from councils that wanted greater powers to take decisive action against irresponsible dog owners. For this reason, the Government continues to assert that microchipping, in conjunction with a range of strengthened dog control provisions, aims to achieve this. I hope that common sense on the matter will prevail.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I am very keen to take a call on the Local Government Law Reform Bill, as well. This bill amends several Acts of Parliament—in fact nine different Acts, ranging from the Dog Control Act, the Litter Act, through several local government Acts, and the Land Transport Act—and a number of minor amendments take place. There is one exception. This bill has quite a major impact in relation to dogs, which I will get on to in a moment. I have to say, from hearing submissions on this bill, that there are obviously some other areas that submitters were quite keen to see the Government move on, as well.

This bill does not really address the concerns of local government at large. It fritters with some of the minor areas, in terms of management. It does allow for an increase in a rates rebate scheme, and although that in itself is something we understand and we support for those who cannot manage their rates, this bill does not make any allocation at all on the administration. Therefore, it imposes another significant cost on local government. In fact, that is what this bill does. It increases the costs of local government. That should be the name of the bill, and I may move an amendment when we get to the Committee stage because I think that more accurately describes what this bill does.

If this Government were serious about addressing some of the needs of local government, it should have addressed issues like the Resource Management Act. It could have engaged in a number of things, rather than frittering around the edges. Last week I met with my local mayors in a mayoral forum, which I have on a reasonably regular basis. They asked me this question, and members of the Labour Government might like to respond: “Why do you as a Parliament impose standards upon local government that you don’t do yourselves as Government?”. I said: “Please explain.” They said: “We have this consultation process coming out of our ears. We have a formula, a prescribed methodology, and a process of consultation, consultation, consultation, but when Cabinet decides whether to have a tax cut it just makes a decision within Cabinet. Cabinet does not go through the process that you require local government to go through. This all adds costs, and we have to rate our citizens, our local people, in order to deliver all of these things.” Local government is not happy with this Government, and to a large extent it is not happy with this reform legislation that we are discussing today.

Let me give a specific example. There is no better example of where this Government has lost the plot than with what it has done over the microchipping laws and the management of menacing dogs. Yes, there is an issue. No one wants to see little Carolina Andersons, or any other child or any adult, chomped on by a dog. Let us be quite clear about that. It is inappropriate that people even keep those kinds of dogs in New Zealand. That is probably what we should be addressing. But to put in place placebo legislation and say that will fix it, when in actual fact it will do absolutely nothing, is wrong.

The Minister who spoke first said that this bill will not stop dogs from biting people. Absolutely it will not. He went on to say that it gives a method, or words to that effect, of identifying dogs to owners. That is the first point I want to address. About three metropolitan local authorities said that they think this is a good idea. It is fine if they think it is a good idea. I think they are Auckland, Wellington, and I cannot remember the other one. But to each of those authorities that were supporters, I asked this question during the submission process: “How many dogs that have bitten or menaced people have you not been able to identify the owners thereof?”. I thought that was a reasonable question. There was not one. No one came up and said: “We have a problem with 21 dogs, or we have a problem with one dog, or whatever.” When they were questioned before the select committee, not one authority could say it could not identify an owner. That is the first point.

The second point is that most people have an expectation that microchipping works. They have the view that if they see a dog and want to know who the owner is, then they point a thing like a woman’s hairdryer at it and it gives a number. That is not how it works. Firstly, if we have a problem identifying the owner of a dog, most probably it is not registered. If it is not registered, it will not be microchipped. If we are going to impose a greater cost on registration by microchipping, there is even less reason to register a dog. That is a crucial point. Secondly, the actual microchip reader is a little portable gadget. It is about 125 centimetres across; it is a half sphere. One can hold it in one’s hand and then get the dog to be stationary, then one virtually has to hold the microchip reader at skin contact—

Mark Blumsky: Above the Rottweiler?

ERIC ROY: We will get to Hank in a minute. One has to virtually hold it on the dog’s skin, and directly above. So the dog has to be stationary, it has to be contained, and the microchip is then read. [Interruption] Let us not get ahead of the story here.

The other thing about the microchips is that they are 7 millimetres long and 1 millimetre in diameter. Their efficacy and longevity is another question we will come to. It is significantly harder to read a microchip implanted into long-haired dogs. In dogs with a wet coat it is almost impossible. That is where the woman’s hairdryer is needed—the menacing dog is caught, dried off with a woman’s hairdryer, then searched for the microchip, which may or may not be viable. Why do I say “may or may not be viable”? It is for this reason—and I will give members the example of a lady who imported two golden retrievers from England to Nelson. The dogs had to be microchipped before they could travel internationally and the microchips were read as the dogs left Heathrow. But when they arrived in New Zealand one of the microchips would not work. It could not be read.

Then there is the issue experienced by a farmer who decided that he must try this. He took his dog to the vet to get it microchipped. Immediately afterwards, it could not be read. He tried for half an hour to get a reading, holding the dog in all positions. Thinking the microchip was a dud, another microchip was implanted, and the result was that he got two readings. How reliable is that? It simply is not reliable—and I can see that the Minister is interested, so he should pay attention to this. I actually conducted a trial myself. I took a Rottweiler that had been microchipped to the vet for a reading—and I have to tell members that this was some Rottweiler. It weighed 70 kilograms and was under very good control. It was not my dog; I borrowed it. It had been microchipped about 7 years beforehand. After three-quarters of an hour we could not find the microchip. I said that this brought up the matter of efficacy, and the technician told me—and nobody has told members this—that if people want to be sure that the microchip in their dog is working, then they have to check it at least once every year.

We have had demonstration after demonstration all over the country by dog owners on the issues of efficacy and cost. It is not a matter of just one trip to the vet. If the microchipping of dogs is to have any effect at all, we need a warrant of fitness on the microchip. That just shows what a nonsense this is. The Government ought to be listening to those people who have some practical experience. Those people are the dog owners, Federated Farmers—the biggest group of dog owners in this country—and New Zealand kennel clubs, all of whom have come out against microchipping.

One of the many issues in the bill is the reporting of dead dogs clause, which I will have to get into during the Committee stage. Again, that clause is another nonsense. There are a number of things about this bill that will not fix the problem. If this Government is serious about menacing dogs—and it should be—then it ought to ban menacing dogs and ban people from owning them. Dogs should not be microchipped with an ineffective means of identification. This bill contains a number of things that we will get into during the Committee stage. The bill is a nonsense.

RON MARK (NZ First): Listening to that speech made by the honourable Eric Roy—an MP whom I do actually admire and respect, for a range of reasons—is like listening to a farmer complaining about his antiquated tractor; it has only a crash gearbox, he cannot change gear on the move unless he double-declutches, there is no canopy, no windscreen wiper, no central heating, and it exposes him to too much dust to plough in certain weather conditions. The answer is that he should buy a new tractor. He should get upskilled. He should upgrade with technology. If that member honestly believes that some of the problems that existed with early microchipping will still exist in 1, 2, or 5 years’ time, then it is time he bought some of those old magazines that could help him upskill himself in science and technology. Popular Mechanics is the magazine he might be familiar with.

I have here a photograph of Carolina Anderson. Lest we forget, this is where it all started. This whole issue really came to a head—despite other attempts that had been made—when Carolina Anderson was mauled and seriously injured. Members should look at the photograph and remember we where started. Everyone in this House got upset. There was not one politician who did not want something done. So the Government looked at the dog registration system. It found that it was messy and non-compliant. It decided that a new system was needed, and it made sense to have that new system electronically based.

Members across this House participated in the select committee that considered the matter. Jim Peters, who participated on behalf of New Zealand First, was probably the most experienced local government man ever to set foot in this House. The House decided that it needed a dog registration system that was effective. It decided that the old system was rubbish, and it decided that if it was to put in place a new system, then it should use an electronic mechanism.

This new system does away with the questions of ownership. We all know how that works. When a cocky’s dog slips his leash on the farm and goes straying because a bitch down the road is on heat, it does not have its collar on. There starts the argument. The dog is picked up, and the owner finally fronts up to get it. The dog control officer tells him his dog is not registered, and out come the excuses—“Oh, yes, it is.”; “Oh, we lost the collar.”; “Oh, the tag broke.”; “Oh, I did get it registered. We lost it.” The question of ownership is removed immediately, with a chip, and, if there is no chip, the dog can be shot—finish, end of discussion. The point is either we have a registration system in this country or we do not, gentlemen. We should make up our minds. If we are to do away with dog registration, well, heck, stop registering marriages, stop registering cars, stop registering everything—because one could apply the same argument over and over again if one wanted to. Either we want a registration system or we do not, and all of this House decided we did. That is the point.

The next point is whether there should be exemptions. We say that there should be no exemptions. We say we should have one law for all. We should have consistency in law. One law applies to every human being, regardless of colour, race, socio-economic background, ethnicity, or religion. It should be the same for dogs. To those who say that working dogs should be exempt, I ask them which working dogs. Do we mean pig dogs? Pig dogs are working dogs. Pig hunters rely on pig dogs to earn money. Rabbiters, who work for the Animal Health Board, have working dogs. Will they be exempt? No, we do not hear that argument. All we hear about are farm dogs.

Well, what is a farm dog? Does a casually employed farmer, a person who actually lives in town and works out in the country, have a farm dog if it is at home? How does one differentiate? What differentiates a huntaway from another dog found wandering around Aranui’s backstreets or in any suburb? I can just imagine Mr Roy turning up with a dog control officer to have a look at what is going on and finding a Mongrel Mob member standing there in front of the dog control officer, and, of course, if a dog is not registered, the mobster will say: “It is a working dog. It is a farm dog, because in the weekends the dog is out on our farm.” Come on! Where is the explanation? How does one define a farm dog, if one wants to exempt him? The bottom line is if nana’s poodle has to be chipped, so does the farm dog. I say: “Get over it; get on with it; no exemptions; one law for all.”

In terms of costs, I hear Mr David Carter, the multimillionaire, blabbing on about cost and about his farm. I would say that Mr Carter writes off, on his business expenses, more on a bottle of wine, on a night out with his cocky mates, than he would ever pay for one chipped dog, and he would zap it on his credit card, and he will not even blink. He would spend more on wine in one evening than it would take to chip 100 dogs. Because that man enjoys the fine life, he enjoys the best that money can buy, and where he can write it off to expenses, he will; and where he can get it back in GST, he will.

Mr Carter is successful in business. He has been a successful farmer, because he knows how to work the system, and he knows that bleating on out there on the hustings about the expense of a $50 or $70 charge, is rubbish. He knows that. He is more intelligent than that, he is more business-wise than that, but it is a helluva political drum to be beating today, is it not? But if his business is as bad as that, if he is in as much trouble as that, then I suggest he get out of it. Because this expense is not going to break his already overflowing bank balance or his portfolios. He knows that. Mr Roy might be having more trouble down south, where it is harder to grow grass, except if he is dairying. But Mr Carter knows that farmers in this country will spend 10 times the amount to chip one dog, on going to a “conference” with a big dinner and where Colin Meads is a guest speaker! His talk about chipping being expensive is baloney, and he will get the GST back. He will get the GST back. Do we really want to address the problems and stop more Carolina Anderson - type incidents from occurring? Yes, we do.

The Minister is quite right: putting a chip in a dog will not stop the dog attacking, if it is going to. I say to Mr Blumsky that finding a stray dog that is owned by the type of person who has violent dogs that are not chipped, will allow the dog control officer to kill it. End of story! Therein the problem finishes. That really is what we are after. Farmers also know that since mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth disease the Europeans and Americans have become more selective about the products they buy. They insist now on traceability of product from the supermarket shelf right back to the farm gate and through the gate. They want to know everything that is happening on that farm in the way of best practice.

I am involved with a Māori incorporation. We are in sheep and beef. We have 7,500 dairy cows. By the way, 1,200 of our dairy cows are chipped. That is the first process towards chipping the whole lot. We do that because we want traceability and to be able to prove to our buyers overseas that our products are good and safe. I say to farmers in the National Party that the valuable quota markets that we are attempting to access and continue to maintain, want traceability from the paddock to the plate, on all products. Dogs, as farm animals, are part of that overseas market, where people want to know all about everything that happens. Members should not get wound up about not wanting to chip dogs, when farmers chip racehorses, pig dogs, and cows and that allows us to monitor and control what we produce and to prove the quality.

Lest we forget where this whole issue started, and for those people who want to play politics purely for the gain of politics, I just ask them to remember that Carolina Anderson was the starting point.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Greens will be supporting the second reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill, because many of the changes made to it by the Local Government and Environment Committee are very good changes, in our view. Some are not, however, and I will deal with them in just a moment.

One of the very good amendments inserts new clause 9B, which substitutes a new section 36A of the Dog Control Act. The clause provides that only dogs classified as menacing or dangerous will be required to be microchipped. We have also inserted new clause 9G to require that any impounded dogs that are also menacing or dangerous are registered and microchipped before they are released. And, helpfully—on the advice of parliamentary counsel, I understand—territorial authorities will be able to recover the full cost of microchipping and registering those impounded dogs. I must say thank you to David Carter, who raised this issue initially, when the bill was introduced into the House, and notified members that microchipping was an issue that could be dealt with.

The Greens are enormously pleased that the National members on the select committee saw fit to get in behind the Greens and our amendment to the bill to repeal, effectively, the compulsory microchipping of dogs. That support from National clearly showed that the Greens provide solutions to community problems that transcend political boundaries, old and useless dichotomies. We develop solutions that are rational, responsible, and well considered, and we gather support for those solutions from across the House and the community. To that end, we welcome the support of Federated Farmers for the changes we have made, with the help of National, to the bill.

Compulsory microchipping of dogs is a serious issue. We must not impose on ordinary New Zealanders unnecessary costs or burdens that do not provide a demonstrable benefit to them or to their community. Despite the rhetoric from other parts of the House, not one single argument during the debate on this bill, or the debate on my co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons’ member’s bill, clearly proved that compulsory microchipping of all dogs would prevent one more tragedy. We cannot make law based on the hope that the changes we make will work. That is very poor lawmaking, indeed.

We have repeatedly heard the arguments in favour of compulsory microchipping. One is that it forms just one part of a suite of dog control measures and without it the others will not succeed. That is demonstrably untrue. We have had a large suite of measures in place, including microchipping of menacing and dangerous dogs but without compulsory microchipping, for some years now. Those other measures are working to manage dogs better—absolutely they are. So where is the evidence that compulsory microchipping, starting from July this year, will significantly add to the existing effective measures? There is no evidence, because compulsory microchipping simply will not make much difference. Microchipping will not identify a dog that has worried stock or hurt a person or a child. Microchipping will not identify or manage unregistered dogs. And, most important, a microchip will not, and cannot, stop a dog from hurting or killing a child. It simply cannot.

But the microchipping of dogs is not the only provision in this bill. This bill makes important changes to the Litter Act to increase penalties for littering, and we think that is a great thing. The provision to clarify that regional parks can be protected in perpetuity by Order in Council is welcome. It is a welcome relief for many communities. It will not resolve serious issues like those at Long Bay in Auckland, but it does mean that regional parks can be protected from inappropriate development and maintained for the benefit of future generations.

I have two areas of major disagreement with the bill. The first is the $100 fine for failing to notify a council that one’s dog has died. There has been some media coverage about this recently. The imposition of such a fine is unjust and is not reasonable. It is simply a means by which councils can make extra funds, for no significant public purpose, and I was very disappointed that that provision received support from members across the committee.

Finally, we are very strongly opposed to the change that allows a council to impound a car for the simple and sole reason that it does not display a current registration, a current warrant of fitness, or both. This is not about safety. Car registration, for example, is simply a car tax, and there are already provisions for ticketing these vehicles—fines up to or exceeding $400. The Government’s argument is that impounding those cars is necessary to deal with abandoned cars, but a car with registration is not, by definition, abandoned. A car might be old, it might be rusty, but it might be the one single means of transport for that family. This provision will allow a council to impound a car even though it obviously is being used—it might be full of groceries, it might contain a booster seat, and it might obviously be an essential part of a family’s asset base. Just because a family is poor and cannot afford to register their car does not mean that local government has the right to take that asset off them. That is an active attack on low-income people and cannot be justified.

This bill has highlighted a number of issues, and the debate on microchipping in particular has been a long and protracted one. There are lots of opportunities for parties in this House now to support the repeal of compulsory microchipping of all dogs. The community clearly does not want it. The farming community clearly does not want it. Not a single person, throughout all of the debate, has been able to demonstrate that it would protect a single child. Let us be responsible lawmakers. Thank you.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): United Future will be supporting the second reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill, and I want to confine my remarks to just two areas: one to do with the microchipping of dogs, which has been very much on the agenda this afternoon, and the other one to do with the amendment to the Land Transport Act. I would like to say to Metiria Turei, who has just resumed her seat and who talked about evidence, that she should listen on, because that is exactly what I want to do in this debate in relation to dog attacks and the impact of microchipping on dogs.

Let us put some figures on the record, to start with. Dog attacks in New Zealand both in homes and on the streets are increasing, and increasing rapidly. In the 2 years to July 2003 we had 217 such attacks. In the 2 years to July 2005 we have had 300 such attacks, which is an increase of 38 percent. The number of attacks on roads and streets has gone from 46 to 65—an increase of 41 percent. It is quite relevant in this debate to fix the date when Carolina Anderson was attacked. She was attacked in January of 2003. As Ron Mark has said, those of us who were in Parliament at the time remember that vividly. We remember the reaction of the nation and the demand by the citizens of this nation that we, as a Parliament, address that problem. Since the date on which Carolina Anderson was attacked, the number of dog attacks has gone up significantly. In my view, Parliament would fail in its duty to communities, and especially to our children, were we to fail to act. For that reason, United Future will continue to support a dog microchipping regime in New Zealand.

With regard to that, I want to produce some evidence that I think Metiria Turei and others should listen to very carefully, regarding the situation in the state of New South Wales in Australia. Microchipping was introduced into New South Wales by an Act of its Parliament in 1998, based on the same system that we are now adopting in New Zealand—namely, that puppies from 1999 onwards would have to be microchipped. So 7 years have now gone by since microchipping was introduced in the state of New South Wales. Therefore, we have some evidence now as to whether it has made a difference in terms of the number of attacks by dogs.

What have the results of microchipping been in New South Wales? It is vitally important to have some accurate evidence on this matter, because of the anecdotal evidence that has been produced by so many people, without reference to any research or basis for their remarks. We have heard many of them—from both National and now the Greens—in this House today. So let us look at what has happened in New South Wales. Here are the figures. In 1997, before microchipping was introduced in that state, there were 521 dog attacks. By the way, there are about 1.3 million dogs in New South Wales. By 2001, when the microchipping regime was only about 3 years old, so therefore only about half complete, that number had dropped to 294 dog attacks. In 2003, which is the latest figure I have been able to get, the number of dog attacks in New South Wales had reduced to—I ask members to listen to this figure—167. The figure went from 521 in 1997 to 167 in 2003. What a contrast that is to our situation in New Zealand.

In New Zealand, as I have said, dog attacks have gone up by 40 percent since Carolina Anderson was attacked. This year alone, I have seen on television at least four stories about dog attacks on children. They continue to happen. Dog attacks are up by 40 percent on the figure that applied when Carolina Anderson was attacked. Across the Tasman in New South Wales, dog attacks under microchipping are down by a massive 70 percent. Attacks are up by 40 percent in New Zealand and down by 70 percent in New South Wales. The state of Victoria is now following the New South Wales example, because microchipping has been proven. It works, and it reduces the number of attacks, including those on children. I place that evidence before Parliament today. United Future is a party that likes to base its policy position on firm evidence. We should follow evidence, and not rhetoric, when we come to these matters.

Having said all that, I also say—this is well known to this nation and to this House—that at the Committee stage of this bill, the Hon David Carter will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to exempt working farm dogs from the microchipping regime. United Future will vote for that Supplementary Order Paper. Again, let us look at the evidence to see whether there is a case for exempting working farm dogs.

Ron Mark, who is no longer with us, rattled on about the definition of working farm dogs. They are already defined in the Act. The Act already states that a working farm dog is one that is kept solely or principally for the purposes of herding or driving stock. The word “principally”, by the way—for the benefit of those who may not know what it means—means 51 percent or more. So Ron Mark’s story about the Mongrel Mob guy who just takes his dog on the farm at the weekends is completely invalid. That dog is not a working farm dog under the New Zealand law at the moment, and nothing will change in that direction. It is quite clear to anyone with any common sense what a working farm dog is.

There are 250,000 working farm dogs in this country—40 percent of all dogs. Here are the figures about that 40 percent of all dogs. Those 250,000 dogs are responsible, on average, for 2 percent of dog attacks in this country each year. On average, that is four attacks a year. There are 250,000 dogs and four attacks a year. Again, that is the kind of evidence that this House should take into consideration. To put it the other way around, 60 percent of our dogs, the ones that are not working farm dogs, are responsible for 98 percent of all dog attacks and all dog bites. Those figures are based on ones provided by the Accident Compensation Corporation. There are similar figures for the number of dog attacks where people end up going to hospital after being attacked. It will be found that working farm dogs basically do not feature at all in those figures.

Ron Mark talked about religion. I do not know whether there are Muslim farm dogs. I do not know whether there are Muslim dogs, or Christian dogs, or dogs of any other sort of religion. I think Ron Mark went really wide of the mark when he came out with that very simplistic slogan, invented by Nanaia Mahuta—to my knowledge—that there should be one law for all dogs. It sounds great, but when one digs and gets down to some evidence, one realises the slogan is invalid. Therefore, United Future will definitely support the Supplementary Order Paper coming in from David Carter. By the way, I will have a Supplementary Order Paper as well. If David’s does not get through, there will be another chance—I hope—for Parliament in the Committee stage to vote twice on that issue.

I also want to mention the amendments to the Land Transport Act that are also part of this bill. The amendments to the Act in this bill deal mainly with what are called “special vehicle lanes”. At the time this bill was introduced—in fact, when I first heard about it—I was also concurrently aware that Porirua City Council and Transit New Zealand were working through an issue to do with the new four-lane arrangements going along Mana Esplanade, through what we commonly call the township of Plimmerton. New lanes, called T2 lanes, have been established. They are quite complex: drivers can park there sometimes, but not at other times. But essentially what has been done is to create four lanes in State Highway 1 along Mana Esplanade. People were saying we needed to have some law changes around the enforcement of by-laws for those new lanes; they are a unique set of lanes anywhere in the country, as far as I know. So I immediately drew it, firstly, to the Government’s attention and, secondly, to the attention of the Local Government and Environment Committee that it would be good if we could also address that issue in this bill, for the benefit of the citizens of Porirua City and, indeed, of all the people that go along State Highway 1.

Unfortunately, the Clerk’s Office has ruled that out of order. I do not quite understand that ruling, but that is what has been ruled, so it will not happen. I continue to urge the Government, and particularly the Minister of Local Government, to address quickly the issue that has arisen on Mana Esplanade, because lives are being endangered as we speak. As I said earlier—I think, in the first reading debate—it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured. We need some action to be taken regarding Mana Esplanade. Notwithstanding that it is not addressed in this bill, it is an issue that still needs to be addressed. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare. Recently across the Tasman the Liberal Party’s comments about Aboriginals, migrants, asylum seekers, and the people on board the Tampa were described as dog whistling. Prime Minister Howard was accused of “pitching a political message to a group of voters that other voters do not necessarily hear”. On these shores that same accusation was levelled at Dr Don Brash; his Ōrewa speech represented a similar type of dog whistling that catered to those who are predisposed to prejudice about the Treaty industry and race-based policies. Now, in this House, over these last few months, we have been witness to a curious form of dog whistling that draws on the emotive appeal of our most vulnerable—namely, the children.

The Māori Party will always speak up for, and on behalf of, the best interests of our tamariki. We are devastated like everyone else by the statistics that revealed that in the 7-year period from 1995 to 2002, 2,736 visits were made to public hospitals as a result of dog bites, the biggest majority of the victims being children under 10. Such figures should not be news to anyone here. The media have capitalised on the public fascination factor, with the typecast villains being bull mastiffs, American pit bulls, bull terrier crosses, Staffordshire crosses, and German shepherds taking centre stage for their vicious mauling of innocent children. In this context we absolutely accept the Local Government and Environment Committee’s recommendations that dogs classified as menacing or dangerous should be implanted with a microchip.

We were particularly impressed with the submission from the Gore District Council, which described the heavy burden that this bill would place on dog owners and local authorities. The Gore District Council urged us to limit the microchipping law to dogs that have been classified as dangerous or menacing, and to exempt rural working dogs from the microchipping requirement. It is a position that we would support. New Zealanders have had enough of the puncture wounds, the grazed faces, and the stitches and tears that flood our screens.

But the peculiar form of dog whistling that has accompanied the microchipping debate should not cloud our judgment to the mixture inherent in this omnibus bill. Because once the dogs are called off, there is a huge amount of other legislation to consider in this bill: the Rates Rebate Act 1973, the Litter Act 1979, the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Local Government Acts of 1974 and 2002, the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996, and the Land Transport Act 1998. In fact we note with some irony that, despite such a wide range of issues, the submissions raised even more issues for consideration—things such as waste management and levies, and fairness and justice in establishing constituencies and wards.

We were pleased to see a sensible recommendation from the select committee regarding long-term council community plans, which appear in the Local Government Act 2002. The select committee, I understand, suggested that no long-term council community plan for the period 2006 to 2016 can be rendered invalid on the grounds that it does not comply with any amendments made by this bill. That is a good thing—a long-term vision allowed to progress. It was, however, disappointing to see National’s comment that it believes the costs of auditing these long-term plans are too high for the added value they bring to the community. The Māori Party has been extremely interested in the local government results of the 2004-05 audits recently released by the Controller and Auditor-General. A key focus of those audits is that ratepayers have to a large extent focused on the consultation and decision-making processes of local government. A key concern in the 2004-05 report was that 12 local authorities had not complied with the requirement to make their summary report available by the statutory time frame, and, indeed, they were urged to lift their game and inform their communities promptly.

The Māori Party has been raising for quite some time the fact that there are significant issues with regional local authorities and their relationships with mana whenua. We had thought this bill would provide a chance to focus on that. As recently, however, as last night we had yet another example of the discriminatory effects of council actions, or, in this case, inaction, being revealed through the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill—a call for validation of illegal actions without so much as a 45c postage stamp being invested in consulting with the mana whenua, Rongowhakaata. This bill, while making broad changes to improve the effectiveness of regulatory tools, does nothing to address the status of council - tangata whenua relationships, or to solidify obligations for councils to recognise mana whenua status. In this respect we are greatly disappointed.

The select committee inserts a new section 356A into the Local Government Act 1974. The new section empowers local councils to remove any abandoned vehicle when that vehicle has no current evidence of vehicle inspection or no current licence label. The Māori Party is acutely aware that motor vehicle traffic crashes are a leading cause of injury, mortality, and hospitalisation amongst Māori, particularly young Māori. Professor Mason Durie has commented that the effect of injury to rangatahi is accentuated by the loss of the benefits that can flow from competent, healthy, and skilled whānau members. That is a long-term cost that we can ill-afford. Yet there has been little research identifying factors associated with crashes involving Māori, and no associated urgency in having available comprehensive crash data on safety measures such as occupant protection and driver’s-licence status. Until that information is available we believe that the recommendation to remove abandoned vehicles, or to impound a vehicle simply because it does not have a current vehicle inspection or licence, or both, is overly heavy-handed.

It also bears little comparison with the fact that about 20 percent of Māori are below the poverty line and situated in the bottom income bracket. In other words, the Māori poverty rate is over 50 percent more than that of non-Māori. On this day, International Justice for Cleaners Day, it is particularly timely to be considering the context of poverty as we consider the below-poverty wages earned by cleaners around the country—pay rates that keep them trapped in cycles of poverty. Keeping up to date with licensing requirement is virtually impossible when it comes to battling with income, employment, education, and health disparities.

There is also a potential issue under section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—the right to natural justice—in that car owners cannot be heard prior to their vehicle being seized. Section 25(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act also gives everyone who is charged with an offence the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law. The Māori Party believes that the right to natural justice and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty are important principles of justice, and require far more consideration than the select committee or the bill has given them.

There is no denying that the Local Government Law Reform Bill is a right dog’s breakfast. The Māori Party will agree to dangerous, menacing, and intimidating dogs being microchipped in the interests of children and their safe well-being, but our preference would have been for such beasts to be muzzled or restrained. Simply microchipping dogs will never prevent the savage dog attacks that we have seen in the last few years. But there are other great concerns that we have about this bill. The decision to remove abandoned vehicles without giving the owners a right of reply is one; the complete and utter denial of the importance of consultation with mana whenua is the other. The Māori Party will not fall in line with the dog whistling that this Parliament has been subjected to—the pitching of a political message to one group of voters that other voters do not necessarily hear. We want to vote in the interests of all New Zealanders, and to really consider the impact of this bill—as with any—and how it achieves genuine progress for Aotearoa. Such a move requires that we will vote against this bill. Kia ora tātou.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak against the Local Government Law Reform Bill and to say what a sad day it really is for parliamentary process. This bill was sent off to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Submissions were heard, and they were overwhelmingly against microchipping dogs. The committee heard those submissions and recommended to the House that not all dogs be microchipped, just those that were menacing and dangerous, which seems sensible and common sense. But we have just had Nanaia Mahuta stand up in this House and say that what will happen now is that when this bill gets to the Committee stage, the Government will ignore the submissions, ignore the concerns of the people of New Zealand, and, with the support of New Zealand First and United Future, jam through this bill, against the wishes of New Zealanders.

So the first concern that one has to have is why we have select committees at all. Why should New Zealanders make submissions when this Government just ignores them?

There is a second concern, which I will ask Ron Mark about. He spoke out wildly in support of this bill and microchipping—I think if Ron Mark had his way we would all be microchipped as well so New Zealand First could keep an eye on us. I ask Ron Mark how having all dogs in New Zealand microchipped would have helped Carolina Anderson on that day. How would it have helped in that situation, at all? [Interruption] He has had his opportunity; he can take a speech later.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to answer Rodney Hide’s question without any further allocation of time being deducted from any other party. Mr Hide has asked me a question and I am prepared to answer it if he will yield the floor.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): It is a debating point, but you have sought leave. Is there any objection to leave being granted? There is.

RODNEY HIDE: The reality is that of course it would not have helped, at all. The reason it would not have helped is that Carolina did not have a scanner. Also, it is typical that when dogs bite they do not hang around, lay their heads down, and allow a scanner to be put on top of their heads so we can find out who they belong to. In fact, we heard from Mr Eric Roy that councils have not been unable to locate the owners of dogs that have bitten people—that has not been the issue. The issue has been the dogs biting, and the microchip does not stop the biting. That is the trouble.

I also say about the farm dogs that it would be good to exclude them, but the reality is that farm dogs do bite, too. All dogs can bite. That is the reality of dogs anywhere in the world. They are all dogs that can potentially bite. The issue that we are dealing with here is that we want to stop dogs from biting and to protect, particularly, our kids, but does microchipping do that? The answer is, no, it does not.

Gordon Copeland: It has in New South Wales.

RODNEY HIDE: Gordon Copeland can go on about New South Wales. A typical response from the busybodies in Government is that there is a problem out there because there are irresponsible dog owners who do not take care of their dogs. There are dogs that will bite, and, sadly, people get bitten and often badly, badly hurt. The response of the Government is to come along with the idea that it knows what it will do; it will microchip all dogs. That is impossible. I can promise this House that not all dogs will be microchipped.

Ron Mark was talking about the Mongrel Mob dogs being microchipped. Well, I would like to see him and Gordon Copeland go up to the Mongrel Mob headquarters and microchip their dogs. [Interruption] He said he would, but he would not. The Mongrel Mob are not going to microchip their dogs. The problem with the dogs that are biting people is that they are not registered because the owners are not prepared to pay the money. Ron Mark is expecting such owners suddenly to come along and get their dogs microchipped, and the police—who are under-resourced with Ron Mark in Government—are suddenly going to be spending their effort, along with the local council, going along to the headquarters of the Mongrel Mob and saying: “Excuse me! Is your poodle microchipped?”. It ain’t going to happen.

So not all dogs will be microchipped. I can also predict that dog owners who are the problem—that is to say, the fraction of dog owners who are irresponsible—are precisely the ones who will not microchip their dogs. So we will have 99 percent of dog owners having to go through the expense and trouble of microchipping their dogs, and the 1 percent who cause the problems not caring less. Those are the same people who do not have a licence when they drive a car, who do not register their cars, and whose dogs are not registered. This Government expects that somehow those people will leap up on a Monday morning and rush off to get their puppies microchipped. It ain’t going to happen!

I predict that the Government will not run a very satisfactory database, because that has been the experience with any database that has been run by Governments. In a situation where a dog bites someone—which is terrible—I ask how microchipping helps matters. It does not. The dog will run off, so that is no help. We will have a situation whereby responsible dog owners will have to pay the expense of having their dogs microchipped, for no discernable gain. The Government will face the expense of monitoring who has microchipped their dogs and who has not, and it will be unable to get anywhere near 100 percent compliance. Then the Government will face the expense of maintaining a database of microchipped dogs. We then have the absurdity that a dog will probably have to be killed in order to work out who it belongs to, because if the dog is the rabid dog that everyone says it is, I would not expect the dog control officer to wander up and stick a scanner on its head in order to find out who it belongs to. It just does not work like that in the real world.

So what is the solution? It is not to come up with a grand Government scheme that in order to begin to work, would require that everyone behaved themselves and microchipped their dogs, that the database worked flawlessly, and that when there was a dog attack a scanner would somehow be on hand and someone would manage to get close enough to the dog’s head—within an inch of it—in order to scan it and see who it belonged to, and, wow, find that the dog had a microchip in it. All of those things would need to fall into place for that plan to work.

What we need to do is concentrate on those few dog owners—and it is a few—who are irresponsible, and hold them to account. Let us not, yet again, penalise law-abiding citizens of New Zealand whose dogs do not bite, whose dogs are well behaved, who enjoy having their dogs, and who now have to go to the unnecessary expense of microchipping them. Auntie Flo’s poodle is not a problem, yet Auntie Flo will have to go off and get her dog microchipped. But the Mongrel Mob members next door will not get their dogs microchipped. Irresponsible dog owners will not get their dogs microchipped. So once again we see the absurdity of a Government response that is costly, cumbersome, ineffective, and fails to address the problem we have.

In 5 years’ time the problems will still be there, and I am afraid that this House will probably be addressing them again with even more draconian measures for law-abiding citizens, rather than focusing its attention on holding to account those irresponsible New Zealanders who do not look after their dogs and their families, and who do not care for their neighbours. Thank you.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I will take a very short call as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which dealt with the Local Government Law Reform Bill. The committee did well, and I thank the select committee staff for shepherding us through what could have been quite a complex process. The select committee’s consideration of the bill could have been overtaken by highly emotional issues—but it was not. All this bill really does is look at the framework for local authorities and how they operate and reflect their recent decisions. The bill only clarifies things for local authorities and improves the effectiveness of their regulatory tools.

All of the amendments in the bill came about because of the Government’s ongoing relationship and partnership with local government, whereby local government meets central government on a regular basis and says: “Please help us. Give us the tools to fix the Local Government Act and get it up to speed.” So all of the positive aspects in this bill, apart from the issue of microchipping dogs—which the entire select committee consideration of the bill was nearly swamped by—have been completely overlooked.

In respect of microchipping, I point out that 95 percent of dog attacks occur on the properties of registered dog owners, so the attacks are not committed only by roving mongrel dogs. As Gordon Copeland mentioned, microchipping has had stunning success in New South Wales, and members of the committee were quite surprised when they realised New Zealand was one of the few countries in the world that does not have microchipping. I bring to the House’s attention the fact that when the Carolina Anderson attack occurred, every member—every party—in this House poured up to get photos with Mr Anderson. Those members put their hands across their hearts and said they would do everything they could within their powers, while they were in Parliament as elected members, to stop the horrific dog attacks on people like Carolina Anderson. Microchipping is part of a comprehensive package that will complete the undertaking in the previous Act that every party voted for.

We are pleased to be debating the bill. One really good reason we are keen to get the bill passed by July is that it will mean the Government has kept another promise—which the Government considers hugely important, but which does not worry the Opposition, at all—and that is the promise about rates rebates. From 1 July the rates rebate will be put up from $200 to $500—another promise kept by this Government. We are prepared to stay here and forego a select committee trip to Australia next week, because we want to debate this bill and get it through the House. We will keep a promise to those 300,000 people in New Zealand who are waiting for that rates rebate. I am looking forward to debating this bill clause by clause, and I am sure we will realise then that there is far more substance to it than microchipping alone. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I am delighted to take a call on the Local Government Law Reform Bill, and I want to speak about only one part of that bill—that is, the part concerning microchipping. I say to the House that New Zealanders know that we are seeing a Government on its way out over an issue like this. This Government is completely missing the representation and the feeling out there in the community, because the people of New Zealand know full well that putting a microchip in a dog dooes not stop dog attacks. The issue is as simple as that. A microchip in the neck of a dog will not stop one single dog attack.

We observe today the Government with absolute arrogance accepting a select committee report—a very good select committee report—and saying right up front that it will disregard the work of that select committee; disregard the many people who made submissions to that select committee; and disregard the thousands of New Zealanders who signed petitions all around the country and said to the Government: “For God’s sake, wake up and listen and realise that a microchip in the neck of a dog will not stop a dog attack.”

Last Saturday, at a rally in Christchurch organised by my colleague Kate Wilkinson, about 250 dogs and dog owners turned up to protest against this Government move. I was struck by a bumper sticker that the organisers launched at that rally—and I think I am right in saying that it has been launched by the Kennel Club—that stated: “Dog owners will vote—2008”. If the Government arrogantly thinks that this issue will go away next week if it muscles the legislation through Parliament and uses its numbers in the House to disregard the wishes of many New Zealanders, I say to Helen Clark that her arrogance will cost her. The arrogance of Helen Clark and the Labour members will cost the Government at the next election, because New Zealanders know how stupid this legislation is.

I have listened today to speeches from people like Ron Mark, Nanaia Mahuta, and Gordon Copeland. Following the Carolina Anderson case, they all tried to argue that if we successfully instituted a compulsory microchipping regime in this country, we would stop dog attacks. [Interruption] I say to Gordon Copeland that that is just stupid.

Ron Mark: Reduce.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, now those members are saying that it will not stop it; it will reduce it. That is equally stupid, I say to Mr Ron Mark, to think that the dog’s behaviour would be affected by a microchip in its neck. That is just absolutely stupid.

Next week, at the Committee stage, we will have the opportunity for a debate. At this stage it looks as if the Government will ignore those amendments that I have tabled on behalf of the National Party—one to exempt farm working dogs and one to exempt all dogs—because we do not have the numbers. That will occur despite the fact that on Monday night Gordon Copeland gave an interview on TV3 in which said he was now prepared to vote against the Government.

Shane Jones: He was misquoted.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Now he says he was misquoted. I saw the interview, I say to Mr Jones, and it did not look to me as if he was misquoted. But I must say that immediately afterwards the interviewer, Ingrid Hipkiss, said she did not think Gordon Copeland would have the gumption—

Eric Roy: Fortitude.

Hon DAVID CARTER: —the fortitude to carry on and actually vote against the Government. So National has two amendments, one to exempt farm working dogs and the other to exempt all dogs, and those amendments are likely to be lost because the “Poodle Party” of United Future is not prepared to support common sense.

This Government has its priorities totally wrong, when we have a Minister in the House—Nanaia Mahuta—whose ministerial responsibility is microchipping. I would have thought there were far more important issues in this country.

Rodney Hide: Auckland issues.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Auckland issues and power blackouts are far more important.

Hon Member: Snow down in the South Island.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, do members know what Helen Clark said on breakfast TV on Monday morning? When asked to comment about the snow, Helen Clark said: “I love the snow, because I am a skier.” Many South Islanders did not get to see that, because they had no power, but I will make sure they all know that at the next election. But I come back to the “Minister for Microchipping”, which is Nanaia Mahuta’s job. We now have a situation where Helen Clark and Heather Simpson have cleverly mustered the numbers—although they did not have to work very hard on New Zealand First; those members are absolute poodles and will do exactly what they are told. The two parties they had to work on were United Future and the Greens.

I say right up front that the Greens have been absolutely consistent with their position. They said they would support getting rid of compulsory microchipping for all dogs. They have since done better than that in the Local Government and Environment Committee, supported by National. The position brought back from the select committee, which would enforce the microchipping of dangerous and menacing dogs, is exactly where we should be. We need to identify the dogs that are dangerous and menacing, and microchip them.

Ron Mark: Oh, how do you do that?

Hon DAVID CARTER: But the Government wants to inflict the cost on everybody else—250,000 farm dogs—and Ron Mark said, in his vitriolic way, that the cost was not important. He said that if people could afford a bottle of wine, they could afford to microchip their dog. That is what Ron Mark said. He said the cost was unimportant. Well, I say to Ron Mark that when he goes back to the electorate he hails from, around Waimakariri, the farmers of that electorate have been trying to get an appointment with that member for a long time in order to tell him the facts about microchipping. One of the things they want to do is to take the opportunity to tell the member that he does not understand the legislation.

Ron Mark: Give me the name.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I am happy to give the name, if the member wants to be embarrassed. This member—Ron Mark—sent an email to Kirstyn Barnett in which he stated: “Inserting a microchip is a one-off identification for the dog and owner. Therefore, microchipped dogs would not need to be registered annually.” That is what Ron Mark told his constituent—and that is absolute rubbish! I tell Ron Mark that that is absolute rubbish, because there is no proposal here for the annual registration to be done away with. So I tell Mr Ron Mark that he should not mislead his constituents. He should make an effort to understand the legislation.

In the debate we last had on this issue, another New Zealand First member, Brian Donnelly, suggested that the only reason we continued to register our dogs was for hydatids control. That is what Brian Donnelly said. Well, we have not been doing that for 30 years. So I say to New Zealand First that its members should get to understand the legislation. They should not come into the House preaching to us, talking about Carolina Anderson, and attempting to use her case as a reason we should all be supporting this legislation, when that member does not even understand how the legislation works.

Ron Mark: But you voted for it.

Hon DAVID CARTER: And then he says we voted for it. Well, let me explain that again to the member, because I am quite happy to do that. There was—

Rodney Hide: ACT never did.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Nor did National. An amendment was moved by Chris Carter, on Supplementary Order Paper 67, and National voted against it, the ACT party voted against it, and one member of United Future, Paul Adams, voted against it. So those are the facts, I tell Mr Mark, and it is time the truth was told in this House. National did not support microchipping when that amendment was moved—independently of the select committee report. It was put forward on a Supplementary Order Paper by the Minister at that time, Chris Carter, but it was not voted for by National. So the truth today prevails, I tell Mr Mark.

In conclusion, I say we should make sure the public of New Zealand understands—and Labour members should understand—that putting a microchip in a dog does not change its behaviour. For any member of Parliament to vote on the basis that it will, is just plain stupidity. I look forward to the debate next week, and I hope that in the meantime pressure can be brought by the many dog owners around New Zealand—like the thousands whom I met yesterday alone, at the Fieldays at Hamilton. We should let those people have their say before we pass this stupid legislation next week.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 61

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

Question not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government Law Reform Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 60

New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4)

Second Reading

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I move, That the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time. The main purpose of the bill is to get parents who are not paying their child support back into the system. In order to achieve that objective, the bill contains a balanced package of incentives and controls, to ensure that liable parents meet their financial obligations toward their children.

The incentives include the write-off of certain debt penalties for parents whose payments have lapsed, while the controls impose a number of conditions that parents must comply with. One of those conditions is that parents must still pay the arrears they owe, including some of the penalties. Once parents enter into an agreement with the Inland Revenue Department to make payments on their current liability and arrears, the incremental penalties they have previously accrued will be written off at 6-monthly review points. However, if they default on their obligations, they will get no relief at the next review point. Parents will then have to negotiate a new agreement with the Inland Revenue Department, and comply with that before they can again qualify for a write-off of the incremental penalties they owe. That is the principal measure contained in this bill.

The bill is aimed at reinforcing the message that whatever happens in parents’ own relationships, they are responsible for their children. Children are not a commodity to be tossed aside when a relationship breaks up. At the same time, the incentives in the bill do recognise the considerable financial and other pressures that liable parents can be under, and therefore the bill seeks to strike a reasonable balance. In addition, the bill introduces several complementary measures that, again, are aimed at ensuring all liable parents take financial responsibility for their children. That includes parents who deliberately structure their financial affairs to minimise the amount of child support they should pay. To counter that practice, the bill strengthens the Inland Revenue Department’s ability to investigate liable parents’ financial affairs when it suspects they are paying less child support than they should be.

Although those measures clearly target parents who deliberately renege on their financial obligations towards their children, the bill also recognises some special circumstances that justify an exemption from the payment rules. In this category the bill proposes a temporary exemption from child support payments for young parents for whom it is compulsory to be at school. If, however, they take on part-time or casual employment, they will be required to make some contribution to the support of their child. The second exemption contained in the bill relates to the victims of sexual offences. The bill proposes a permanent exemption from child support payment requirements for that group. Those people should not be further victimised by being required to pay child support for a child born as a result of a sexual crime.

The remaining measures in the bill are of a pragmatic or administrative nature. They include new provisions relating to the acceptance of overseas birth documentation, the introduction of a new administrative review procedure, and the introduction of new appeal rights for both parties following an administrative review.

In reporting back to the House, the Social Services Committee has recommended only minor administrative changes to the provisions in the bill. The first change defers the start date for allocating payments to custodial parents for 2 months following the date of assent. That is necessary in order to allow for changes to be made to the processing systems. The second change recommended by the committee refines the formula for the write-off of incremental penalties. The third change allows the offsetting of child support payments to be automated when both parents are liable for child support and one parent is in receipt of a social security benefit. The fourth and final change recommended by the committee is a new provision to ensure that living allowances are correctly inflation-adjusted in future years.

In bringing the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) to its second reading, I wish to express my gratitude and the gratitude of the Minister of Revenue for the committee’s detailed consideration of the bill, which I now commend to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): When I first spoke on this bill, in its first reading, I was hopeful there would be significant changes to it and that we could then get cross-party support for it. That is because this is a very, very serious and important issue, and I would like to thank the Minister for acknowledging the work of the Social Services Committee. One of the problems in our society at the moment is that we even need legislation for child support. We have to have it only because, unfortunately, there are some parents who simply will not acknowledge, or do anything other than even acknowledge, their rights and obligations in relation to their children.

One of the reasons the National Party will not be supporting this bill is that it writes off about half a billion dollars in penalties. The message we are sending to people is that, in relation to child support, half a billion dollars in penalties—and about half of that amount I understand is owed by expatriate parents; in other words, those who have flown the coop, those who have run away from their responsibilities—will be written off when it comes to child support penalties. But do not expect any writing off of anybody else’s tax penalties, because it is all going in these ones.

It is time we acknowledge that for some people children do not come first. Their children are simply accessories for a time, and when the relationship fails they then move on to another relationship. That happens; we all know it does. But, no matter what, children should come first. Even if relationships fail, children must be put first.

I see this, unfortunately, as legislation that writes off half a billion dollars of debt but also does not go quite far enough, in our minds, to enable us to support some of the good changes in the bill. I think it is very important that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has the ability to go outside the formula for assessing liable-parent contributions to look at the liable-parent’s ability to pay, the assets involved and the control that the liable parent has of those assets, and what the situation is for the parent who has the day-to-day care of the child. I think that is a good provision.

What concerned me greatly in the select committee was a very detailed submission I received from a woman in Christchurch. She outlined assets in great detail, including certificates of title, references, property valuations, details of addresses, numerous properties—in fact, pages of assets that her former partner owned and controlled, including cars worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. There was an extremely lavish amount of assets. She then went on to point out that he was paying the bare minimum in child support. When we put the question to the Inland Revenue Department advisers—and from memory all of us thought this was a very worthwhile case—whether this was an instance where the commissioner would exercise his right to review the liable-parent contributions, we did not get a positive answer. We got a “well, it depends, maybe, possibly, whatever” sort of answer.

Frankly, that is not good enough. When a parent is bringing up her child and getting only the barest support from the father of the child, who is a man of extreme means in terms of property and income, and the Inland Revenue Department can give us only a “maybe, possibly, oh, maybe” answer, that is not good enough. There must be an attitude within the Inland Revenue Department that puts these children first.

There are those groups—and I am sure every member of the House will have been contacted by them—whose view is that liable parents should pay their contribution towards the cost of bringing up their children. Those groups say that liable parents should not have to pay their contribution to the Inland Revenue Department but that they should pay it to the children, or buy things for the child. However, that ignores the fact that for many sole parents who are left with a child to bring up, their only means of support is from the State.

The State is not just something that exists in Wellington; it is every single one of us taxpayers. Every single one of us is paying for those children. I am one of those people who do not begrudge that, but I do expect that when there is a liable parent who can pay—who should pay—that they do pay. Those of us with children do pay for our children, and we look after them. We do not view that as a dreadful burden and nor should liable parents; we view it as part of our obligations as parents.

Frankly, I am one of those people who are sick and tired of listening to people grizzle on about their rights in relation to their children when they are not prepared to accept their obligations as parents. I am also sick and tired of people who say they will not pay their liable parent contribution unless they get access to their children. I can understand their feeling of loss, but I do know that access is actually the right of the child. It is very difficult for a lone, sole parent to feel a huge amount of sympathy towards the other parent when they see him or her off with asset after asset, living a high life, re-partnered, and going along their merry way, then having to drop everything to that parent’s will when he or she wants to see his or her child. I accept that many genuine people would feel very hurt by those comments, and I am not including them in that situation; but I, like many other members of the House, have seen people who do abuse the rights and obligations of being a parent, and who are parents only when they need to be.

I also know of some fathers on very good incomes who arrange with the mothers of their children that they, the fathers, will not be named on the birth certificate, for the sole reason that they will not be contributing towards the costs of bringing up their children. I saw that as a lawyer before I came into this House. It is an absolute disgrace for people in that situation to believe it is their right to do so.

One of my concerns is that writing off this half a billion dollars of penalties will reinforce the view that if we wait long enough for people to pay off their debt—if we wait for enough people not to be meeting their obligations to their children—then eventually it will all get written off. We will put some things in the bill that will be helpful, but at the end of the day they may or may not do a scrap of good. It concerns me greatly that unless the Inland Revenue Department makes it a priority to actually get the money in, to actually get people contributing towards the cost and upbringing of their children—and not only that but putting the effort into being with their children when they can—then I do not think we will have any change in behaviour. In fact, I think all we will get is a further eroding of parental obligations and responsibilities, as well as the rights.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): I am pleased to rise and take a call on the second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). As chair of the Social Services Committee, which considered the bill, I would like to thank Judith Collins, who has just resumed her seat, in her role as deputy chair and also the other committee members. I also thank our committee staff and the advisers who helped us with this bill. The bill was expedited fairly quickly through the committee in terms of parliamentary process. The committee received the bill in December last year and closed submissions in February of this year. We heard 35 submissions, and we spent several hours deliberating and considering the bill before reporting it back to the House today for its second reading.

The main purpose of the bill is to increase the compliance of parents who fail to meet their child support responsibilities. That goal should be balanced against the need not to wring out of parents support liabilities they cannot afford to pay. The bill’s purpose is being achieved through a number of measures. The bill provides limited relief to parents who have fallen behind in their payments and have attracted penalty payments as a result. That is significant given that, as at September 2005, of the $1,012 million owed in outstanding child support, $584 million were penalty payments for arrears. The goal is to encourage lapsed parents to re-enter the system without punitive action being taken against them. When lapsed parents enter an agreement with the Inland Revenue Department to make payment on their child support and penalties, previously accrued penalties will be gradually written down at 6-monthly review points, provided the parents keep to the agreement. Because not all penalties will be written off, parents are still better off if they simply pay their child support on time and do not incur penalties in the first place.

The Inland Revenue Department will also have a new power to administratively review child support levels if it believes that parents are structuring their finances in a way that deliberately lowers their income in order to avoid child support payments.

I do hear the opposing view from Opposition members, who disagree with the principle of writing off such a large amount of money. Of course, they are entitled to share their opinion in this way, and members of the House and the public will note the National Party’s minority view in the report that has come back from the select committee.

By and large, I think this legislation represents progress and will be helpful. I commend the bill to the House and hope it is expedited through its remaining stages.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). I note that the chairperson of the Social Services Committee, Georgina Beyer, has admitted in her comments that for once this bill was expedited quickly. However, that is one of the great problems with regard to it. When we look at the main purpose of the bill, we see it is to increase the compliance of parents who are not currently meeting their child support obligations. The committee was also concerned about liable parents who hide significant amounts of income and assets in order to avoid paying child support. That is quite right. But what is quite outstanding about the legislation, which affects many children, is that it in no way mentions or directs its concern or care to the children themselves.

It is quite extraordinary that prior to the 2005 election a group called the Agenda for Children, which represented something like 400 different children’s organisations, made a submission to the various parties, stating that one of the things we should do in legislation is to have child-impact reporting. But there is absolutely no sign in the bill, or in the deliberations on it, that it actually mentions children. In fact, in submission No. 26, which came from Child Advocacy Services, the point made by Mr Murray, a coordinator for that group, was that there was no mention in the bill of the care or welfare of the child being an important or a paramount concern. When we heard Georgina Beyer say the bill was expedited quickly, we must agree that yes, it was, but I think we are going to have continued problems with the legislation because of that.

One of the reasons that National is not supporting the bill is the point that my colleague Judith Collins made: the Government is writing off half a billion dollars, which it will expect other hard-working New Zealanders to pay for.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Aw!

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: We hear Clayton Cosgrove once again say: “Aw!”. We are talking about half a billion dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ money that he is writing off. That surely must send the wrong signals, because it is being written off for individuals who have not bothered, for one reason or another, to look after, or take responsibility for, their children. I hope Clayton Cosgrove will come to his senses and start to realise that it is hugely important to send the right signals to parents throughout New Zealand, and that responsible parenting is at the heart of what the bill should be about. But Clayton Cosgrove, a relatively new Minister who struts his way around New Zealand saying we should take care of every dollar we spend, is writing off half a billion dollars.

One of the other important issues is that the new Minister of Revenue, Mr Dunne from United Future, somehow or another did a deal with the Labour Government, and what did they come up with? They said they had to get this bill through, so they would write off the half a billion dollars. Well, it is a great entrée for the member for Ohariu-Belmont, the new Minister of Revenue, to start off his career again with the Labour Government, by joining Labour in writing off half a billion dollars of very hard-earned taxpayers’ money!

I certainly agree that the bill could have achieved some very important aspects, but unfortunately it has not. We in the National Party are also concerned that the bill does not sufficiently protect responsible parents and their children from those liable parents who hide significant assets. I think, once again, that Judith Collins—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You would know a few.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I wonder what Clayton Cosgrove is up to now, in saying I would know a few. Well, I can say that many people come to my constituency clinic in Port Waikato, and I imagine to Clayton Cosgrove’s clinic, and comment on the very concerning problem in New Zealand that all sorts of mechanisms are available through trusts whereby a liable parent can, indeed, hide the responsibility and avoid the responsibility of ensuring his or her children are looked after.

It was quite fascinating to hear a submission from one individual, who came down from Rotorua. He said the heart of the issue is that parents want to put their love for their children first. I think Clayton Cosgrove would agree with that. That parent said that for him it was a privilege to have the custody of his children, and that if he lost out financially because of it, then he was not very bothered about that. He also said everybody hates the system, and it should be about both sides wanting the best for their children.

That is one of the points that is a worry, when I hear Georgina Beyer saying proudly that the select committee rushed this bill through. It has rushed through the writing off of half a billion dollars, but it has also rushed through the very important sentiment expressed by the submitter that the system right now—

Georgina Beyer: That member was on the select committee.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON—is not optimal and—

Georgina Beyer: That man talks with a forked tongue.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: We have some very inane interjections from the Government side. I think they are talking about forked tongues, and I do not think they can afford to do so. Neither Georgina Beyer nor Clayton Cosgrove can afford to talk about forked tongues, particularly when they are writing off half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ funds, and particularly when they did not take heed of that very important submission, which basically said the interests of the child should be put at the centre of the legislation. Yet as one submitter pointed out, concern for the paramountcy of the child is not mentioned anywhere in the bill. That just shows how badly off focus the tired old Labour Government has become.

The point I was making was that indeed a large number of people throughout the country, both men and women, maliciously hide their assets. The one that Judith Collins was talking about had something like half a dozen sports cars: some Mercedes-Benzes, Jaguars, and various others—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: And the odd lawyer who designed—Judith Collins would know about that.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Well, no, I think he may have been from down in Clayton Cosgrove’s electorate, and Clayton Cosgrove does nothing about it. That is the problem. The Labour Government, which is all too ready to rush this bill through, forgets about the basic needs of the child, and that is what we are concerned about.

Certainly, the Government should have been much, much more thoughtful about this bill. The Government should not rush the bill through on this occasion, because it has made the whole situation very much more difficult. In fact, the Child Advocacy Services coordinator is opposed to the bill because it contravenes accepted practice regarding retrospective legislation and accounting policies. That is pretty basic, and one would think that Clayton Cosgrove would take notice of it. If the Government is to remove the separation between “personal” and “corporate” for child support purposes, why is it not being removed for general taxation purposes, also? The Child Advocacy Services coordinator also says the bill fails to differentiate between liable parents who do take responsibility for their children and those who do not.

That is very much at the heart of the reason why the National Party is not supporting this bill, which could have had a great deal of promise.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). One of the bill’s purposes, as outlined in its introduction, is to improve compliance with financial support obligations so that more children receive the financial support to which they are entitled. Of course, this in turn reduces the State provision of financial support. This bill proposes writing off the debt penalties—not arrears—as a part incentive for parents to reactivate their payments. As outlined by the Minister, it is only limited relief. As the chairperson of the Social Services Committee, Georgina Beyer, has pointed out, the total penalties have exceeded arrears since September 2001.

So action is really needed to encourage those lapsed parents to re-enter the system. It is far less expensive for New Zealand to write off the debt penalties than the arrears. The debt penalties are paper money at this point in time. Of course we all know here in this House that it is far better for people to pay their child support on time. We also know that it is only by bringing or trying to bring all of the non-payers into the actual system that their children will receive the financial support they are entitled to receive from their parents. There is no easy way to deal with this issue. We are very aware of that. We all know, too, that children are a parent’s responsibility. As Judith Collins pointed out, children must come first. We totally agree with that sentiment.

There is an obligation on members of Parliament to ensure that parents who should be contributing to their families and their children do actually contribute. This bill goes some way towards trying to do something about this situation. It has irked many members in this House for a long time, and New Zealand First members are among them.

We know that children and teenagers are expensive creatures to rear and to keep running. Meeting the needs of teenagers in today’s society to ensure that their overall well-being and self-esteem are intact so that they can interact with their peers to the best of their ability is really important. We want our children to be the best they can possibly be. As parents, we all know that peer pressure to have the right clothes—particularly labelled clothes—to have a cellphone they can use, and an iPod, is pretty intense. It is really tough for teenagers when they cannot compete on an equal footing with their classmates.

We all know that children can be really cruel to those who are not judged to be part of the crowd. As many members have pointed out, Rodney Hide may not be considered to be part of the crowd with his Dancing with the Stars performances. We in this House all know that children can be totally disadvantaged in both the short and the long term if they do not receive support, particularly financial support, from both their parents. It is really unfortunate that in these cases the children ultimately become the innocent victims. In New Zealand First we believe that when a mother names the father of her child or children, except in exceptional circumstances the father should contribute to the lives of those children financially as well as emotionally, or with his time.

I will extend that to say that I think parents should contribute emotionally, and I know how often parents contribute financially right throughout the lives of their children. Even then, as parents—and many of us in this House would say this—we are never not responsible for our children, no matter how old we are, probably until the day our children become responsible for us in our old age in our rest home.

It is essential that as far as possible a parent’s child support liability accurately reflects that parent’s ability to provide financial assistance for his or her children. We have all heard stories about this. We heard today another story whereby one of the liable parents has managed to put all of that parent’s assets in a trust so that, by and large, they are actually hidden. Of course, these people pay far less than what they should pay. Unfortunately, again, it is the children who suffer—something that should not happen at all.

On the other hand, I have heard of a liable mother who provides so much for her absent children that she is actually forced to live on the breadline. Unfortunately, life would be easier for her if she were unemployed and on a benefit, and paid only the bare minimum. But that is not the message we want to send to people, and it is not what this mother wants to do. She is quite happy to look after her children to the best of her ability.

It has also been suggested that there may be many more people than we know about who have absconded and are resident across the Tasman. If we can ensure that the numbers of people doing this can be significantly reduced or tracked down, then that should be done.

This bill is essentially about supporting children. We always say children are our future. They deserve the support of both their parents. This is a really serious and important issue, and measures did need to be put in place. We condemn the Government when these measures are not put in place. New Zealand First supports this bill and believes that it goes some way towards meeting the needs of both the parents and the children in these particular cases.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Eight years ago, a cunning piece of advertising was conjured up by the Inland Revenue Department to promote child support. It featured a young boy who, dejected and forlorn, is unable to play a good game of soccer. This is all due to the baddy, his daddy, who had supposedly failed to provide child support. Ostracised to the sideline by the coach and his peers, the lad provided a visible focus for New Zealanders to express their outrage about the blatant negligence of the liable parent. The suffering child provoked an immediate controversy, with the Children’s Agenda, the Child Poverty Action Group, the centre for child and family studies at Auckland University, the Hillary Commission for Sport, Fitness and Leisure, and even the soccer association all speaking out loud about how misleading the picture was.

Although the advertisement managed barely a 2-week run, its impact was enormous, fuelling public perception that the liable parent was not paying his—and it is normally a “his” —dues, leaving the poor old public taxpayers forking out yet again. It reinforced an impression that the “d” in “DPB” stands for “deviant”, when in actual fact the “d” for deviant is solely that in “IRD”. The caregiver parent on the domestic purposes benefit pays liable funds directly to the Inland Revenue Department—not for soccer, not for food, not for piano lessons, not for school bus fares. It is a direct transaction to the Inland Revenue Department that bears little reference to how the individual child support payment is used. The Māori Party is pleased to stand today on behalf of that soccer player and both his parents—custodial and non-custodial—to support a bill that will help to lift some of that discrimination.

It would be fair to say that the outrage and anxiety of the general public around the issue of child support was also represented among the 35 submissions received on the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). Some of the women with sole custody of their children relayed how their ex-partners had structured their financial affairs to reduce their personal incomes, thus lessening their financial liability. We all know of anecdotes where wealthy liable parents have somehow been able to avoid their responsibilities by hiding their income source. The bill addresses this situation by allowing the Inland Revenue Department to investigate a liable parent’s true economic income, and to enable this information to be used in the administrative review process.

Yet other submitters expressed a high level of concern over this aspect, perceiving it to be part of the snooper surveillance culture that this Government likes to fall into. The Institute of Chartered Accountants suggested that levels of child support were a matter for parents to settle, and the Inland Revenue Department should not be able to interfere in that process. While the Māori Party is always opposed to any move that invades personal privacy, or that intervenes in and affects the possibility of achieving effective relationships within whānau, our overriding concern in this specific instance must be the well-being of the children. The key driver for this bill is ensuring the responsibilities and obligations of parenting are duly respected so that our tamariki do not miss out.

The Māori Party is absolutely committed to any policy that can be applied to support whānau development. To truly consider whānau development requires a revolution in the thinking of tangata whenua and the Crown. The imposition of Crown programmes being “done to” whānau does nothing but increase dependency upon a benevolent State. The revolution is in how we consider whānau, and how we harness its strengths, potential, and talent.

We can encourage whānau development by supporting fathers to become involved with their children. This bill does that by making it easier for the non-custodial parent to contribute to paying child support. I have a lot of sympathies for fathers who, through the decisions of the Family Court, end up missing out on the special privilege of parenting. I firmly believe that no one should raise a child alone. It is the whakapapa right of every child to know his or her parents, whether or not they live in the same home. I am also concerned that, in restricting access to the father, we are also denying the children the unique knowledge and experience that spring from having relationships with their extended family. It was with considerable concern that we read submissions from fathers describing how their ex-partners who have custody are exploiting their generosity. Some of them expressed a belief that custodial parents were refusing to share custody out of fear that they would receive less money. The submissions revealed tales of men wanting to protect themselves from money-grubbing women, or of women victimised by men’s economic power. They tell of a resentment that builds from custodial decisions, a resentment that manifests itself in a battle between parents, a resentment for which the child suffers.

Our sadness was focused on the avoidance of parental responsibility that came through these concerns. We are absolutely clear that trying to make do on meagre benefits is an enormous struggle. Whānau face huge difficulties every day to feed, clothe, house, care for, and educate their children. The child support system has been seen, in the midst of that struggle, to cut across any possibility of better relationships between divided families sharing children. Too often the bitterness and distrust experienced within the parental relationship colour the nature of the parenting received by the child.

But in a Māori world view parenting is not the sole domain of the birth or whakapapa parents. Kūni Jenkins describes the interaction of parents and their children with the rest of the whānau in the following terms: “… the Maori woman was part of a community. The home unit was part of the whole kainga. Grandmothers, aunts and other females and male elders were responsible for rearing the children of the kainga. The natural parents were not the sole care-givers.” The Māori Party is committed towards the restoration of obligations, responsibilities, and roles to strengthen whanaungatanga. Although the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) focuses on the levels and application of financial support, we are determined to promote the massive resource that is available for children and parents within the embrace of the wider whānau. Although the bill changes are basically intended to increase compliance with the existing liability assessment formula, we believe that there is another formula for success just waiting to be revealed within the layers of whakapapa. Justice and fairness require that all children are able to maintain their genealogical links to the ancestral treasures into which they are born. Child support must support every child to know his or her birthright, to identify his or her history, and to live out his or her ancestral aspirations.

Parents, whānau, and hapū have the responsibility of upholding, enforcing, and maintaining the cultural values within the whānau. It is a collective responsibility not reserved for the exclusive role of two parents. The expression “Children can shed tears but the embarrassment is the parents’.” conveys some of the nature of the mutual play between child and whānau. The way in which children are raised, including whether they have been taught the appropriate values, is reflected in how they behave, and rather than being an individual thing, the shame or glory, the embarrassment or pride, reflects on the whole whānau. I remember many excruciating moments as a child, knowing that one wrong word or one careless action would reflect on my Auntie Wai, my grandmother, my aunties, my uncles, my cousins, and beyond.

This is not, and does not have to be, the preserve of tangata whenua. I am often intrigued in this House how a crisis for, say, a Māori family is deemed to be the problem of the Māori MPs only. It is an extension of what happens in many school communities, where a Māori teacher becomes responsible for all the Māori problems, even if sometimes the problem is actually the way the non-Māori teacher is teaching. We can all take responsibility for each other, and the Māori Party wants to encourage and foster that sense of collective responsibility that is essential to a caring community. Whanaungatanga has its cost, and that cost is collective accountability. But it also yields such richness through the reciprocal obligations and ownership, which mean that, whether in a crowd or on one’s own, one is never alone. Children are the hope of our future—the foundation of all our futures. We must take every step forward to consolidate that foundation, to make it secure, stable, and strong. The Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) is one step along the way to achieving that foundation. The rest of it is up to all of us—all of us. Kia ora.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): I stand to speak to the second reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) as a member of the Social Services Committee, and I thank the chairperson and fellow members of the committee for the work that was done on this bill.

This bill brings to us several major changes to the legislation. First of all, it intends to allow the writing off of half a billion dollars in penalties.

Dr Paul Hutchison: How much?

ANNE TOLLEY: About half a billion dollars—it is a lot of money. Supposedly, the intent of the bill is to write that money off to create an incentive for non-payers to start making payments again. I have difficulty with that logic. However, that is one of the main intents of this amendment bill.

It also allows the Commissioner of Inland Revenue—not just the custodial parent—to initiate a review of the liable parent’s affairs. It creates two new exceptions in the legislation: young people under 16 who meet certain criteria, and victims of sex offences. It also allows an appeal to the Family Court for people who have been through an administrative support review and are not happy with it.

It is with some sadness that I stand here with my colleagues today opposing a bill that actually contains many good features. We all believe the premise—and there was unanimous support in the select committee for it—that all parents have a responsibility to support their children. They have a responsibility to ensure that their children have every opportunity to grow and develop into good, honest, capable, happy, healthy New Zealanders. But National members cannot support this crazy idea that if we do not penalise those parents who shirk their responsibilities, somehow that will send a signal that will make them start paying their way. I just cannot understand the logic. I questioned it throughout the select committee process, and never really got to grips with the thinking behind that policy. I just do not believe that the Government understands the incentives that drive people to not support their children in the first place. Removing any penalties, and trying to protect them from getting into debt, do not actually deal with the main force that drives them to avoid looking after their children.

I concur with Tariana Turia when she talked about the right of every child to have its mum and dad care about it and contribute to its upbringing. During the submissions, we heard from a whole range of parents crying out for the opportunity to do just that. We had 70 submissions, and a lot of them were about the Child Support Act rather than the bill that was in front of us. We had submissions from individual parents, groups who were representing groups of parents, legal firms, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants—a whole range of people talking about a very important piece of legislation in family law.

We also heard from some submitters who contested the need for this legislation in the first place. They said that, in fact, the Inland Revenue Department is currently able to conduct very serious investigations into liable parents’ affairs, and had done so. They questioned whether we needed the provision in this amendment bill to give the commissioner further powers.

I think, for me, the most interesting submissions came from a whole range of parents who were concerned about the way the law actually goes about maintaining support for children within current structures. We heard from a number of fathers who were talking about shared care arrangements, and referring particularly to what was happening in Australia. That, of course, brings us to look at not just the liable parent and his or her financial and family circumstances but also the custodial parent. There was a huge desire to have recognised in legislation the joint responsibility of both parents for their children, and a sharing of costs, depending on both parents’ ability to earn a living and also the circumstances they found themselves in.

A very good submission was made by a gentleman who talked about the cliff effect, whereby there is a rigid formula that the Inland Revenue Department currently works under, and a percentage of custody entitles a person to a certain amount of support from the liable parent. That gentleman talked about what was happening in Australia, where an attempt was made to even that out over a wider percentage range, in order to give more flexibility to the arrangements that parents were making to look after their children.

A number of submitters talked about the ability to determine paternity—an issue that was raised by fathers, in particular, obviously. Currently, mothers have a veto, so if someone disputes the paternity of the child whom he is being forced to pay maintenance towards, he has no ability to demand a paternity test if the mother of that child refuses to have it. That seemed to be a bit unjust—in fact, it seemed to be pretty unjust. There seemed to be consensus from many members of the select committee that we needed to look at the legislation, with a view to making that situation better.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants made a very good submission, and I explored with the officials a number of the points that it had made. One of its points, in respect of the new review that was being proposed within this bill, was that the people conducting the review of the financial situation of the liable parent should have commercial law experience rather than family law experience, because those people would bring much more to the table. Let us face it: the people we are trying to get at through that provision in this amendment bill are people who have very cleverly hidden their assets. The institute, which is probably well versed in some of the ways that some liable parents hide their assets, said that if the people involved in that review really understood commercial law and knew where to look, there might be a better opportunity to dig out some of those facts.

In conclusion, I say that it is with some sadness that I find myself standing here opposing this bill. I oppose it because I believe that its basic tenet of letting parents off penalties in order to try to incentivise them to pay more child support does not make sense. I absolutely support many of the provisions in the bill, and I hope the Minister of Revenue will take account of the submissions that were made and conduct a wider review of the Child Support Act.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to.

Ayes 71

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

Noes 47

New Zealand National 47.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.