Tuesday, 1 August 2006

Tuesday, 1 August 2006

Tuesday, 1 August 2006

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Resignations

Hon Jim Sutton, Labour

Madam SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Jim Sutton resigning his seat in the House with effect on 30 July 2006.

List Member Vacancy

List Member Vacancy

Madam SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer that pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993, Charles Pierre Chauvel has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives in place of James Robert Sutton.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

Charles Chauvel was presented to the Speaker, made the affirmation required by law, and took his seat in the House.

Points of Order

Motion Without Notice—Leave to Move

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate.

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

Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 3, standing in my name on the Order Paper, which reads as follows: “That this House has no confidence in the Speaker given her ruling in the matter of privilege made out against Taito Phillip Field, for the reasons that, having been given the responsibility of exercising the very wide discretion under Standing Order 399 of determining matters that should be referred to the Privileges Committee of this Parliament, she has chosen to exercise that discretion in such a narrow, legalistic and technical manner as to make it impossible for the Privileges Committee to ascertain the truth regarding the allegations against Taito Phillip Field, or to uphold and protect the standards and reputation of this Parliament.”

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

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I seek leave for a debate to be held on members’ notice of motion No. 3 in the name of Dr Donald Brash, the debate to be held in conjunction with the debate on Government order of the day No. 2, and with the vote on that motion to be taken at the end of the vote on Government order of the day No. 2.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): The proposal by the Leader of the House is that we should hear not only the imprest supply motion—the confidence motion on the Government—but also the motion moved by Dr Don Brash, and that the 3 hours set aside for the imprest supply debate should be a debate concurrent with Dr Brash’s motion, thereby allowing the House no additional time to consider Dr Brash’s motion. If Dr Brash’s motion were put, it would be an unlimited debate. If Dr Cullen wants to indicate that the imprest supply debate may now become an unlimited time debate, then, of course, that would affect our decision on this matter. But we are not about to have our democratic rights trampled on by a Leader of the House who is playing fast and loose with the Standing Orders.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): If the member understood anything about the Standing Orders, he would not have had that motion moved in the name of Dr Don Brash in any case, because that motion has no virtue in relation to the Standing Orders of this Parliament. The imprest supply debate is a 3-hour debate. National members will have some seven or eight speeches in that particular debate, and they may shout as much as they like—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: If members wish to remain to hear this point, I ask Dr Cullen to start again so the rest of us can hear his point. We heard Mr Brownlee in relative silence. I therefore ask the House to respect Dr Cullen in his comment.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The imprest supply debate is a 3-hour debate that can cover any matter in front of Parliament. National will have some seven or eight speakers in that debate—far more than the normal ration under a so-called open-ended debate, when the closure is usually taken after two National speeches, two Labour speeches and one speech each from the other parties around the House. I have also offered Mr Brownlee to extend the general debate tomorrow by an extra half an hour—so there would be some 18 speeches in that debate—and to take the vote on Dr Brash’s motion at the end of that. Given that the motion has absolutely no virtue, it is extraordinarily generous that I have offered the Opposition members the chance to debate it. They are the ones interjecting during a point of order, yet they claim that others are bringing the House into disrepute.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I have heard from both sides, and although clarification of the point of order can be sought, it is not a matter of debate. Leave was sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Personal Explanations

Ingram Report—Statement

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere): I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 350.

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

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I point out that this a man who has apparently done nothing—apart from a bit of bad judgment—

Madam SPEAKER: This is not a debate. Mr Brownlee, please, this is your last warning. Your seeking clarification is perfectly acceptable; debating the issue is not. Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon Member: For what reason?

Madam SPEAKER: Could the member please indicate the subject of the personal statement.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere): It is in relation to the Ingram report.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [Interruption] There is objection. Mr Field, you cannot give your personal statement.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think it is only fair that we point out that given the House was not prepared to have a debate on matters relating to this inquiry in the whole, there can surely be no justification for one member to want to get up and make a statement on this particular issue.

Madam SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee, that is not a point of order.

Speaker’s Rulings

Questions for Oral Answer—Interjections and Noise Level

Madam SPEAKER: I undertook to reflect on the complaints that I have been receiving on the level of noise and interjection during question time. I have received such complaints from members and from the public, and the matter has been discussed at meetings of the Business Committee.

Interjections are forms of intervention that arise in the course of a debate. They are part of the interchange that goes on when a member is making a speech in the House and another member challenges what is being said. Strictly speaking, they are not part of the question process, which is confined to one member asking a question of another member—usually a Minister—and the latter replying. Speaker’s ruling 150/1, given by Speaker Tapsell in 1996, makes this clear.

But, as Speaker Tapsell says, members do interject during question time. It would be unrealistic to expect it to be otherwise. He went on to say that this is permitted as long as the interjections do not become disruptive. Since that ruling was given, a practice has developed of Speakers trying to enforce an even stricter rule while a question is being asked of tolerating no interjections at all. This has led to a number of members being ordered to leave the Chamber.

I have more recently sought to apply Speaker Tapsell’s ruling in its original form. As long as interjections are not disruptive they will be permitted, regardless of whether they occur while a question is being asked or answered. But I stress that that is as long as interjections are not disruptive. Unfortunately, we have experienced interjections from a number of members that are, or at least appear to be, concerted. Concerted interjections become barracking, and barracking cannot be tolerated at all, for it makes it impossible for members and persons listening to Parliament to follow proceedings.

I therefore ask members to note that I am reverting fully to Speaker Tapsell’s 1996 ruling. Interjections will be permitted during question time, as long as they are reasonable and not disorderly in themselves, but concerted or widespread interjection will not be permitted, and will be dealt with, as appropriate, by the Speaker. I ask for the cooperation of all members in this regard.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened closely to your ruling on that matter and I want to just raise this point with you if you intend to apply a stricter application of the Speaker’s ruling. I want to draw your attention to Standing Order 377(2)(b) in particular, on the content of answers, which states that replies shall not contain inferences, imputations, etc. We have already had a case today where Mr Cullen, Leader of the House, was taking a point of order and strayed from the point to the situation where you got a lot of objections and interjections from this side of the House, because he went outside the Standing Orders. If you expect this House—and, in particular, the Opposition—to understand your ruling and to have fewer interjections and less volume, then it will be very important that we have the application of the Standing Orders in regard to the Minister’s questions, and, particularly, we need you to intervene when the Prime Minister or a Minister strays off the subject matter when replying. Otherwise, we will continue to have disorder in the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I just point out that in that case we were not talking about question time; that was a point of order when there should have been no interjections from anyone, and although Mr Brownlee was heard in silence, Dr Cullen was not. I would draw members’ attention also to Standing Order 371 about the content of questions, as well as answers. They are very similar. I agree with the member; if, in fact, there could be an abiding by both the Standing Orders, it would lead to a more orderly time during question time. I would also point out—and a copy of the ruling will be available—that it is, in fact, a less strict interpretation than the one that had been given before.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand from the new ruling you have given that interjections during questions as well as answers will be tolerated. I have absolutely no difficulty with your ruling in respect of Speaker Tapsell’s judgment contained in Speaker’s ruling 150/1—that if interjections completely disrupt the House then, absolutely, it is your right to intervene.

But you are substantially changing the balance of power within this Parliament with your ruling, because when a member asks a question, we can see from Hansard that the amount of time he or she has in that question is only a fraction—usually on average about one-sixth—of the length of an answer. As long as I have been a member of this House, the balancing factor in that 6:1 ratio during times of speaking has been the fact that members’ questions are heard in silence and that interjections are allowed, providing they are rare and reasonable, in respect of answers. So I want to get some clarification from you, Madam Speaker, about why you are changing the balance within this Parliament between the Opposition and Government around this key issue of questions.

Madam SPEAKER: I am not changing the balance. I am reverting to what was the practice—which changed, I understand from doing my research—when MMP came in. After a while some smaller parties in this House were not accorded the same amount of courtesy when they asked their questions; therefore Speaker Hunt began a practice of more interpretation. I agree entirely with the member that interjections for both questions and answers should be rare and reasonable.

I am attempting to ensure that we do not get into the ridiculous situation that I have found myself in, where people have been almost entrapping others who have coughed, laughed, or made some interjection that was perhaps not appropriate, and the issue therefore has became not the purpose of the rule but in fact its strict application. I just ask members to take time to actually consider what I have said, and I would very much appreciate any comments they have to be referred through their whips to the Business Committee.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just reflecting on your ruling and its implications, I ask what the position will now be in respect of interjections on points of order. If you are going to open up this cage completely, it seems to me that you are going to encourage exactly what you do not want.

Madam SPEAKER: I can tell the member that it will be the same—there will be no intervention at all—if that helps him. This is only for questions, which is why I have made it clear and why I suggest that members do read what I have said.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have two points I wish to raise, because the ruling that you have given is a very significant change to the practice of this Parliament during question time. My first point concerns whether there is any connection between this significant change in the balance between the Opposition and the Government and the tabling of the Leader of the Opposition’s motion of no confidence in yourself, and—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I can assure the member that I get the point. If he consults with his whips and checks with Hansard, he will realise that this issue has been around for some time. Before the end of the last session, in fact, I had raised it and I had sought some guidance and assistance from members in the House. It was specifically raised by the Hon Peter Dunne and, as in accordance with normal practice when a ruling is sought, the Speaker tries to give that ruling as soon as possible afterwards—which is what I have done.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have limited, in some respects, the way interjections are to be made during answers to questions. But this whole issue has arisen because of the way you have interpreted addressing the question. It seems to me that if a Minister has just tangentially referred to the subject matter of the question, then that has been enough to be considered as addressing the question. But so often that has caused enormous frustration, and I suggest that another possible and reasonable interpretation of addressing the question would be to actually address the way it is asked and the answering of that question. That would be addressing the question, as opposed to the practice that has developed of making a tangential reference to the subject matter, which is always going to lead to annoyance and frustration for members on this side of the House and, frankly, a lack of accountability by Ministers in relation to reasonable questions by members.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): In fact, this is not a new practice or a new issue, at all. Indeed, the fact that you are able to refer to quite longstanding Speakers’ rulings on addressing the question is precisely because this has always been an issue between Ministers and members opposite in the House, and some day the member may have the chance to experience rulings from the other side of the equation.

Madam SPEAKER: This is a point of order. Do members wish to remain in this Chamber?

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

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am in the middle of a point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: We’re hearing the point of order. Would that member please be seated until the member has had the courtesy—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You are objecting to my colleague interjecting because the imputation made by Dr Cullen was a smart alec remark quite outside the Standing Orders.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry but the member does not have the floor. I must say that when points were being raised by members on that side of the House, interjections were not made, yet one saw that they could have been. So I ask for some tolerance in the House, and for members to allow the member to complete in silence his comment on the point of order.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said, the notion that there is a requirement to address the question is, of course, what the Standing Orders actually state, and the rulings on that have been repeated endlessly almost all the time that I have been in Parliament, as people have raised points of order about the answers given by Ministers. But what we have just heard and what Dr Mapp—and, indeed, Mr Carter—said earlier raises another matter that has come up frequently in National Party points of order: that if the National Party does not like what is happening in the House, it reserves the right to break the Standing Orders and to engage in endless barracking and a barrage of noise. That clearly is a breach of the Standing Orders and of good order within the House. If members have an issue, that issue is to be raised by way of a point of order, not by way of collective behaviour—some of it clearly orchestrated in advance of the House sitting—in order to try to undermine your authority.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the members. I think the member who raised the original point of order should also note that I have frequently asked Ministers to address the question when an unsatisfactory reply has been given. But—more important—I have also asked members to address the Standing Order. I am a little surprised that they have not taken an opportunity to do so, because to some extent it is the way in which the Standing Order is framed that is the problem. I would be more than happy for members to take that opportunity themselves—because it is the members who make the Standing Orders—so that we can get some clarification of this.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): Madam Speaker, I seek the leave of the House that your ruling be suspended so that the issue can be considered by the Business Committee and the respective caucuses of the parties, with a view to its being either confirmed or amended in some way that would reduce the prospect of the disorder that I sincerely believe your ruling will bring.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. I note that for over a month now I have been seeking precisely what Dr Worth has now sought. I ask members that when they are given the invitation to be consulted and to participate in determining how this House should be run, they take it up at that time.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This may be an appropriate time to raise another issue. This issue actually lies, I think, at the heart of much of what we have just heard. Reference was made in an earlier point of order to Ministers addressing the question. I submit to you that the series of Speakers’ rulings—made by your predecessor, in the main—about addressing the question are in fact the core of the problem. Prior to that, one notes, Speakers such as Mr Tapsell, Mr Harrison, Mr Kidd, and others were very consistent in the view that they were not responsible for the content of an answer given. I refer you in particular to Speaker’s ruling 157/1, in which Mr Speaker Tapsell does introduce some conditions as to when a Minister may be called to order during the course of a response.

I submit that the series of rulings that go beyond that and say, in effect: “I am not responsible for the content of an answer. All I am responsible for is whether the question has been addressed.”—which was the import of Mr Hunt’s rulings—have, in fact, caused the problem that we have been working our way round for some time now. This may be an opportune time for you to look at that whole issue of not being responsible—quite properly—for the content of an answer, and how that squares with the requirement that Ministers address the question. It seems to me that the two positions are virtually contradictory, which is the cause of, I think, a lot of the aggravation we have had in recent months. Madam Speaker, you may wish to consider a more lengthy ruling on that point in due course.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): Madam Speaker, I would like to refer you specifically to Speaker’s ruling 154/1, whereby Speaker Hunt said: “Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” Frankly, it appears so often to members on this side of the House that that is hardly observed with any seriousness by members of the Government. I would urge that this area be looked at carefully if you want the House to be more orderly. This is the time of accountability of Ministers and they must take that seriously, but so often they do not.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

School Curriculum—Government Policy

1. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to ensure all schools are providing students with the knowledge, values, and competencies they need to succeed in a 21st century economy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yesterday the Labour-led Government launched a draft curriculum for New Zealand’s schools, which is in my hand. The document, which was warmly welcomed by the education sector, provides a clear and simple statement of what is required of students in the 21st century. The new curriculum will ensure that the diverse range of students in New Zealand classrooms have the opportunities they need to achieve their full potential. Over the next few months there will be an opportunity for all New Zealanders to debate and discuss this important document. I hope they will take the chance to do exactly that.

Moana Mackey: What is the Government doing to ensure that students are able to speak a wider variety of languages that better reflect the growing diversity of New Zealand’s communities?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There are a number of new features to the curriculum, but one of the things that has attracted the attention of many people is the focus on languages. The new draft curriculum will ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn a second language from year 7. To support schools in delivering this, the Government has provided funding of more than $20.4 million since 2000. As a result, 42 percent of primary schools, 64 percent of intermediates, and 96 percent of secondary schools now offer teaching of other languages. The Government intends to lift this further so that every New Zealand child has a chance to learn another language.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that one of the values Labour wants taught in schools is integrity, and does he believe that his Prime Minister’s handling of Phillip Field’s actions amounts to an example of integrity to New Zealand children?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I am aware that integrity is one of the values in the system, and yes to the second question.

Metiria Turei: What importance does the new curriculum place on teaching children to look after our country’s unique environment and native ecosystems, and what is the Government doing to promote environmental education in schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: “Sustainability” is identified as a significant theme in the draft curriculum. It focuses on the long-term impact of social, scientific, and technological practices. Schools are encouraged to develop learning opportunities for their students around this theme. In addition, in this year’s Budget I was pleased to announce $13 million over 4 years for environmental education support for schools. The increase in support for this initiative is the result of the Green Party and Labour agreement that was negotiated after the 2005 election. I thank the Greens for their insight in this area.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister really believe that half an hour a week of second or third language learning for years 7 to 10 is really going to make New Zealand a multilingual nation, or does he believe more time will need to be given; if so, what learning goes?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the member is right that if we are going to achieve the kind of outcomes we want for a multilingual society, it may be necessary to have longer periods of time. One of the real strengths of this curriculum, of course, is that, unlike the previous seven-volume curriculum, which had a whole range of things the teacher had to do in the classroom, there are opportunities for teachers to move across subject areas as they teach a student what that student wants to know. That will allow them to include such things as language in the science curriculum, in technology, and in other subjects as well, which will increase the facility that students have in that area.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister not believe that a student’s competence in English should be the main priority in a school languages curriculum, and why has he signalled that ensuring migrants can maintain their languages is a priority, when New Zealand Qualifications Authority figures show nearly 30 percent of enrolled level 1 National Certificate of Educational Achievement pupils did not achieve the minimum literacy standard last year?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member will know that there are official languages in this country—English being one of them. That is why all New Zealanders have to learn it, that is why it is one of the key subject areas here, and that is why it is given prominence, but, as the member himself has raised, there are now large communities of people in New Zealand who will want to maintain their language. Of course, that will serve this country extremely well in the 21st century as we relate to countries like China, India, and others.

Moana Mackey: What responses has he seen from the education sector on the draft curriculum?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen, for example, a response from Irene Cooper of the New Zealand Educational Institute, who said: “This is a very straightforward document.” In addition to the New Zealand Educational Institute’s thumbs up, as it has called it, Pat Newman from the New Zealand Principals Federation gave it a 9½ out of 10. Reducing the seven curriculum documents down to one has led Debbie Te Whaiti from the Post Primary Teachers Association to say: “It will make classrooms a more enjoyable learning place for students and their families and teachers.” I hope that, therefore, all people make a submission, and that people such as National Party members can stop whining about the education system for a while. They could, perhaps, make a submission.

Ingram Report—Further Investigations

2. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have any plans to further investigate the matters that Dr Noel Ingram QC was unable to resolve in his report; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): No. More than enough money has been spent—a view Dr Brash would normally endorse.

Dr Don Brash: Does she agree with the statement made yesterday by her former adviser and biographer, Dr Brian Edwards: “The Taito Phillip Field thing stinks. It really stinks. I hope I don’t lose any clients over making that comment.”; if so, will she support a select committee inquiry in order to restore some semblance of faith in the institution of Parliament?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Dr Brash, of course, blocked Mr Field giving a statement to the House in which he expressed his regret for what had happened. I am sure that no matter how hard up Dr Edwards is, he will not be taking on Dr Brash, because he cannot be helped.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Prime Minister aware that that member and his colleagues have just refused to give leave for the House to express its concern at the findings of the Ingram report, and to reaffirm its commitment to the principle of not accepting any consideration from constituents on whose behalf members advocate; and given the refusal of the National Party to allow the House to express its view on these matters, or, in fact, to allow Mr Field to make a statement and perhaps accept some responsibility for what he has done, what further purpose does she think would be achieved by a further inquiry?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I do—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask you to think carefully about that question. This is an issue that, clearly, has people well exercised on their various party lines. Quite clearly, the dead hand of Michael Cullen was all over the motion that the Greens sought leave to move in the House today. The other question, of course, is why a member would want to make a personal explanation when, apparently, he has done nothing wrong—because there has been no investigation. I ask you, Madam Speaker, what possible authority or responsibility the Prime Minister can have for the National Party’s decision to avoid being complicit in these cover-ups.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments. Looking at the question, I see that it is a broad one. The Prime Minister does have responsibility for matters that are raised, so I ask the Prime Minister to address the question.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Indeed, I understand that the National Party did block that motion. I further understand that Dr Brash told the leader of the Green Party he would support it, and was overruled by Mr Brownlee. Who is the leader of the National Party?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I never knew I was that good! Now that Labour members have released all the pent-up tension they must be feeling from the pressure they are getting for the corrupt behaviour of Mr Field, I ask whether there has ever been a clearer demonstration that the Greens are in the pocket of the Labour Party than that particular little revelation from the Prime Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I ask the right honourable Prime Minister to address the question, please.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take offence at the view of Gerry Brownlee that anybody else would have written my motion. I wrote every word of it myself last night and this morning.

Madam SPEAKER: No. Has the right honourable Prime Minister finished addressing the question? She has.

Dr Don Brash: Why is the Prime Minister so opposed to any further inquiry; is it because any further inquiry will make Mr Field’s continued presence in this Parliament untenable, or is it because she is protecting three other Labour members of this House whose actions in the Field affair are yet to be accounted for?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, it is for neither of the above. It is because—[Interruption] I would like to address the member’s question. The reason for not wanting a further inquiry is that the member has had his punishment and is no longer a Minister. The member has suffered humiliation as a result of the report. The member has accepted that he needs to change the way he works as a member of Parliament. Further, the member wished to apologise to Parliament today, and that was blocked by the National Party.

Darien Fenton: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill, currently in my name on the Order Paper, would address some of the issues raised in the Ingram report; and has she seen any reports on reactions of others to the bill?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can indeed confirm that the member’s bill would address the issue of minimum rates of pay for contracts of service. I understand that the National Party is not prepared to support it, which raises the question of whether its members are genuine at all in their pursuit of this issue—I suspect not.

Madam SPEAKER: Can I just note that those members at the back who are winding up the barracking by waving their arms may not be with us for too much longer in question time. So I give you a warning.

Heather Roy: In light of the Prime Minister’s answer to the primary question, is she aware of any further allegations swirling around Taito Phillip Field’s receiving financial considerations in return for political favours that were not covered in the Ingram report; and are those swirling allegations not the real reason that Mr Field has not been returned to his ministerial portfolio?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No and no.

Dr Don Brash: Why, when Dr Ingram has stated: “If the allegations in relation to further Thai labour on Mr Field’s house in Samoa are to be resolved, it would be necessary for an authority with appropriate powers of investigation to inquire further.”, does she continue to refuse to allow any investigation that would resolve these issues and clear the name of this Parliament?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is well aware of Dr Ingram’s view expressed in the report that having further powers of inquiry would not necessarily get to the truth of the matter. I further note that it is a bit rich for Dr Brash to be worrying about what the workers were paid, when he does not support having a minimum wage, minimum statutory holidays, paid parental leave, or any protection for workers. There is one word for that and it starts with “h”.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister accept that the public are entitled to know the truth about the very serious allegations levelled against Taito Phillip Field; if so, why is she determined to deny the public the chance to get to the bottom of the matter?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the member had taken the time to read the report as thoroughly as I have, he would have found out everything he wanted and needed to know about the matter.

Dr Don Brash: Can the Prime Minister confirm her earlier statement that the Ingram report demonstrated a need to change the practice of lafo involving members of Parliament, and can she tell the House what instructions she has issued to date as a consequence?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Ingram report suggested that the Prime Minister might like to get further guidance from the Cabinet Office on the practice of lafo. I have asked for precisely such guidance.

School Curriculum—Te Ao Māori

3. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Associate Minister of Education: Will students who do not identify as Māori have an opportunity to experience a curriculum that reflects and values Te Ao Māori; if so, how will this be done?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Associate Minister of Education): The draft New Zealand curriculum proposes that all students experience a curriculum that reflects New Zealand’s bicultural heritage and its multicultural society. Each school will do this when that school uses the curriculum to design and implement programmes that meet the needs and interests of its particular students and community.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the publication of the new draft curriculum pre-empt discussions at the select committee about the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill, given that any reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi has already been removed from the draft?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: What it does do is enhance the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and it ensures, through the actions in the schools and through the support of this Government for Māori language, that they will be there for a long, long time.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What is the Government currently doing to support te reo Māori in New Zealand schools?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Labour-led Government is committed to supporting a range of te reo Māori learning. This includes the provision of funding to support teaching in Māori immersion for Māori medium resources, to support teaching of Māori in mainstream settings, and to develop a Māori language education outcomes framework.

Gerry Brownlee: What are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi enhanced in this curriculum programme?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Participation.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa i te Whare. Why is it no longer an essential principle of the New Zealand curriculum that the New Zealand curriculum recognises the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It certainly does so in its actions.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What is the reason for removing the values of tolerance, caring, compassion, non-sexism, and non-racism; or has Labour done a deal with National to uphold and implement its PC eradication policy?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I would have thought very seriously that that party would be right behind this Labour-led Government in supporting our involvement in education. There are now eight learning areas. There were seven. The new learning area is learning languages.

Dr Pita Sharples: I seek leave to table the principles of the New Zealand Curriculum Framework of 1993, which state that the New Zealand curriculum recognises the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi.

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

Te Ururoa Flavell: I seek leave to table the section on attitudes and values in the New Zealand Curriculum Framework, 1993.

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

Ingram Report—Ministerial Discretion

4. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he have confidence that ministerial discretion was exercised properly in the cases of Ms Ngaosri, Mr Nakhen, and Mr Kaewbabpha?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): Yes. The Ingram inquiry found no evidence to suggest that ministerial discretion was not exercised properly or lawfully.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Was Ms Ngaosri an illegal overstayer who had been declined a permit to be in New Zealand in August 2001, who was twice declined refugee status in 2002 and 2003, and to whom Taito Phillip Field successfully convinced the Associate Minister to grant a 12-month work permit in May 2005, and is she the same person the Ingram report reveals the police allege went to Samoa early the next month, in June 2005, to work on Mr Field’s house yet refused to cooperate with the Ingram inquiry; if so, was the ministerial discretion appropriate in that case?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As the member himself has pointed out, the apparent trip of Ms Ngaosri to Samoa succeeded, not preceded, the ministerial decision.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Was Mr Nakhen an illegal overstayer who was four times declined refugee status and for whom Taito Phillip Field, in October 2004, reached an understanding with the Associate Minister of Immigration for the granting of a work visa in February 2005, and is he the same Mr Nakhen who the police allege, according to the Ingram report, travelled to Samoa in May 2005 to do gib-stopping work on Mr Field’s house in Samoa and also refused to cooperate with the Ingram inquiry; if so, was the ministerial discretion appropriate in that person’s case?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I recall, the Ingram inquiry could make no finding as to the nature of that gentleman’s activities in Samoa. However, it is clear that his travel to Samoa was almost a year after Mr O’Connor’s consideration of his case.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Was Mr Kaewbabpha an illegal overstayer who was granted a special ministerial direction for a 6-month work permit by the Associate Minister in September 2003 following representations by Taito Phillip Field, was again granted a 3-month work permit in June 2004 on Mr Field’s representations, and was later granted a 1-year work permit under special direction by the Associate Minister in August 2004, and did Taito Phillip Field inform the Minister, when supporting Mr Kaewbabpha’s application for a long-term business permit in September 2005, that Mr Kaewbabpha had worked on Mr Field’s house in Samoa during May 2005?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am not aware of any confirmed advice that indicates Mr Kaewbabpha was known to have worked on Mr Field’s house when Mr O’Connor made his decisions.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When did Taito Phillip Field reveal to the Minister that Mr Kaewbabpha, an illegal overstayer for whom Mr Field made representations to the Associate Minister on 10 September 2003, 14 October 2003, 12 May 2004, 3 August 2004, and 1 September 2005, had travelled to Samoa and worked on a house belonging to Taito Phillip Field in May 2005, and was ministerial discretion exercised appropriately in that case?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What is not in question is that Mr Field’s representations on behalf of his cases were persistent and extended. Further, the Prime Minister has already said that she considers errors of judgment to have occurred on the part of Mr Field. That is not at issue. What is at issue is whether discretion was properly exercised. There is no evidence that it was not.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Minister have any concerns that the repeated issuing of ministerial special directions for visas or permits for illegal overstayers may encourage those wanting to live and work in New Zealand to stay here illegally, and how many of the 262 special directions made by the Associate Minister in response to the 438 representations by Taito Phillip Field between January 2003 and September 2005 involved illegal overstayers?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Department of Labour remains vigilant as to the activities and presence of illegal overstayers, and that practice will continue.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table for the House the text of the motion that leave was refused for me to move earlier in the sitting day.

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

Defence Force—Helicopters

5. DIANNE YATES (Labour) to the Minister of Defence: What new capabilities will the NH90 helicopters, which the Government signed a contract to purchase yesterday, bring to the New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): The NH90 medium-utility helicopter is state-of-the-art technology. Compared with the current Iroquois, the new NH90 carries more than twice the number of troops, is a third faster, has a range four times as great, and can lift nearly five times the weight. It will be an integral part of a new modernised and highly mobile defence force, which this Labour-led Government has rebuilt after the 9 years of neglect and the more than one-third cut in real expenditure by National, which only pretends to believe in defence.

Dianne Yates: What advantages does the NH90 have with regard to the work it will undertake in New Zealand and the Pacific?

Hon PHIL GOFF: At home, as well as the much greater versatility it brings for military deployment, police deployment, and counter-terrorism operations the NH90 offers huge advantages in civil defence, search and rescue, and border-control work. The NH90 has far greater reach; for example, it can travel out 800 kilometres, compared with the Iroquoi’s 180 kilometres. It can operate for extended periods—

Hon David Carter: How about Samoa?

Hon PHIL GOFF: David Carter obviously does not like this. His Government did absolutely nothing for defence. The NH90 can work equally well in the day or at night, and it can work in all weathers. It can carry much greater loads; for example, in the event of a cyclone in the Pacific, where there are no port facilities and where there is a coral reef, the NH90 can lift the Pinzgauer vehicle off the deck of the multi-role vessel and on to the island. The other advantage is that this aircraft can self-deploy to the Pacific. It does not need a C130 to carry it, or, for that matter, a multi-role vessel.

Hon Marian Hobbs: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In that last answer, my colleague Tau Henare did a non-stop commentary right the way through. This happens time and time again, and I cannot hear what is being said.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree with the member. In fact, I am tempted to ask the Minister to repeat his answer but it was excessively long. The Hon Tau Henare is known for his contributions during the debates so I ask him to lower his tone—that would be appreciated—so the rest of us can hear the debates.

Dianne Yates: Was there a delay in contracting to buy the NH90s; if so, why?

Hon PHIL GOFF: No, contrary to the assertions of the National spokesman, this purchase actually completes the last of eight core capabilities deemed necessary to avoid policy failure after National cut defence spending by more than a third. Those eight core purchases have been completed in 5 years, less than half the term of the 10-year long-term development plan. If the National Party has so much to say, perhaps its members would have the courage to ask a question.

Madam SPEAKER: That is out of order. Would the member please withdraw the last statement.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister received any criticisms on the NH90 purchase about cost blowouts and inappropriate spending; and what comments would he have in reply to those criticisms from Mr McCully of the National Party?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I would say that those criticism were a little bit rich, coming from a person who was a member of Government when the HMNZS Charles Upham was purchased. That Government spent $85 million on it and sold it for $8 million, and if I can quote from the annual report for the year ended June 1998, the boat was never used. It was at sea for 3 days after trial, and then it was used to ship lemons in the Mediterranean—an absolutely appropriate task for a ship that was a lemon and that was produced by a National Government that was absolutely incompetent, that did nothing for defence, and has no grounds for criticising this, or any other, Government, on what we have achieved.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry, but we could not hear the answer down this end. Could we have it repeated, please?

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Could the Minister give a summary, please.

Hon PHIL GOFF: In summary, I would say that anyone, and I am talking about Murray McCully, who was responsible for purchasing such an appalling choice of sealift ship as the Charles Upham—a ship that National spent $38 million on and sold for $8 million, and was never used because the planning that went into that was so incompetent—has no right to criticise anybody else at all about incompetence.

Hon Tau Henare: I seek leave of the House to table the report whereby the defence spokesperson for New Zealand First, Ron Mark, supported the purchase of HMNZS Charles Upham.

Document not tabled.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members that the ruling on questions does not apply to interruptions during points of order.

Ron Mark: I seek a bit of guidance. If Mr Henare is unable to table a document that proves what he has just told the House, what recourse is there for a member of the House?

Madam SPEAKER: No member has actually to table the document, as members know.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I ask whether Mr Henare has tabled that document?

Madam SPEAKER: No, you cannot ask that question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that points of order are heard in silence.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I think it is inevitable as a consequence of your ruling that standards in the House will deteriorate, but the hand-sign I just saw from Ron Mark was grossly offensive, and I think it is something that you, as Speaker, should not allow within the House. Otherwise we truly are going to turn this into a crude Chamber.

Madam SPEAKER: I saw no hand movement or anything, except from other benches in this House, which I also took offence at.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When I pass friendly waves to an old friend and colleague Tau Henare, the problem is that I was not even a member of the House at the time the Upham was purchased. Mr Henare knows that full well.

Madam SPEAKER: Order!

Ron Mark: He is misleading the House. He is purporting something that is not fact—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. [Interruption] Ron Mark would you please be seated, or you will leave the Chamber. [Interruption] Phil Connelly, you were talking. Will you please leave the Chamber.

Hon Tau Henare: He was not speaking. He is sitting next to me, and was not even saying anything.

Madam SPEAKER: He was. Would that member please join him.

Brian Connell withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, along with most members on this side of the House, saw Ron Mark give what was frankly an obscene one-finger gesture. Mr Ron Mark knows perfectly well he did that, because he was making light of it. That is intolerable behaviour in this House, and you should bring the House into order on that issue.

Madam SPEAKER: As I said, I did not—[Interruption] I am sorry, does the member wish to remain with us? Please give me the courtesy to be able to make my ruling. As I said, I did not see anything but if the member did make such a gesture, then he should apologise to the House.

Ron Mark: If my gesture has been interpreted—

Madam SPEAKER: Did the member make that gesture, yes or no?

Ron Mark: I made a gesture to Mr Henare—

Madam SPEAKER: Then would you please apologise.

Ron Mark: I apologise—

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. That is all you need do.

Work Permits—Ministerial Special Directions

6. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: What procedures, if any, are in place to check, following the issuing of ministerial special directions for work permits, that recipients of those permits are not exploited by employers?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): New Zealand employment law provides protection for all people in employment relationships working in New Zealand, including those on work permits.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned that the MP making representations for a special direction on a work permit for long-time illegal overstayer Mr Chaikhunpol, paid Mr Chaikunpol $1,500 for painting the entire interior of the house the MP owned at 51 Church Street, Ōtāhuhu—less than one-third the market rate for such labour, according to the Ingram report—if so, what action has he taken to ensure that the other 261 special directions made by the Associate Minister, in response to the 438 representations by Taito Phillip Field between January 2003 and October 2005, do not involve other cases of immigrant exploitation?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Employment law relates to those in employment relationships, not in contracting relationships. I note that the member’s colleague Mr Mapp, on Radio New Zealand, opposed a member’s bill that seeks to extend the law in that direction.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is the Minister concerned that the MP who made representations for a ministerial special direction for a work permit for Mr Chaikhunpol, paid Mr Chaikhunpol $350 for painting work at his house at 2A Prangley Avenue, Māngere—only a quarter the market rate for such labour, as revealed by the Ingram report—if so, what action has he taken to ensure that the 261 other special directions made by the Minister in response to representations on immigration matters by Taito Phillip Field do not involve other cases of immigrant exploitation?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In 2005-06 there were approximately 100,000 work permits issued. I hope that that member is not suggesting we exercise differential standards of responsibility in favour of members of Parliament’s cases.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: When the Minister wrote to me yesterday advising that his department had taken no specific steps to check on the special directions issued by the Associate Minister in response to representations by Taito Phillip Field, why did the Minister state: “I would note that the figure of 261 relates to all cases where Mr Field made a representation, and that not all such cases were successful.”, when in answer to a parliamentary question on 25 November 2005 the Minister advised the House that Taito Phillip Field had, in fact, made 438 representations over the 3 years to October 2005, not 261; or does the Minister’s letter confirm that his office has failed to come to terms with the enormity of the issues raised by the Ingram report?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can tell the member that that letter to him was provided on the basis of advice that will be checked—along with, I might say, checks on this Government’s ongoing efforts around strengthening the Employment Relations Act, raising the minimum wage, and introducing paid-parental leave, 4 weeks’ annual holiday, and work-life balance.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If the Minister is so concerned about legislation to do those things he just described, why is his Government so unconcerned that a former ministerial colleague of his should not only pay workers at a quarter the market rate for work but actually pay them cash to avoid tax being paid and to exploit the cash economy—something that would be outrageous for any member of Parliament to do?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is by now very old news that the member concerned did not exercise good judgment. The member concerned has sought to apologise to this Chamber, and the Green Party has sought a motion of censure. Both actions have been blocked by that member’s party, just as Mr Mapp has blocked attempts to extend the law to contractors, which would solve the problem to which the member refers.

Homeownership—Reduction

7. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) to the Minister of Housing: Is he concerned about the significant reduction in New Zealand’s homeownership rates, reported in a recent survey?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: The Government believes that encouraging homeownership is an important way of building strong and stable families and communities. In relation to the recent survey, I note that reputable commentators and banks do not accept the findings, which are characterised as extreme, of the recent Wizard Home Loans survey—in fact, one commentator called the assumptions underlying it ludicrous. But the Government does agree that homeownership rates are trending downwards, and that is why the Government has been very active in this area.

Judy Turner: Has the Minister considered United Future’s proposal to allow families to capitalise their Working for Families entitlements to purchase a home or increase equity on a home in an effort to encourage an ownership society?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government is aware of that proposal, but we have chosen, instead, to introduce the KiwiSaver scheme next year, which will help families get together a deposit for their first home.

Phil Heatley: Does he think that taxpayers got value for money from the $1.8 million Welcome Home Loans marketing budget, pouring in over $1,000 of promo money per applicant, yet attracting a measly 3 percent of those eligible, or would he do better to address crippling land and section prices through Resource Management Act reform?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am informed that it costs less than 1c per dollar borrowed to promote this scheme. Every one of the 1,774 families who have used the Welcome Home Loans would prove that it is not a failure. The scheme has helped families who would otherwise be in rental accommodation to buy their own home, and if the member has any advice on how to control the housing market through controlling the price of land, perhaps he could join the Russian Federation.

Jill Pettis: What steps has the Government taken to help Kiwi families buy their first homes?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government is working hard to make homeownership attainable for more Kiwi families through the Welcome Home Loans scheme, a nationwide homeownership education programme, talking and working with councils on how to increase the supply of affordable housing, introducing the KiwiSaver scheme, and currently developing a new shared equity scheme. I should point out that not one of those policies was followed by the National Government in the 1990s. National did nothing about homeownership.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe. Is he prepared to investigate the feasibility of establishing dedicated homeownership accounts with the provision of tax concessions for those saving for a deposit as a means of bridging the deposit gap, which is becoming the biggest barrier to homeownership; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Two measures that may help with that are coming up. Obviously KiwiSaver is designed to produce a deposit to close that gap. Secondly, the shared equity scheme is a way of ensuring that the price a person has to pay for a house initially will basically be halved, thereby enabling him or her to get into that house and, as the equity grows, to get a larger share.

Judy Turner: Will the Minister consider a modified rent-to-buy programme for State house tenants that uses a share of capital gains over a rental period as a deposit on the property to assist in first-time homeownership, with the overall housing stock to be replenished as proposed by United Future; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That is an excellent idea that is being implemented in a roughly similar way by the British Government. Such a shared equity scheme is being considered here. Officials are currently developing proposals for a new shared equity scheme that would include State house market rent tenants amongst the prospective homeowners. That is being looked at at the moment. In the United Kingdom, shared equity schemes have enabled social housing tenants to buy a share of their house. We in New Zealand have less room for that, of course, because the National Party sold off 13,000 houses. Until we get that kind of stock back it will be difficult to do that here.

Schools—Top Performers, Auckland Region

8. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: What is his response to the recent report identifying “the 25 top-performing high schools” in the Auckland region, and has he received any communications from parents about the usefulness of the report?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I have not read it, and no.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister agree with this statement in the article: “With no reliable official data publicly available to rank schools, choosing the best one for your child is a hit-and-miss affair.”; if he does agree, why does he not open up the SchoolSmart website so that parents can get reliable official data?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I remind the member, in case he was not listening, that I said initially that I have not read the article, so I cannot comment on that particular matter.

Hon Bill English: Well, you should have.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Actually, I do not spend all my time reading magazines, as the member obviously does. To the second question, the answer is no. To the third—although I am required to answer only two—the answer is that the SchoolSmart site is available to parents who approach their schools, and I know of no parent who has been turned down.

Madam SPEAKER: Actually, it is only one supplementary question that Ministers are obliged to answer.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What is the Government doing to assist parents to make informed choices about their child’s schooling?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government provides a wealth of information and advice to parents through local schools, the Education Review Office, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority website, Team-Up, and the Ministry of Education. We will shortly publish a helpful guide for parents outlining questions they should ask schools when making decisions about their child’s schooling. The Team-Up website is being further developed to provide useful and usable data for parents. I also intend to do substantial new work in this area on behalf of parents and will make announcements in the relatively near future, which may settle “Mr Angry” on the other side of the House.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a breach of the Standing Orders to refer to a member in anything other than respectful terms.

Madam SPEAKER: The member took offence. Would the Minister please withdraw and apologise.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I withdraw and apologise, Madam Speaker.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is it not correct, from what the Minister has heard about it, that the Metro article reflects the conclusions of the academic study by Professors Harker and Nash of Massey University in 1998 that showed that when we rank schools on value-adding we arrive at league tables totally different from those based simply on the results of one-off national assessments, as espoused by the National Party?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Both Mr Harker and Mr Nash are former colleagues of mine, and their work is recognised all around the world. Both of them would agree that league tables assume that students are randomly assigned to schools and can therefore be directly compared. Both would say that that is utter nonsense and that is why league tables are a waste of time.

Allan Peachey: What reassurances will the Minister give to the parents of those students attending secondary school in Auckland who are studying for the Cambridge International Examinations that their young people are in fact attending some of the very best schools in New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If I understand the member’s question correctly, the answer is that students are free to study for the Cambridge exam if they would like to, but parents will find that in order to succeed in this system it is necessary for their child to succeed in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), an assessment process that is now, I think, winning the support of the entire education sector. I note, for example, that St Cuthbert’s, one of the private schools that is often used to reference other schools, applauds NCEA.

Allan Peachey: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to a discussion you had earlier with the House and ask that the Minister actually reassure parents.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon Bill English: Why did a Ministry of Education official by the name of Bruce Adin release some of the data from the SchoolSmart website to Metro magazine in order to help it identify the top-ranking schools; and if the ministry can release data to Metro, why can it not release it to parents?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have no idea why Mr Adin—whoever he is—acts in the way he does, but parents can get access to the SchoolSmart site simply by talking to the school and then receiving that information in the context of the school, which is the best way to get it.

Hon Bill English: Why did the Minister tell the House some months ago that the School Trustees Association was one of a number of education groups that agreed that the SchoolSmart information should be kept secret, when in fact the School Trustees Association has asked him and the ministry for access to that information and has been turned down?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I did not say that anybody was asking that it be kept secret. What I said was that education groups agreed that this information should be accessed through the school, as the best way of doing it.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that my request under the Official Information Act to open up the SchoolSmart website sat in the Ministry of Education for some weeks, which then returned it to me and asked me to ask him, and that it is now sitting on his desk overdue; when is he going to answer it?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As soon as I can.

Question No. 5 to Minister

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave to table an Evening Post article that clearly shows that the HMNZS Charles Upham was purchased by the then National Government in 1994, which is 2 years before I even came to Parliament.

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

Citizenship—Criteria

9. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What reports, if any, has he received on possible changes to qualification criteria for New Zealand citizenship?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): I have received a report that describes New Zealand’s current citizenship oaths as “timeless oaths” and notes that with “a country like ours with a short history, we should not move to change them without good reason.” I have seen a second report stating: “we cannot support the bill going forward in respect of the Citizenship and Parliamentary Oaths.” The first report was from Dr Richard Worth MP and the second was from the National Party minority report on the Oaths Modernisations Bill.

Russell Fairbrother: What other reports has the Minister seen on possible changes to qualification criteria for New Zealand citizenship?

Hon RICK BARKER: I have also seen a report that potential citizens of New Zealand should “share bedrock values”, including “an acceptance of democracy and the rule of law, religious and personal freedom, and legal equality of the sexes” and that on that basis “we may need to look at the oath of allegiance, for example to work out what it is that people are signing up for when they become New Zealand citizens.” Either Dr Brash was not aware of National Party policy or this is just another National Party flip-flop.

Russell Fairbrother: Has the Minister seen any alternative policy on possible changes to qualification criteria for New Zealand citizenship?

Hon RICK BARKER: Yes, I have. I have seen a report that states: “Fathers are the breadwinners; mothers stay at home.” I have seen another report that states: “I cannot speak for the Exclusive Brethren” but goes on to state: “If you don’t believe in these values”—those values being the rule of law, religious and personal freedom, and legal equality of the sexes—“then perhaps New Zealand isn’t the place you should move to.” The first was the view of the multimillion-dollar funder of the National Party, the Exclusive Brethren; the second was the view of its good friend Dr Don Brash, the leader of the National Party. Perhaps Don Brash was right when he said that too much bad red wine is bad for you, after all.

Pansy Wong: I seek leave to table an email from the Department of Labour to other officials, which states that the Minister of Finance and the then Minister of Immigration the Hon Lianne Dalziel said that we should forget about immigration criteria, and simply sell New Zealand citizenship at the price of between $5 million and $10 million per person.

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

Waiting Lists—Removal of Patients

10. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What reports, if any, has he received on the impact on patients of being removed from waiting lists for elective surgery or specialist appointments without having been treated or seen by a specialist?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): About 97 percent of patients are seen by specialists, but the 3 percent who are not are absolutely entitled to feel let down. This practice has been going on for years, and the Ministry of Health and the Government want it to stop. That said, I say that if a district health board cannot see someone in a timely way, then it is better that they be seen by a general practitioner than by no one at all.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister seen the comments of the clinical director of one of the largest general practices in the North Island that doctors fear that cancers will be missed and go untreated as thousands of patients are refused specialist appointments at hospitals around the country, many with symptoms and family histories that suggest they could have cancer; how is that consistent with the Government’s Cancer Control Strategy?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I have seen those reports, and indeed I have seen correspondence between the doctor involved and the district health board. I think it is important to advise the House that Dr Saxe himself—the person in question—has said that any patient who presents with symptoms of cancer would be seen in our public hospitals right away. That is not something that is true everywhere in the world, but that is why the New Zealand health system is a system we can be proud of.

Maryan Street: What are our district health boards doing to get on top of the issue of returning people to their general practitioner unseen by specialists, and when can we expect to see some improvement?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The House will be aware that district health boards have been under instruction to make progress on that for over a year. My hope is that most district health boards will have a fair and an effective system in place by 30 September.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can it be consistent with the Government’s own Cancer Control Strategy and its focus on early detection that a clinical director is reporting that patients over 40 with a strong family history of bowel cancer cannot get screened, cancer patients referred by a surgeon for specialist follow-up have been returned to general practitioner care without further tests, and a man in his 50s with blood in his urine cannot get referred for diagnostic tests; how will sending those patients back to the very people who sent them to the hospital in the first place deal with their issues?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member raises a variety of questions, some of which are covered in correspondence between the doctor and the district health board. The member may not have seen that correspondence. The long and short of it is that some of those things can be managed in the primary sector, some should be seen in the secondary sector, and we need to prioritise accordingly.

Hon Tony Ryall: What would he say to the woman who needs a telescopic test to see whether she has stomach cancer, and who has been culled off a hospital waiting list even though there is a history of stomach cancer in her family?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Leaving aside the nature of the test, I will say that anyone in this country who is suspected of having cancer will get treatment in a New Zealand hospital. I say again that that is not always the case around the world. This is a system that we can be proud of.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Has the Minister even read his own Cancer Control Strategy; if so, would he tell us what it says about the early detection of cancer?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Cancer Control Strategy is very heavy on the prevention of cancer—

Hon Tony Ryall: Have you read it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Indeed, I have read it. The Cancer Control Strategy will ensure that the continued improvements made in this country in relation to various cancers will include early detection. That is why, for example, the breast-screening programme roll-out has increased the number of women who have been screened for that particular cancer by 40 percent, in 2 years. Let us have some credit for that.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: What is the point of a primary health care strategy that aims to increase people’s access to general practitioners if the Minister will not then give general practitioners the tools to diagnose cancer at an early and curable stage?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I say to the member again that our secondary services are seeing more people—a lot more people—in both medical and surgical specialities than ever before. What is happening, however, is that district health boards have got into the habit of over-promising, and that has meant that about 3 percent of New Zealanders have been returned to their general practitioner unseen, which I am not happy about. If the member would like to hang on to his comments for just a small period of time and stop the continuing running battle that does not make a lot of sense, he may like to reflect on the fact that a former Minister of Health in the National Government has just asked across the House how we can prevent cancer—he wants to know whether it is preventable. That gives us some idea of the capability that exists on the Opposition side of the House! I say to the member that this country has a good Cancer Control Strategy. Not only is that the case but this is the first one it has ever had, and it came under this Labour Government.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a number of documents pertaining to question No. 9. I seek leave to table the report of the Government Administration Committee that shows the National Party does not support the Oaths Modernisation Bill going forward. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would you please be seated. The member asked whether this is out of order. There have been several members out of order when seeking to table documents today. No one interrupted those members on that side of the House when they made out-of-order points of order; they continued. I ask the same courtesy to be given to members on the other side of the House. Would the member please start again.

Hon RICK BARKER: I seek leave to table the report of the Government Administration Committee that shows that the National Party opposed the Oaths Modernisation Bill.

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

Hon RICK BARKER: I seek leave to table the transcript from Checkpoint on 28 July 2006 in which Dr Brash outlines his party’s new bedrock values policy, backtracking on its opposition to the Oaths Modernisation Bill.

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

Hon RICK BARKER: I seek leave to table a page “An Open Documentary on Their Faith and Their Life”, describing the views of the Exclusive Brethren on the place of women in society.

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

Hon RICK BARKER: I seek leave to table the speech from Dr Don Brash on his party’s new bedrock values policy, given at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, dated 28 July 2006.

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

Hon RICK BARKER: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Herald article dated 29 July 2006, outlining Dr Brash’s proposed bedrock values blocking access to anyone who does not accept those tolerant values.

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

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): I seek leave to table a couple of documents. The first is a list of the goals of the Government’s Cancer Control Strategy that quite clearly says “early detection”.

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

Hon TONY RYALL: Second is a transcript of an interview where the chairman of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners says that diagnosis is being delayed for people with potential cancers.

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

Fishing—United Nations Report

11. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Fisheries: Has he been advised of the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan’s 2006 report The Impacts of Fishing on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems; if so, what action is he taking, if any, in response to the call that States urgently consider the interim prohibition of destructive fishing practices, including bottom trawling, in international waters?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): Yes, I have seen the report. It was received by officials in New Zealand on 16 July. They are currently assessing it. They consider the report to be a comprehensive and balanced summary of the issues relating to the impacts of fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems. In September 2004 the New Zealand Government approved a strategy to secure improved protection of high-seas biodiversity from the impacts of bottom trawling. The strategy was developed to reflect concern at the environmental impacts of bottom trawling on vulnerable marine ecosystems. New Zealand is currently reviewing this strategy in the light of recent international developments.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the United Kingdom’s fisheries Minister, Ben Bradshaw, who called for prohibitions on destructive deep-sea bottom trawling; if so, will he proactively work with international leaders like Minister Bradshaw and the UN Secretary-General to adopt a resolution for a moratorium on high-seas bottom trawling, at the next United Nations General Assembly meeting in October of this year; if not, why not?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Mr Bradshaw and other fisheries Ministers from various countries may well say that; of course, they do not do any bottom trawling. The problem in United Nations forums is to get universal agreement from countries—countries that do not do it together with those that do. New Zealand is working with the New Zealand fishing industry on proposals to close up to one-third of the New Zealand exclusive economic zone to bottom trawling, as well as an area in international waters of the Tasman Sea. As far as I am aware, that is the largest area of the seafloor being set aside on a voluntary basis by the fishing industry anywhere on the planet.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister seen photos like these, of various dead deep-sea creatures, black coral, and discarded rattail fish—all protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora—with all damage caused by the Chang Xing trawling vessel that docked in Nelson harbour last weekend; and why will he not pursue New Zealand’s very good record as leaders in the ban on drift-netting and as leaders in the protection of whales, and actively work with other international leaders and countries to protect these marine species from the most vulnerable deep-sea marine ecosystems?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am aware of the destruction that can be caused by some forms of bottom trawling. If the member reads the United Nations Secretary-General’s report, she will see there is reference to the role of fisheries management organisations on a regional basis. In the South Pacific Ocean, New Zealand is working with other States to establish a new regional fisheries management organisation. Once established, it is envisaged that the regional fisheries management organisation will have the competence to regulate bottom fisheries and the impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems in the area covered by the new organisation. At its next meeting in November 2006, participants will consider interim measures that include addressing the adverse impacts of destructive fishing practices on vulnerable ecosystems.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is the United Nations General Assembly report The Impacts of Fishing on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems.

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

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table the draft of the speech given by Minister Ben Bradshaw at the Third Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts and Islands in Paris.

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

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a photograph of the trawler Chang Xing, from which the by-catch referred to in my question was taken.

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

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table this photo of by-catch of deep-sea fish, from the Chang Xing.

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

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table this photograph of rare black coral, protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora agreement, and found in the discard from the Chang Xing.

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

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table this photograph of a rare rat-tail fish being discarded from the Chang Xing.

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

Corrections, Department—Ministerial Confidence

12. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Acting Minister of Corrections): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Simon Power: Why has the Minister failed to comment on the fact that a prisoner is writing about life behind bars on a weblog, when, on the one hand, his chief executive’s response has been “so what”, yet, on the other hand, the Prime Minister has felt the need to wade into the issue by stating her concern that: “It raises a whole new set of issues.”; who does the Minister agree with—the chief executive officer of his department or the Prime Minister?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: As the member knows, this is an operational matter. But I will say that prisoners are encouraged to write to friends, families, and associates, and they do not have direct access to the Internet, as the member knows. The Department of Corrections has the ability, under the Corrections Act, to vet letters, and it does. The prisoner’s observations of prison life as recorded on the website do not breach the Act.

Martin Gallagher: Has the Minister seen any reports about the effectiveness of corrections officers?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Yes, I have. As reported in the New Zealand Herald on Saturday, corrections officers at Auckland prison did an excellent job of preventing an attempted escape by a group of prisoners. Also, a search of other prisons revealed a number of contraband items. This is an example of the success of Department of Corrections staff and their effectiveness in keeping society safe.

Simon Power: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s statement: “It used to be that when you were put away, you were put away from society.”, or that of the chief executive officer of the Department of Corrections: “Unless he actually does anything illegal by way of content, or sends the letters to someone he shouldn’t, then we don’t have a problem.”; who does the Minister agree with—the chief executive officer of the Department of Corrections or the Prime Minister?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: As the member should know, people who are in prison are out of society. Has he not noticed that? The statement made by the chief executive officer of the Department of Corrections was quite simple—prisoners do have the ability to write to people outside prison. What does the member not understand about that?

Keith Locke: Would it improve prisoner rehabilitation if more inmates followed Tim Selwyn’s example by practising and improving their creative literary skills; and is it not the case that no good Government should in any way be scared of inmates bringing to public attention prison problems that need to be fixed?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: My understanding is that Mr Selwyn is very creative.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that a blog has been used to criticise a sentencing judge, claiming an inmate was the victim of “bad luck”; and how does he think victims would feel if a convicted murderer was allowed to say such things publicly?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I was not aware of that particular statement, but if the member wants to put it down in writing, I will certainly give him a written response.

Simon Power: Is the Minister familiar with the department’s policy of restricting media access to prisoners unless they obtain the written approval of the chief executive and as long as prison security or victims’ interests are not compromised; if so, why is his department so out of touch that it continues to treat blog instalments as private letters when they are clearly intended for public audiences?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: As the member should know, no one is free to move in and out of prison at will; they must seek the approval of the Department of Corrections. What does the member not understand about that, either?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 157/1: “A Minister must attempt to give a reasonable answer to a question.” My colleague asked a question, quite specifically, about blogging by prisoners in the Minister’s department. The Minister gave a completely irrelevant answer that had nothing to do with the use of electronics in communicating with the general public. I think you should require him to address the question that was raised by my colleague Mr Simon Power.

Madam SPEAKER: If members would please lower their tone in the House, it would be easy for me to hear the answers. I did not hear what the Minister said. I ask him to repeat his answer in the light of what has been said.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: In response to the first part of the member’s question, I point out that the media, or any other members of the public, are not free to enter and leave prisons at will. They must seek permission, as is required under the Act. Secondly, Mr Selwyn did not post anything on the Internet, and the member knows that.

Simon Power: I seek leave to ask the Minister again whether he agrees with the chief executive officer of the Department of Corrections or with the Prime Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: That is a supplementary question?

Simon Power: No, I seek leave.

Madam SPEAKER: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table Tim Selwyn’s blogs, for the education of the National Party.

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the acknowledgments page of Nelson Mandela’s book Long Walk to Freedom—Dr Brash’s favourite book—in which he explains how he had to smuggle out of prison the notes for that book. Is that what the National Party wants to happen—

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

Questions to Members

Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill—Independent Contractors

1. Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) to the Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill: What advice, if any, did she obtain in drafting her Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill on the number of independent contractors who could be potentially affected by the bill?

DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill): The advice I received is that there are no reliable estimates of people employed on contracts for services that would include pay rates less than the minimum wage.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Does the member expect, in the event her bill passes the first reading, the select committee to take advice on all the circumstances in which contractors are allegedly employed, including from her colleague Taito Phillip Field, given his vast experience in underpaying people?

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry but the member has no responsibility for the select committee, so that question is out of order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question from Wayne Mapp simply asked the member where she would take advice from. Surely she has to take some advice from somewhere; if she does not, she can just say she is not taking any. Dr Mapp gave an example, which, by your ruling today, is now quite OK. It is a hypothetical proposition put to a member, and, as we have read in a number of Speakers’ rulings today, hypothetical propositions are in order.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, of course, and the member did address that. It was the second question—the follow-up, supplementary question—that was, in effect, asking the member about matters that the select committee is responsible for and for which she is not responsible. But, certainly, you are right, and she did address that question.

Peter Brown: Could the member clarify whether it is possible that, under her bill, a person could win a contract at an agreed overall price, underachieve, or underestimate, or whatever, then be legally entitled to increased remuneration in order to bring him or her up to the minimum wage level?

DARIEN FENTON: Those are very complex matters and I look forward to the debate on them during the first reading and in a select committee as appropriate. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: There is normally only one supplementary question on questions to members. They are not treated the same as questions to Ministers.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I seek leave, then, to ask the member whether she sought any advice from her colleague Taito Phillip Field, given his deep experience in underpaying people.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to ask that question. Is there any objection? There is objection.

General Election 2005—Inquiry

2. Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: What further evidence, if any, has she requested before the committee completes its inquiry into the 2005 general election?

LYNNE PILLAY (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee): Any decisions the committee has made to seek further evidence are confidential to the committee at this time.

Dr Richard Worth: Can she confirm that the committee is awaiting a report from the Controller and Auditor-General as to whether the expenditure of public funds by the office of Helen Clark on the Labour Party pledge card and leaflet was outside the scope of the relevant appropriation; if so, what is the reason for the delay in the release of that report?

LYNNE PILLAY: It is not the role of the select committee to determine when that report comes from the Auditor-General.

Dr Richard Worth: I seek leave to table a letter dated 31 July from the Controller and Auditor-General that notes the matters that are the subject of these questions are complex and sensitive.

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

LYNNE PILLAY: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That letter is to the select committee and has not been tabled at that committee yet, so should it be presented?

Madam SPEAKER: There should have been an objection to it being tabled, if that was the case. That was the opportunity to do that.

LYNNE PILLAY: I was going to do that, but I was a little tardy.

Madam SPEAKER: I am afraid the member was too late.

Question No. 5 to Minister

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave to table page 81 of Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000, which states quite categorically that the HMNZS Charles Upham was purchased in 1994—2 years prior to my entering Parliament.

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

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave to table the report by the Controller and Auditor-General on the Charles Upham, dated 24 September 1998, which shows clearly that the Charles Upham was purchased by a National Government 2 years before I came to Parliament.

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave to table newspaper reports in 1996 and 1997 in which Ron Mark, as the New Zealand First defence spokesperson, strongly endorsed the purchase of the Charles Upham as part of New Zealand’s Defence Force capability.

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

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I seek leave to table the 1996 coalition document between New Zealand First and National, in which the New Zealand First Party agreed to the very extensive refit of the Charles Upham.

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

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well, I might as well join in the fray. I seek leave to table whatever documents I have in my office that show that I spoke to the Minister of Defence at the time, Max Bradford, about what could be done for the Charles Upham, because he freely admitted that it was a dog and that purchasing it was a big mistake by the National Government.

Documents not tabled.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I seek leave to table the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National, in which New Zealand First was insistent that some $38 million be spent on pouring concrete into the bottom of the Charles Upham, because Ron Mark thought that doing that would stabilise it.

Madam SPEAKER: This is getting a tad silly, but leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that points of order are heard in silence.

RON MARK: Madam Speaker, I just want clarification from you as to which specific paragraph of the Standing Orders applies. Is it true that Standing Order 400(b) makes it possible for a case of privilege to be laid with you where a member has deliberately misled the House by presenting a document that does not exist?

Madam SPEAKER: No. If the member has a matter of privilege, this is not the place—as I have ruled before—for it to be raised. The member knows what the proper process is.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It might just help the member to understand a little more about these matters if he were to realise that one cannot take someone to the Privileges Committee for not presenting an accurate document, when leave to present the document was not granted in the first place.

Madam SPEAKER: That is, of course, not a point of order.

Bills

Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Debate resumed from 27 July.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): As current events in Lebanon and Israel illustrate, we live in a dangerous and uncertain world. The events of 9/11 in the USA and subsequent acts of terrorism in Madrid, in Bali twice, in London, and elsewhere—all perpetrated by Islamic extremists who chose to advance their political agenda by having recourse to indiscriminate acts of violence—have been well documented over recent times. I think that all the civilised nations of the world are now determined, jointly, to do all they can to eliminate the potential for such evil to continue in our world.

It is in that context that we come to this Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2), because this bill seeks to amend the Customs and Excise Act 1996 in order to strengthen border security measures and to provide for more effective, integrated border management across all Government agencies with an interest at the border. The amendments aim to counter terrorism and transnational crime and to provide consolidation to amendments made to the Act in 2004, as well as to enable the Customs Service to contribute better to the Government’s collective interest at the border. Of particular importance in this bill is an amendment in relation to the Custom Service’s ability to deal with false and forged travel and identity documents.

During the last Parliament, through an amendment to the Act in 2004, the Government brought in a new range of measures to do with the importation of goods into New Zealand, the exportation of goods from New Zealand, and the passing of goods through New Zealand in transit, say from Fiji to Los Angeles. There was a tremendous expense involved on behalf of the Crown to implement those new border security measures, but they were necessary if we were to continue, for example, to be able to export goods from this country to the United States, or if other nations wanted to trans-ship goods through our country to the United States. And that is just one indication, I guess, of a huge investment collectively—into the billions of dollars—that has happened around the world, to try to counter the actions of terrorist organisations coming to us, particularly from Islamic nations.

At the time, United Future argued very strongly that the Government alone should bear the costs involved. We regard it, classically, as defence-of-the-realm expenditure. The Government has a high priority—one of the highest priorities of any Government—to defend the citizens of this country against acts of terrorism. That, of course, applies particularly to the importation of goods into our country where, for example, bombs and other devices could be stored in cargo holds or in containers coming into New Zealand. I re-emphasise that United Future continues to believe that the costs relating to border control—to the extent that those costs in turn are related to terrorism and to transnational crime or, indeed, when we come to forged passports and other travel documents and even to the interchange of spy networks within the world—need to continue to be borne by the Crown. They are no different, if you like, from the mainstream expenditure we have through Vote Defence, in its attempt, basically, to protect this nation from the activities I have mentioned.

I want to make the point today that we as a party want to continue down that track. Therefore, although we will be supporting the first reading of this bill, we do so on the understanding that those costs will continue to be borne by the Crown, and that no further attempt will be made by the Government to push them off on to exporters or importers. In fact, as far as exporters are concerned, I believe that we need to give them every encouragement at this stage in our economic cycle—given the balance of payment situation we have—and we should not be imposing costs on them that will make exporting from this country more difficult. That is counterproductive for them and it is counterproductive for the national interest. With those few remarks, I have pleasure in signalling United Future’s support for the bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Kaikōrero, tēnā tātou e te Whare. I te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, i tino kaingākau ki a au kia mōhio ki ngā ingoa Māori mō ngā Tari o te Kāwanatanga. E mea ana, ko te ingoa Maori, mo te New Zealand Customs Service koia, ko “te Mana Arai o Aotearoa” a, kei a ia te mana hei ārai, hei tiaki i a Aotearoa. Mēinga mēinga! Kei a wai rā te mana? Koia rā te pātai. Ki tā te tangata whenua, kotahi anake te mana hei ārai i a Aotearoa nei, arā, ko te mana tērā o Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nā, hakoa kua āhua kāpō ngā kiore e toru, arā, ko Reipa, ko Niu Tīreni te Tuatahi, me Nāhinara. Hakoa hanga mataku anō hoki ki te hekenga o ā rātou pōti, e mōhio ana te iwi whānui o Aotearoa ko te Tiriti te tino kaupapa mō te whenua nei. Mā te Tiriti i whakaritea te kaupapa o te Kāwanatanga, arā, ko te mana whakahaere me te kaupapa rangatiratanga, arā, ko te mana o ngā hapū me ngā iwi Māori. Mā te Tiriti anō ka taea a tauiwi ki te noho pai i raro i ngā manaakitanga o te kāwanatanga o ngā Tametame.

Ko te kaupapa hei whakamana i te nohotahi koia ko te tiaki, te manaaki, ko te whakamarumaru i ngā tikanga o te ao Māori hei hapū, hei iwi rānei i raro i te Wāhanga Tuarua. Hei tangata i raro i te Wāhanga Tuatoru o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Inā kite ana au ki ōku iwi o Te Tai Tokerau, ka nui rawa aku pātai mō te āhua o te mana o te Tari Arai o Aotearoa ki tērā o te mana o te Māori i a rātou e ārai ana i ō rātou whenua, taonga anō hoki. Ka kitea i roto i te ripoata o Muriwhenua e mōhio tūturu ana ngā hapū me ngā iwi o Te Tai Tokerau, he aha ō rātou mana ki te whenua, mana ki te moana. Kāhore i rerekē taua mana, atu i te taenga mai o tauiwi. I puta mai te whakaaro tiaki ā-rohe, me te whakaaro whakahaere ā-takiwā mai i te kōrero o te wā hokohoko a te iwi Māori me te Pākehā.

Anei te ripoata a Muriwhenua: “Kua kitea, e whakaarohia ana te Māori, kei a ia tonu tōna mana.”

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us in the House. In Māori Language Week, the sources behind the Māori names that have been created to describe the various Government departments were a particular interest for me. The Māori name for the New Zealand Customs Service is “te Mana Arai o Aotearoa”, and means “the authority that screens and protects New Zealand”. Yeah right! It is a question of authority—whose authority? The only authority that tangata whenua know of as being able to protect Aotearoa is Te Tiriti o Waitangi. And even if the three blind mice—Labour, NZ First, and National—pretend not to see, and are running scared of the polls, the rest of New Zealand knows that it is in the Treaty that our foundations lie. It is the Treaty that balances kāwanatanga—the right to govern; with rangatiratanga—hapū and iwi authority. The Treaty enabled settlers to establish themselves in Aotearoa and to live here in peace under the protection and control of the British Government.

The partnership principle translated in practice towards an assumption that Māori would have their rights and interests recognised and protected, both as individual citizens—article 3—and as members of hapū and iwi—article 2. When I look to my own people of Te Tai Tokerau, I am given even more reason to question this concept of authority via the Customs Service, when compared with the exercise of authority by Māori communities over their land and resources. The Muriwhenua report shows that hapū and iwi of the north were very clear about their rights of authority over their lands and seas, and this did not change with the arrival of the European settlers. The concepts of border security measures and integrated border management derive from those early accounts of our people trading with Europeans.

The report had this to say: “There is evidence that Māori saw themselves as retaining control.”]

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. E ai ki te Whakataunga Tū Roa 107, ko ngā kōrero i puta mai i roto i tēnei Whare e pā ana ki ngā pire, mō te pire anake. Pai ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero o te mema o Te Tai Tokerau engari, ka āhua whakaarohia me huri mai ōna whakaaro ki te pire.

[According to Standing Order 107, debates in this House about bills must be relevant to the bill itself. While it is nice to listen to what the Te Tai Tokerau member is talking about, there comes a time when he must bring his thoughts back to the bill.]

My point of order is this—and in terms of Standing Order 107 the issue of relevancy is at its heart—I take on board that the member for Te Tai Tokerau wants to expand on his views around mana, around the views according to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that is well and good. However, his speech must be relevant to the bill at hand, which is the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) so, Madam Assistant Speaker, I just ask you to rule accordingly.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Thank you. Certainly, the member needs to speak relevantly. I cannot actually judge that until we have had the interpretation, which puts me in a somewhat difficult position. However, I just ask the member to make sure that what he is saying is relevant to the bill.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just as a matter of clarification to aid the House therefore, could I ask, with the member’s indulgence, whether the interpretation can happen throughout the speech, so that members are able to ascertain what is being said and determine the relevance of that in relation to the bill before the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member raises an important point. I probably was remiss in that I did not say to members that the member had indicated that he wanted to give his whole speech without interpretation. But certainly it does raise an issue—the issue we are dealing with now. However, I think that in this instance we will just continue.

HONE HARAWIRA: Anei te ripoata a Muriwhenua: “Kua kitea, e whakaarohia ana te Māori, kei a ia tonu tōna mana. Kua kitea anō rā ngā mahi ā ngā Māori kia whai i ngā utu mō ngā taunga kaipuke me ngā utu mō te wai mā tauiwi anō rā hei utungia. E hia te roa atu i tērā, kāhore te Māori i whakaae ki ngā tāke a te Kāwanatanga me ngā utu taunga kaipuke a te Kāwanatanga i te whakaaro, nā rātou tonu tērā mana. I mārama ai te Pākehā, ā, kāhore hoki i ngaro i te Māori, ko te mana hoko taonga, te mana whakaae, te mana kia uru atu. Kei te Māori tonu tērā mana.”

Kua kitea ināianei, i aua rā i kakama, i matatau te Māori ki ngā mahi tiaki ā-rohe, whakamarumaru anō hoki i ngā whenua me ngā moana o Aotearoa. Ko wai ka mauheria? Nā, i te mea ehara ko mātou ngā tāngata kei muri i ngā tēpu ārai tangata, ko te pātai, ko wai ngā tāngata i mauhere i runga i te whakaaro whakapae noa iho. Me te pātai o te Pāti Māori anō, he aha te tū o te āhua kaikiri i a rātou e whakapae ana he tangata whakatumatuma kua tae mai? Kua kite harikoa mātou ki te tū a te Tari Arai o Aotearoa, kia ū ki ōna kawenga ki te Māori i raro i Te Tiriti o Waitangi me ngā kaupapa hei mahia e te Karauna. Ko te wawata mā tēnei tū whakapono, ka mōhio te iwi whānui ki te āhua o te rangatiratanga, arā, mā te Māori anō te Māori hei ārahi i raro i te mana o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kei reira anō te mana ka taea ai te tangata kia haere ki hea noa atu i raro i tōna mana tangata whenua.

I tēnei tau i whakanuia mātou i te huritau, rua tekau mā rima mai i te wā o te haerenga mai o te Tīma Whutupaoro o Awherika ki te Tonga. I puta mai ngā whakaaro wetiweti i taua wā, te wā i whakawhiti tika ai ngā tangata mai i tētahi whenua ki tētahi atu nā te tino raru me te mataku o te tū o te Kāwanatanga o Awherika ki te Tonga. Mōhio ana te nuinga ō mātou ki ngā tāngata rua tekau i huaina mai e te Security Intelligence Service, ko rātou ngā kaiporotehe i te wā o te Tira nō Awherika ki te Tonga. Ko te huaina i ngā tāngata hei tāngata tūraki—pērā i a Donna Awatere, i a Dunn Mihaka, i ahau anō hoki—he tauira tērā o ngā mahi ā ngā āpiha o te Kāwanatanga, mēnā ka whakaae mātou kia whakamana rātou hei kai whakawā, kaipupuri, kaihopu rānei. E whakakaha ana te pire nei i te Kāwanatanga kia taea e ōna āpiha te rapu, te here, kia whakaroa te pupuri i runga i te whakaaro whakapae noa iho. Ki te Pāti Māori, horekau he take mō ēnei tū momo āhua—ko tā mātou, kei reira kē, te ture ināianei.

Tuku rawa, whakarau rawa: kia whakaritea. Ko te pātai whakamutunga e pā ana ki ngā wāhanga rima tekau mā whā, rima tekau mā ono o te Ture. E mea ana te Pāti Māori, mēnā e piri pono ana ki ngā kaupapa o te pire, arā, kia whakapakari ai ngā tāngata ārai takiwā me toro atu ēnei kaupapa whakakapi mai i ngā tuku rawa ki ngā rawa e uru mai ana hoki. Hari ana mātou ki ngā mahi a ngā tari ārai whenua e tautoko kaha ana i ngā tikanga o te Ture Whakakāhore Tuku Rawa rua mano o rua. E tika ana kia maumahara tēnei Whare i te tangata e tuku pounamu ki tāwāhi, i te tau rua mano mā toru. E mea ana ia, he koha noa iho mō te iwi o Rapanui. Engari, kotahi te mea i warewaretia. Kāhore ia i īnoi atu ki te Kaporeihana o Mawhera, kia whakaae ki tōna tangohanga i tērā taonga mai i te awa o Arahura. Ka mihi te Pāti Māori ki te Tari Arai o Aotearoa, mō tōna tautoko i ngā mahi rāhui i ngā rawa tuku. Engari, ko te pātai tonu, he aha i kore ai te rāhui nei e tau ki runga i ngā rawa uru mai?

E mōhio ana tātou ki ngā kaimahi whāriki, kākahu, hū anō hoki i roto o Aotearoa, i mārakerakehia ki ngā rawa o Singapore i ēnei wā i raro i te kaupapa hokohoko-korehere i waenganui i a mātou, me rātou anō. He tino kaupapa kia tohutohua te Arai o Aotearoa kia āta tirohia i ngā rawa i uru mai nei i Singapore, kia kaua rātou e whiwhi painga mō ngā utu here kua tangohia mai i ngā rawa o reira.

Ko te kōrero whakamutunga, me āraihia e tātou te āhua o tō tātou noho i Aotearoa, te whenua i kōrerotia nei ko tō tātou kāinga, he karanga kohukihuki, pērā i te karanga a ōku tūpuna o Muriwhenua i tērā rau tau. Kāhore mātou i te hiahia kia kaua ngā tāngata whenua o te ao ka taea te uru mai ki Aotearoa nā tēnei mahi kikino a te kaikiri. Kāhore mātau i te hiahia kia tohua ā mātou tohunga pūkenga hei tangata whakatuma me wērā atu ingoa whakaiti tangata. Kāhore mātou i te hiahia kia kore e taea te tangata kia tū, kia wero, nā te kaha o te Kāwanatanga patu whakatumatuma. E hiahia ana mātou kia manaakihia, kia tū te mana tangata, kia kaua e waimemeha i raro i ngā whakahaeretanga o te ture.

E mea ana te kōrero, horekau he painga i roto i te mahi hē. Mēnā ka tahuri koe kia wero i te mana Kāwanatanga, ko te mutunga, he kai nā te ahi. Ko te tono o te Pāti Māori mā te mana o Te Tiriti o Waitangi ka taea e mātou te mau tika ki ngā wawata o te iwi. E tautoko ana mātou i tēnei pire hakoa ō mātou āwangawanga kia kore e nui ake ngā kaupapa rapa, herepū rānei. Ka titiro whakamua mātou ki nga kōrero o te komiti whakawā, ā, ki te ripoata o taua komiti. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou katoa.

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

[The report had this to say: “There is evidence that Māori saw themselves as retaining control. This is demonstrated in their political acts of levying anchorage and watering fees, which Europeans found they were bound to pay. Much later, Māori were intensely opposed to Government customs duties and harbour charges, as they considered only Māori could levy these. It was further apparent to Europeans—and the point was not lost on Māori—that trade relied totally on Māori permitting access to resources.”

As our early relationships reveal, Māori originally had the experience and custom of effective and integrated border management, as would be expected for our ongoing authority over both land and sea. Who is detained? Having established, then, that we are not the ones behind the customs desk, the question must be asked about who are the people detained on suspicion. The Māori Party asks particularly what is the likely place of racism in determining risk, in identifying the threat of terrorism. We note with delight that the Customs Service identifies a commitment to meeting its responsibilities to Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles for Crown action. We would hope that such a commitment might lead to an understanding of rangatiratanga, of self-determination, and of Treaty rights—rights that extend across international borders in the context of indigenous peoples.

This year we have marked the anniversary of 25 years since the 1981 Springbok tour. The potential risks arising from international travel, while facilitating the legitimate movement of people across the border, came to a particular frenzy under the spotlight of apartheid. Many of us knew of the 20 subversives who were on a list drawn up by the Security Intelligence Service to identify those who took part in protests against the tour. The singling out of individuals as subversives—like Donna Awatere, Dun Mīhaka, and myself—are examples of the types of targeting that can go on when officials are given inordinate authority to question, detain, or arrest. The bill increases the power of authorities to search and seize, to delay and detain, all according to their suspicions, their preconceived perceptions. The Māori Party believes such authority to be unnecessary—we would suggest there is sufficient authority already in place.

Exports, imports: it works both ways. The final question we have is around sections 54 and 56 of the Act. The Māori Party suggests that if one is really committed to the bill’s purpose to enhance border security measures, new prohibitions on exports should also be carried over to imports. We have been pleased with the vigilance of border agencies in upholding such measures as the *Customs Export Prohibition Order 2002. This House will no doubt recall the attempt to export a piece of pounamu in 2003. The person involved alleged that it was a gift for the people of Rapanui (Easter Island). But they forgot one small detail—the need to gain consent from the Mawhera Incorporation for any such taonga retrieved from the Arahura River. The Māori Party commends the commitment of the Customs Service to uphold its Treaty commitments, in this area of prohibitions on exports. But we do have to ask why the same situation does not apply to imports.

We are all aware that the manufacturers of textiles, clothing, and footwear in Aotearoa will be exposed to greater competition from exports originating in Singapore as a result of free-trade relationships. It is really critical that the Customs Service is asked to closely monitor imports from Singapore to ensure that nations do not derive any unintended benefits from the removal of tariffs on goods of Singapore origin.

Finally, the need to protect and preserve the unique nature of life in Aotearoa, and all who call this land home, is as urgent now as it was with my Muriwhenua tupuna last century. We do not want other indigenous peoples of the world to be excluded from Aotearoa, as a result of the ever-pervasive purging resulting from racism. We do not want activities of our independent leading thinkers to be redesignated as terrorist actions of activists and radicals. We do not want democratic challenge to be stifled as part of the regime of terrorism suppression. We want protection and preservation, not the erosion of human rights or the withdrawal of due process under the law.

They say that crime does not pay—that turning against the authority of the land will result only in deep heat. The Māori Party urges everyone to be guided by the true authority of Aotearoa, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to stay true to the aspirations of our nation. We support the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, despite our reservations and although we do not believe that the additional search and seizure strategies are necessary. We look forward to the discussion and report back from the select committee. Greetings to you, and good health to us all.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I just say to the member, and to Nanaia Mahuta, the member who raised the point of order, that the point of order was absolutely correct. A lot of that speech was not relevant. The presiding officers will have to discuss how we deal with speeches, and whether we will allow the whole 10 minutes before we have the interpretation, because it was impossible for anyone to rule on that. We will certainly have a look at the matter, but I do uphold the member’s point of order.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He aha ngā mea kua hē ki taku kaupapa?

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

[What aspects of my speech were incorrect?]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I have ruled that much of the speech was not relevant to the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2), and that is the end of the matter. I took particular note of the translation, and I ruled that what the member raised in her point of order was correct. If any member had raised that issue, and if I had been able to understand the speech, I would have ruled in exactly the same way. Much of the speech was not related to the bill. That is the end of the matter. I have ruled on the point of order, but we will consider the matter.

HONE HARAWIRA: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Is the member raising a point of order?

HONE HARAWIRA: Āe.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I just say to the member that if the point of order concerns what I have already ruled on, it would be disorderly.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Ehara.

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

[No.]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No? The member is saying it is a new point of order. Hone Harawira.

HONE HARAWIRA: Tēnā koe e te Kaikōrero. Taku rongona atu ki ngā kaikōrero roto i te Whare nei, tino whānui rawa ngā kōrero a ia kaikōrero mō te kaupapa. He aha te take e whakakāhoretia ana koe i taku kōrero?

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

[Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker. I have listened to addresses in this House by various speakers and they draw a very long bow about a topic. Why are you ruling out my speech?]

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Just a minute; I am going to rule on this point of order. The point about the matter is that a member has an absolute right to raise a point of order about relevancy, and that was done. I could not rule at the time, but when I heard the interpretation, Nanaia Mahuta, the member raising the original point of order, was correct. So the member cannot now contest my ruling on that—I have ruled on it. But the member is right in saying there is sometimes an issue of relevancy—it often depends on the context. However, a point of order was raised on the matter of relevancy. That is the end of this matter.

Dr Pita Sharples: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, Dr Sharples, I am not going to take any more points of order on the same matter.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Imprest Supply Debate

Imprest Supply Debate

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a second time. Sometimes in this Parliament there is a short moment—a moment of transition, of major change—when one can see something has occurred that is going to have repercussions for a long period of time, and this afternoon in question time we saw precisely that. We saw a moment when the Prime Minister challenged the National Party as to who was the real Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash or Gerry Brownlee. Both stood up; Gerry Brownlee told Don Brash to sit down, and Don Brash sat down. The question about who the real leader of the National Party was answered itself. It was Gerry Brownlee who led National members into the procedural mess they got into this afternoon—the folly they have now got into, on which they will go nowhere on what has been their favourite hare to chase for the last couple of weeks or so.

That supposed leadership of the National Party over there—Dr Brash, who looks as though he has been suffering from a famine, and Mr Brownlee, who looks as though he has been causing it—has now no moral standing in this House at all. That is both as a result of that leadership moving a foolish motion and of its inability to organise a debate, despite many offers to allow the debate to occur and the motion to be put, and also by refusing to allow a member to make a personal explanation in order to offer an apology to the House. That will also resonate in this House for many weeks and months to come. Those kinds of thing are always examples of “what goes around comes around”. When some member on the opposite side of the House desperately needs to make a personal explanation, it will take an awful lot of Christian charity on this side of the House to allow that to happen.

There has been folly piled upon folly and lack of leadership piled upon lack of leadership. What does one expect from a party when the leader gives a speech saying that we ought to have rules of citizenship whereby we would respect democracy and the principles and freedoms of all New Zealanders, yet the very same party wrote a minority report on the Oaths Modernisation Bill rejecting the inclusion of swearing support for democracy and the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders? What does one expect from a party of that sort? What does one expect from a party when Mr Key says National would have the same outcome in the surplus and the deficit as Labour, but would have more tax cuts but not less spending? Somehow or other “a” plus “b” no longer equals “b” plus “a” in the National Party’s economic philosophy and economic arithmetic.

The National Party lacks a clear policy on anything. Tax cuts was once its big policy, but when one goes to the National Party website and asks about tax cuts, one gets referred to a website, www.taxcuts.co.nz. When one goes there one finds that it states: “This domain is parked”. It ought to say: “This party is parked”.

The National Party is permanently parked in Opposition. In Opposition it shows not the slightest sign of putting together the kinds of policies, principles, and leadership that could possibly lead it to this side of the House. Those members will grow old in bitterness, as they are growing old in bitterness now, on the front bench of the National Party. They will be there as long as we continue to perform as a Government in the way that we are.

I will outlast yet another one, two, or three National Party finance spokespeople, as I have outlasted about six or seven already during my time as the Labour finance spokesperson. In part that will happen because of the achievements of this Government. We have growth that has resulted in the rate of unemployment being one of the lowest in the OECD and the lowest in New Zealand for over 20 years, particularly amongst Māori; a major achievement for this Government. Business profits are at the highest level we have seen for decades in New Zealand. Why have we collected more tax? It is because the corporate sector has made more profits, and we have collected the corporate tax off those profits. We do not hear much about that from the National Party opposite.

Debt has reduced as a proportion of GDP by about a third under this Labour-led Government. Working for Families is now pouring money into many low to middle income families, who are beginning to realise the benefits of those changes that we have introduced. Superannuation was restored to the 65 percent floor and now, during the life of this Government, to the 66 percent floor, as a result of the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First.

On 1 July the rates rebate scheme will see hundreds of thousands of hard-working Kiwis getting rates rebates on their homes. The National Party bleats about rates but never does anything about them—except pretending, somehow or other, that they are not going to increase at any point in the future. Primary health organisations are rolling out cheaper doctors’ visits and cheaper pharmaceutical costs for the 45 to 64-year-old age group. There is only one age group left to go—25 to 44—which will qualify for that on 1 July next year.

Now, we have a massive agenda moving forward. In infrastructure we have the biggest investment in roading and public transport in New Zealand’s history. We have seen an eightfold increase in public transport spend under this Government and a doubling in land transport spend under this Government. We are going to complete the Auckland motorway network. We are building roads in the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. We are saving New Zealanders’ lives by improving the quality of those roads. We are spending all of the revenue we take off motorists, which is not going to the Accident Compensation Corporation but is coming off for land transport purposes, on land transport. That has not happened for so long that nobody can remember when we last did that. One would have to go back somewhere before Sir Robert Muldoon, before one found that was the case within New Zealand.

We are now moving on electricity, and sending clear signals that we must have sufficient security of generating supply and we must have a sufficient margin on transmission. Transpower and the commission must sort out their differences, including their personality differences; if not, the Government will have to take, and consider, other actions to ensure that those differences do not stand in the way of achieving the security that New Zealanders need and New Zealanders deserve, and that we must have if we are going to have investment.

On skills, I say that I am in the middle of a major reform of the structure of tertiary education within this country; a reform that has been very broadly welcomed across the tertiary education sector. The almost lone voice in Opposition is that of Mr Bill English, as he was the lone voice on the curriculum changes announced yesterday by my friend and colleague Steve Maharey. On savings we are introducing the KiwiSaver scheme. There are going to be changes to that scheme through the select committee process, I am sure, which will see it improve, and that will start to see a lift in the savings rates within New Zealand.

On compliance costs, I say that Lianne Dalziel is chasing major reform in terms of the way in which we treat compliance costs. At the same time the Government is looking at its own internal compliance costs because they also have become far too large in terms of the way Government business is carried on internally—something that the National Party never deals with at all.

Finally, last week Mr Dunne and I put out the business taxation document, which is offering tax cuts in the business sector that are three times what Mr Key offered, and Mr Key says: “Oh, it’s not very much at all.” It is three times what he was talking about as possibilities, but he is saying: “Oh, well, never mind. That won’t go anywhere near far enough.” What is important is to address those skills issues, to address those research and development issues, and to address those export market development issues. They are areas where New Zealand has under-performed for a generation and where a hands-off, laissez-faire, pure level-playing-field approach is simply not delivering the results that this country needs to lift its quality of life. Opposite we have a leaderless, moral-less, wasting Opposition, which has no future, a past it can scarcely now remember, and a future that, in fact, will simply be one of sitting there increasingly bitter and irrelevant to New Zealand’s needs. The Opposition showed that in the House this afternoon.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville): On Thursday the House will adjourn for a 2-week period, and members on the Government side cannot wait for that adjournment. They cannot wait, because the last 2 weeks have been a living hell for them and they know that it is a long, long way from being over. The instruction from the whips to the Labour Party caucus meeting this morning was simple: “Hang in there for 2 more days. Hang in there and keep your heads up high, because we’ll just guts it out till Thursday and see if we can make it all magically go away.”

Last week was a pretty interesting week. We had been led to believe 7 months ago that there would be this big and bold business tax review—so big and bold, Michael Cullen told us, it might be too big and bold for some people. It turned out that the person it was too big and bold for was Helen Clark, who now no longer has any confidence in her Minister of Finance. She now runs economic policy—as well as everything else! That is why the review was a document that members of the accounting fraternity across New Zealand described as a “three out of 10”. Even in the dumbed-down education system in this country, a fifth-former at any self-respecting secondary school would get a “not achieved” for that 26-page document, which took 7 months to write. Quite frankly, it is a disgrace.

On Sunday afternoon I was involved in a couple of radio interviews. One of them was on Radio Tarana, the Indian Radio station on 1386 AM, and before me was the Prime Minister, who was going to debate the issues around the business tax review. The Minister of Finance is no longer let loose to discuss that review. He had had very little input into it, indeed, after the Prime Minister had pruned it. But what the Prime Minister said, in a very interesting interview before I went on the station, was very illuminating. She said that she had spent the afternoon discussing some issues with Michael Cullen.

Well, we found out in the House today exactly what issues Helen Clark had been talking to Michael Cullen about. They have been polling furiously on the Taito Phillip Field inquiry. They have been polling their supporters, who have unanimously told them they have a problem, and they know that it is a problem that will not go away in a hurry. So Helen Clark got on the phone to Michael Cullen and told him that they had to find a way to make the thing go away, and that they had to do it in a hurry.

They rang up Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Green Party—the party they left jilted at the altar 12 months ago after they had promised the whole way through the election campaign that they would look after it—and concocted a little scheme that was about to cost the taxpayers of New Zealand, I would guess, an awful lot of money. They told Jeanette Fitzsimons to draft a notice of motion and read it out in the House. It would be a notice of motion without debate. When it happened they would make Mr Taito Phillip Field stand up and apologise, even though 2 weeks ago he had told the people of New Zealand that he was fully exonerated and could not understand why he was not going straight back into Cabinet. All of a sudden he was going to be getting up and giving us an apology—or so we were led to believe.

That was going to cost the Labour Government a few favours, and probably a few taxpayer dollars, when it came to the policies that would get rolled out on the back of it. But it was all OK, because it did not matter to Helen Clark who got carried out with that thing, and who got involved—

Darren Hughes: Don Brash agreed to it.

JOHN KEY: I tell that member that he had better listen up, because he may as well hear what is going on in his party. The member for Otaki, who only just won his seat—he nearly got carted out by a first-time member on our side because he is so lazy and does not go to his electorate and do anything—should listen up, because this is what was happening on that side of the House. This was the idea: a notice of motion, without debate, was going to be read out that was theoretically going to take that very untidy situation off the table and make it all OK. Taito Phillip Field was going to say sorry even though he did not think he was guilty, and even though Noel Ingram had written a report about him that was so damning my good friend and colleague Lockwood Smith could have filled up every single question slot we had today and yesterday, and will have tomorrow and Thursday, asking questions on it. Today he asked a very interesting question indeed, which I guess Government members did not want to hear. They learnt today that in the last 3 years Taito Phillip Field has had 262 special discretions for applications he has made—

Darren Hughes: How many has the member had?

JOHN KEY: I have had very, very few actually—because I do not get people to paint my house. I do not send them off to Samoa to tile my house, and I do not charge for my services. I do not actually have to have a notice of motion that says I am going to recommit to a principle saying I will act as a member of Parliament and do things for free. Because Taito Phillip Field—

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want the Speaker’s guidance. Is it OK for a member, after he has denied permission for a party even to table a document, to then quote it in the House?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Locke. That is a debatable issue.

JOHN KEY: Taito Phillip Field was going to say “Sorry”, even though he has been fully exonerated, apparently, by the report; even though he has had 262 special discretions; even though he has sent so many people overseas to work on his houses that no one can keep count of them, and even though we have had a web of people in this House—

Darren Hughes: The member has got the same problem—what about your Sydney house?

JOHN KEY: I tell Mr Hughes that my houses are owned by my trust or by my wife—and, by the way, I pay for them and I actually pay people when they work on them. I know that is a unique—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just bring the Chamber to order and say that the practice of members engaging in a constant barrage of interjections amounts to heckling, and that is entirely intolerable in a debating Chamber. I would like members to look at Speaker’s ruling 57/3, which says that interjections are out of order unless “rare and reasonable;”. I ask members to remember that.

JOHN KEY: That is quite right—Mr Hughes should go back to Otaki where he has one of the slimmest majorities in the country, and he should start knocking on a few doors and begging people to vote for him again.

Hon Bill English: His majority will go down.

JOHN KEY: That is right; he will be carted out.

Hon Bill English: He should stay in Wellington.

JOHN KEY: Yes, he should stay in Wellington. If he is going to raise a thin majority he may as well hang on for a few days.

I want to make a point that is quite interesting. We had a scenario there where Michael Cullen and Helen Clark thought they could concoct a very convenient way to take that issue off the agenda. A personal explanation from Mr Taito Phillip Field—even one he would not believe in, because he had told the House he was exonerated and had done nothing wrong—would stop our side of the House debating the matter.

Then Michael Cullen got up and told us that he had offered the Opposition a debate on its notice of motion about why we on this side of the House have no confidence in the Speaker, Margaret Wilson. He said that he had offered a debate; what he failed to say, of course, was that he had offered an extension of about half an hour to the general debate—not the full debate that would have been taken by our side of the House.

I want to make reference to one other thing that happened yesterday. While we are talking about houses and Taito Phillip Field’s houses, I tell members that Wizard Home Loans came out with a very interesting matter yesterday and said that New Zealanders were finding it increasingly difficult to buy a home. I personally happen to believe that the data used for the Wizard Home Loans research is fundamentally a little flawed, although I accept the principle that homeownership is becoming more difficult. But I think that the real philosophical differences between the different parties in the House have actually been shown.

The Green Party came out and said there should be a capital gains tax. That was their answer. They said that foreigners, theoretically, were buying up houses, which meant that New Zealanders could no longer afford their own homes. Well, I hate to tell the Green Party that foreigners are not buying up bits of Pakuranga and the rest, which was the Green Party’s response.

The Government came out saying that it was going to spend $2.5 million on an ownership education programme—that was its idea about homeownership. But only one party in this House was going to fix the issue, along with the Resource Management Act and the Building Act, and was going to help New Zealanders with lower interest rates—the National Party.

SHANE JONES (Labour): In a loud, clear, bilingual voice I say, e Te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. Let me first begin by saying that this is a great day for the Government, despite a flow of negativity and invective from, and a complete disregard for the rules of the House by, the Opposition. The Opposition members have tried every trick in the book to distract attention from the fact that what lies behind their thinking is a vacuum, and what obsesses them is their own sense of disunity.

There are two young guys in National who will not give up the prize until they have hammered the daylights out of each other, although I was tempted to complain today that Gerry Brownlee almost—well, “assaulted” is hardly the right word, but certainly—assailed his own leader. He did not want the country to see how much of an embarrassment Don Brash was, pretending that he can lead the Opposition—ambling from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, wandering over here, and within 3 years aimlessly having the top prize. Well, even his own deputy is using a great Te Waipounamu myth to say: “Sit down, koroua; it’s our turn now. You’ve served our purpose.” But until such time as the two young bulls work out who is the No. 1 rangatira and who is rangatira No. 2, Don Brash serves a purpose. We all know that purpose is, firstly, to bide time, and, secondly, to hide the fact that other than personal attacks and wild and extreme ideas that have been tested and completely rejected by the electorate over the last year, the Opposition members offer nothing to the country.

That is why, when we contrast what we are doing with what the Opposition is doing, we find that people are eagerly anticipating, over the recess period, visits from Ministers, events organised by backbenchers, and the media from up and down the country being there to report. What are they going to report? They will report policies, ideas, and initiatives that are taking the country forward, as opposed to the ongoing highly negative personal sniping and attacks of the Opposition. The reality, however, is that the attacks and negativity are doing the National Party a great deal of damage. They do it a great deal of damage because the country does not want to see a continuation of such political venality. People want to see a contest—a contrast.

One type of vision is proudly announced by the Government and often reported upon—not, unfortunately, accurately—by the media. Where is the contrasting vision? Well, we saw the answer in Te Waipounamu a couple of weeks ago, when the National Party had its conference there. Sharper minds that dwell on media matters have already pointed out that it was reminiscent of a Soviet Union conference. People were brought from very, very distant areas and were completely confused as to what they were really hearing. However, they politely clapped, not wanting to emulate the behaviour of National’s own caucus in terms of its disrespect to its koroua, Don Brash—the man who, unfortunately, thought that just because one can be the king of monetary policy, one can lead Aotearoa. That was a big mistake; haere rā. But, unfortunately for the House, we are afflicted with Don Brash for—who knows how much longer? The two bulls have to sort that out.

Let us talk about the business tax review. What contrasting ideas will match that review? Firstly, we have heard from the Opposition that personal tax cuts have not been announced. Well, we have a couple more years to go; we will wait and see about that. The Minister of Finance has said that when cuts are made to the corporate rate it raises implications for the personal rate, so we will wait and see how that goes. What else has National said? Nothing—other than to stir up the chambers of commerce and the small number of groups from the business community that have any credibility left. But National is finding that a lot of the ideas promoted by our Minister of Finance are quietly being both embraced and endorsed by its own constituencies, because they can see that one cannot go forward by dividing the country, whether on the basis of urban and rural areas, of ethnicity, of being employers rather than employees, or of being women rather than men.

Divisiveness was at the vital centre of what National sought to do last year. National came perilously close to achieving that, yet despite the fact that it was taking money from all and sundry—from people who would not vote—it completely beggared its own strategy by its unwillingness, firstly, to be transparent and, secondly, to own its own strategy. Every day the media wait patiently to hear National’s ideas. National seems to think that if it has no ideas the country will forget the fact that it is devoid of ideas, and it will all of a sudden generate ideas at some point in 2008. Well, National tried to do that the last time round, and it failed miserably.

Of course, not only do we have good ideas but also we have great support from our friends. We have the mātāmua of the House, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the Minister of Revenue, who I am very glad to say is coming to Tai Tokerau and taking up the talk about the business tax review with the painters, traders, real estate agents, lawyers, and accountants—in fact, the demand to come and hear him talk about the policies is so huge that I am on the verge of selling tickets. Those policies have been released but have not been fully implemented, because we are giving people the opportunity to have input on them—to shape, influence, and enhance them. One can only do that if one has a policy. One can only do that if one is prepared to put initiatives before the community, rather than coming to this place week after week and spouting the same old negativity and highly personalised sniping—disrepute.

Beyond the business tax review, we have our KiwiSaver scheme. That scheme is eagerly anticipated by young families. It will provide an opportunity for them to derive some capital to improve their housing prospects. What have we heard as a contrast to the savings scheme? Nothing. What is on offer, other than a convenient recitation of the fact that Jenny Shipley led a charge to destroy Winston Peters’ superannuation scheme? Hello, kei hea Jenny Shipley; kei hea tēnā wahine? She is reduced to finding work in Shanghai. Kei hea tēnā wahine? Kei te ngaro tēnā wahine. That means that somewhere in a distant place, where we cannot hear or see her, she is missing.

R Doug Woolerton: She was missing when she was here, mate.

SHANE JONES: She was missing when she was here! Well, she put the korowai on certain people to lead the party forward. She put the korowai on them by trying to disgrace and undermine a great rangatira of Ngāti Wai. And today, to that rangatira from Ngāti Wai, the leader of New Zealand First, I offer our best thoughts. He is over in Australia, flying the flag and fighting the good fight. He will be back, looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger, very soon. This is a great day for the Government. Kia ora tātou.

RON MARK (NZ First): The saying that comes to mind when I think about Winston at the moment—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will use the full name.

RON MARK: You are so correct, Mr Speaker—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. That saying is this: there is nothing so sterile as someone saying “I told you so.” When I look across the House at National members—and I have heard the debate thus far—what do I see? I see a party carping on. The one thing that stands out very clearly about the National Party is that it is totally, absolutely united in its disunity. It is a party that has sat here carping for 9 years. It does not matter how much its members dance, how many questions they throw, or how much smoke and dust they try to kick up. Everybody in the country knows that it is all done in order to try to avoid answering the one question we all know needs to be answered and will be answered. It is the question National Party members are asking themselves: how much longer will they have to tolerate Don? Today in the House we saw that exemplified so perfectly—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot use a member’s nickname; he must use the full title or the position.

RON MARK: I mean the Leader of the Opposition, temporarily placed, Dr Don Brash. And what did we see today? He got sat on his butt by the big hand of Gerry Brownlee, who slapped his hand on Dr Brash’s shoulder and shoved him back into his seat. Can members imagine some young buck on any marae in this country daring to step up and put his hand on Tumu Te Heuheu’s shoulder and forcibly slam him back into his seat? It reminded me of the time Mr Brownlee threw someone down the stairs at a political party meeting, an action for which he was convicted in the courts of this land.

The question is how much longer we will have to sit in this House and hear the moaning and bleating. Is it for just 9 years, or will it be for 12 years in Opposition? Whilst the National Party continues to perform the way it does and moan and berate the things that happen in this House, New Zealand First is getting on with the business. We could see the advantages in the current situation. Yes, we have supported the Government with supply and confidence, but we have done so for some very good reasons. Let us talk about those. We will have 1,000 more police on the beat by 2008. [Interruption] I ask Mr Bennett what part of that is wrong. Do I hear Mr Bennett saying that he does not want any extra police officers in his electorate? If so, we will write about it tomorrow and say he does not.

We will have 250 extra non-sworn staff, and $500 million put into law and order—into policing—over the next 3 years. So whilst Simon Power—young Simon—goes round the country talking it up and doing nothing, we are here getting it done. New Zealand First has got in more support for the police—more staff, resources, and cars—and an increase in the minimum rate of superannuation, up to 66 percent of the net average wage. That is what New Zealand First has got in. That is what is going to happen under this Government with the agreement. A golden age card will be introduced in mid-2007, identifying senior citizens and public sector entitlements, and providing a range of commercial discounts. Is that good news? That is very good news. How many of those senior citizens, when they get their golden age cards in their hands, are going to say they do not want it? Even Don Brash, whom Gerry Brownlee is about to make redundant, will be eligible for a golden age card, courtesy of New Zealand First. And is it not a good thing, being that he will retire from this House?

There is a significant increase in funding for elder care. There is already $150 million in there, and we are working on doing more. There will be a full review of the immigration legislation and administrative practices within the Immigration Service, which is something that National said, all the time it was in Government, was not needed. National told the country that New Zealand was like part of Asia and that we should have an open-door immigration policy. That has come to an end, and the review is happening now.

An increase in the minimum wage is New Zealand First’s first step towards raising it to $12 an hour. National members sit there and tell the country that it is OK for people to be paid $9.54 an hour for working at the Nurse Maude Association, and $10.54 an hour for elder care. People pay for their own petrol to go into town and work in residential care for $9.50 an hour, and National thinks it is all right and that nothing should be done about it. New Zealand First has acted. Those people will have a minimum wage of $12 an hour by 2008.

What about support for a Buy New Zealand Made campaign? What a great initiative that is. That is happening under the agreement between New Zealand First and Labour. There will be an Export Year in 2007. New Zealand First has banged on about it and tried to tell this country for about a decade that the backbone of this nation’s economy are those that export—the primary production sector. We have only just started to hear National members talking in favour of the primary production sector. Before that, they were saying it was a sunset industry. When they were in Government they were saying that farming was old hat. That was National. Members should not listen to what they are saying today. They are in Hansard; they are on record. They went around the country. Farmers around this country were nailed by National and were deserted by them in droves as National talked up the e-economy. Well, where the heck is that today? So an Export Year, which will promote exporters and promote the need of New Zealand to support people involved in the export sector and to support manufacturers, is a great decision and a great initiative.

The people of Tauranga were promised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters a toll-free harbour bridge, and it will be toll free. That agreement was struck between New Zealand First and Labour—it is done. [Interruption] There is no sense in Mr Bennett sitting there bleating on. He has another 3 years to keep going, and if National keeps going the way it has been, there will be another 3 years after that. He should think about that.

I just want the National Party to focus on those things. They talked about stopping the carbon tax. Who did it? New Zealand First has done it. It is finished; it is done. What about the sale of strategic assets? We have put a hold on that, as we have always said we would. We have agreed to the terms of reference for a review of Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) funding for physiotherapists. National bleats on about these things and says we need a review of ACC funding. Firstly, New Zealand First said that about 3 light years before National woke up, and, secondly, it is done.

Given the disunity and confusion that exists in National’s ranks, and given the fact that they are over there, still carping on, while New Zealand First is sitting here working constructively with the Government, heads down, getting these things done, the only question that remains to be asked is when John Key is finally going to do the deed. When will we see Don Brash get his throat cut? When will we see either Bill English or John Key step forward? Or has the big hand of the enforcer, Gerry Brownlee, staked his bid firmly on the shoulder of Don Brash, as we saw today? Is it going to be Gerry Brownlee that will get the endorsement? One thing that is for sure is that it will not be Tau Henare, because, given the way the National Party MPs are running around this country bagging him behind his back, he will be lucky even to make it into Cabinet—if, indeed, National ever gets back to the Government benches.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): The whole Taito Phillip Field episode just gets stranger and stranger. We are now in the weird world of Labour spin, where the punishment is given out before the crime is even known, and where MPs apologise this week for what they said last week they had not done. The Prime Minister repeated again today the line that Taito Phillip Field has been punished for the outcome of the Ingram inquiry because he lost his ministerial warrant. Well, he lost his ministerial warrant after the election, before the Ingram inquiry reported. The punishment was given out before the crime was known.

Then today, in a deal with the Greens, Dr Cullen tried to head off this Parliament’s absolutely legitimate right to debate a motion that it put down itself about confidence in the Speaker, by concocting an arrangement whereby a motion would be passed noting things that arose out of the Ingram report, and then Taito Phillip Field would get up and apologise. Last week he said he did not do it; the week before that, he said he did not do it. The Prime Minister stood beside him at a press conference and said he did not do it. The apology certainly would have been one of those “Clarkisms”: “If I created the perception that there was a conflict of interest … ”. In fact, here it is. It states: “… resulting in calls on Taito Phillip Field to apologise to the House for not ensuring a clearer separation between his private business and his duties, resulting in a perception that could reduce public confidence.”

The problem is that this issue is not about perception; it is about reality. I have to say, the sad reality is that in its 90th year the Labour Party—the friend of the worker, and the party of Michael Joseph Savage—has endorsed a member of its own party trading political favours and exploiting immigrant labour.

I can tell members why Labour wanted to head off this issue today. It is because my colleague Lockwood Smith has asked a very legitimate question several times in this House about the other 261 ministerial directives that were issued at the request of Taito Phillip Field. Those directives were issued by the Hon Damien O’Connor, who is a good friend of Taito Phillip Field MP. We heard today of three more of the individuals who were issued work permits. Most of them had been illegal overstayers—one for up to 7 years. So we have not just a friendship between those two MPs but an overstayer conveyor belt. The illegal overstayers turned up at Taito Phillip Field’s office and got on a conveyor belt that took them straight through to Minister Damien O’Connor’s office, and he ticked them off. He ticked off 261 people.

Actually, now we are not sure whether it is 261 overstayers. Lockwood Smith has asked whether the Minister of Immigration and the Immigration Service have investigated all the other discretionary ministerial directives. The answer to that is no. But even if they said yes, we could not believe them. The reason is that they cannot even count the number of ministerial directives that were issued. In a reply to a parliamentary question, we were told the Immigration Service said that Taito Phillip Field had made 432 requests and 261 were approved. Then, yesterday, Lockwood Smith was told that it was not 432 requests; it was only 261.

What do Labour members say about it? They ask how many we have had. Such requests do not come up in my electorate very often—I am working on one at the moment—and a couple a year is about the most I have had.

Darren Hughes: What?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A couple a year is about the most I have had. In the member’s Otaki electorate, he would be lucky if he had 20 or 30 a year. Labour is trying to make it sound completely normal that one member of Parliament got 261 discretionary ministerial directives. This was an overstayer conveyer belt. People who had had work permits turned down several times have been running through this racket.

The person who has yet to answer any questions about that, in his ministerial role, is Damien O’Connor. Why was Damien O’Connor approving work permits for people whose applications had been turned down several times, and for one person who had been banned from returning to the country for 5 years? Any member of Parliament can say how hard one has to try in order to get a work permit for people who do not quite fit the criteria.

John Key: What’s so special about Taito Phillip Field?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reason there is so much public interest in this issue is that it is demonstrative of the growing dishonesty of the Labour Party. In the case of Taito Phillip Field, of course it matters that the Prime Minister has chosen not to find out what really happened, and has thereby chosen to besmirch the whole Parliament. The Speaker has played a role in making a decision that we found unacceptable, so we put down a motion of no confidence and that will have to be debated at some time.

But this issue matters to more people than just Taito Phillip Field. I want to give members an example. This is an example of a situation where spin has overtaken any sense of integrity, and that matters for people who should matter to this Parliament. I picked up an interesting report on Friday, from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. In the light of the events surrounding the Kāhui twins, I thought it was probably worth reading.

What did I find? Here is the first paragraph: “The Judge Mick Brown report on care and protection led to the Care and Protection Blueprint. This took so long to gain traction … that it was superseded by the Baseline Review of the Department of Child, Youth and Family (CYF) which gave rise to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) taking ‘leadership’ of the sector … The consequent Family Services vision combined elements of the Blueprint with and elements of Te Rito (the family violence strategy).” And nothing happened. Here is the third paragraph: “New Directions lost its way.” That is the New Directions that would have been launched as a new strategy. “Effective Responses”, which followed it, “was abandoned and overtaken by Early Intervention. Differential Responses then appeared and is now an isolated pilot and is being developed …”. Further back in the report, we get “Programme-itis” and “Pilot-mania”. Piloting something with a shiny new name looks good to politicians, officials, and the media alike.

What is the connection between these two matters? The Government that is willing to dissemble about Taito Phillip Field and cover up is a Government that has also abandoned the protection of children in New Zealand. It has buried that in spin and launches of strategies and visions so badly that the Christian Council of Social Services, which strongly supported the Government when it came into office, has seen fit to write a public document that gives the Government one out of 10 for some aspects of its child protection policy, and three out of 10 overall. That is because Helen Clark and her Ministers are totally obsessed with how things look in the media, with the perception of action, and with what they can say in order to move on. The reality—the humdrum business of reality, like exploiting immigrant labour when one is a Minister in a Labour Government and protecting the people behind the Kāhui twins—has disappeared way behind them. They are way ahead of reality. They are in a hyper-world, where the truth is whatever they say it is.

Taito Phillip Field’s misdemeanours, unfortunately, are so substantial that they will catch up with the Government, and the damage to the Kāhui twins and the social horror expressed at that is so damaging that it, too, will catch up with the Government.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The people of New Zealand and people around the world have been sickened by what they see happening to Lebanon today. I think it is important for us, as a small, moral country that has stood up in favour of our nuclear-free policy against the United States in that respect, and that has stood up for principle, to cast its weight on the side of peace and ending the suffering that is happening today to the people of Lebanon and Israel, and to the people in Gaza. We should follow the example of some other small countries that are about the same size as us, like Norway, that have made a special purpose of being peacemakers. Norway is engaged across the world in peacemaking. It has been engaged in the Middle East, not always successfully, but we should try to do that.

If we speak out loudly and clearly to tell the truth about what is happening in Lebanon, our voice will resonate around the world, because it will be in contrast to many of the other powerful countries whose voices are somewhat muted—countries that are not really telling things as they are. Even worse, of course, the most powerful nation, the United States, through its Government is backing Israel’s murderous assault on the Lebanese people and refusing the calls for a ceasefire. Basically, it is saying there will be no ceasefire until the whole of south Lebanon has been flattened and all its people evacuated—that is, those who have not been killed or wounded in the meantime.

We have seen on TV exactly what that assault means. In the town of Qana a couple of days ago we saw 54 people slaughtered—37 of them children—in an Israeli air raid. Just as shocking to me as that sad sight of babies being pulled out of the ruins was the shots of the town itself. I think it was a town of about 10,000 or 20,000 people originally. It seemed, from the TV images, that the whole town had been destroyed. People, over generations, had built up a livelihood in that town, and now, in a couple of weeks, their town has been totally destroyed and they have been forced out.

Of course, there is talk from the Israeli authorities and the American authorities about there being “collateral damage” in war. But what we saw there was not collateral damage. I think New Zealand has to be at the forefront of the world in saying that what Israel is committing in Lebanon today are war crimes. People who commit war crimes will ultimately be brought before the World Court and convicted. That is what must happen to the leaders of Israel in the future. They must know that now. The whole point of setting up an International Criminal Court is to stop people doing what the Israeli Government is doing, and to tell them that they will be brought to justice if they do. It is quite clear that war crimes is the appropriate term to use, because in the Rome treaty, which is part of our legislation—it is appended to our legislation setting up the International Criminal Court 4 years ago—war crimes are listed. One of the crimes listed in that document is “attacking or bombarding, by whatever means towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;”.

That is exactly what Israel is doing in south Lebanon, east Lebanon, and the southern suburbs of Beirut today. A second war crime in our legislation is: “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such an attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians … clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;”, which is exactly what Israel is doing in its widespread and extensive bombing in south Lebanon today. Of course, Hezbollah is also guilty of war crimes, under that definition, by sending its rockets into towns like Haifa in Israel. But we have to state these facts.

What the Israeli Government officials are saying is quite horrific. For instance, Israeli army spokesperson Captain Jacob Dallal was quoted in the New Zealand Herald last week: “In the war on terror in general, it’s not just about hitting an army base, which they don’t have, or a bunker. It is also about undermining their ability to operate … That ranges from incitement on television and radio … and … grass-roots institutions that breed more followers, more terrorists …”. Grassroots institutions such as orphanages, schools, and aid centres are being bombed by the Israelis today as part of war and as a deliberate policy, and that is a war crime. A headline in Saturday’s New Zealand Herald was: “You are ALL targets, Israel says”. According to that article, Israel’s Justice Minister, Haim Ramon, “warned that the area”—south Lebanon—“would now become effectively a free fire zone and anyone found in it would be regarded as a target, and advocated bombing villages to make the advance of land forces easier. ‘These places are not villages.’ he said. ‘They are military bases in which Hizbollah are hiding and from which they are operating.’ ” Under that justification, the whole of south Lebanon is being destroyed. We must say what it is—it is a war crime.

We as a Government have to do a number of things—tell it like it is; call for an unconditional, immediate ceasefire; join those nations that are calling for that; and join the UN leaders who are calling for a ceasefire in south Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank. They are telling Israel to stop all its attacks, and, of course, telling the Palestinian forces and Hezbollah to stop their attacks, as well.

Thirdly, we should be pushing for negotiations on the immediate and long-term issues in those conflicts in Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, and engaging all the parties. This means we must accept Hezbollah and Hamas as parties to those negotiations. That is an essential thing that New Zealand should not flinch from pushing for. There cannot be a peace settlement unless all the parties to the conflict are engaged in that peace settlement.

Fourthly, it is good that Helen Clark has talked about New Zealand perhaps having a role in peacekeeping over there. We can help. Unfortunately, the Israeli Government does not really seem to be interested in genuine peacekeeping. There has been for a long time a call from Palestinians for an international force to be put in the West Bank and Gaza. That has always been turned down by Israel. Israel seems to want a pliant, so-called international force, like the pliant South Lebanon Army, which was a pro-Israeli force that occupied south Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s and totally failed. A critical thing about peacekeeping is that any force that goes in to Lebanon must fully recognise the sovereignty of that State and not go in without Lebanon’s full agreement and cooperation. Not to do so is the road to disaster.

It is not anti-Israeli to say the things I have been saying. A week ago on Saturday, somewhere between 2,500 and 5,000 Israelis, both Jewish and Arab, marched through Tel Aviv calling for peace, an end to the Israeli bombardment, and an immediate ceasefire. It is very pro-Israeli to call for an immediate ceasefire.

We have to take an approach to the conflict in the Middle East that respects all the ethnicities and cultures of that area. What we should do is relevant to the speech made by Don Brash on core values and bedrock values. He did not accept that all cultures have values that we must respect, but that is what we must apply to the Middle East situation today.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill. I thank all my supporters in the gallery for coming along for it. Often I put out a media advisory and no one turns up, so this has given me renewed faith. On that note, I welcome my very good friend Charles Chauvel into this House. Charles is another fine product of the Gisborne – East Coast education system. He has had perhaps a slightly more eminent career than my own, but I am very, very pleased to have Charles here, as a good friend. I look forward to his speech, which, unfortunately, members will have to wait a little longer for.

I record in this House my embarrassment at the unbelievable display of arrogance and rudeness that we saw from National Party members prior to question time today. It is no wonder that people in this country hold politicians in such low regard, when they see a carry-on like that on their television screens and hear it over the radio. Mr John Key spent most of his speech in this debate complaining about the Greens’ notice of motion, which National did not support. He explained why National had declined to support the motion and why it was so important for democracy that National did that. But he did not explain why, then, Dr Don Brash rang our whips to tell them that National would allow the motion. I suggest that in the National Party the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

Nowhere was that highlighted more than in the speech that Dr Don Brash gave on immigration recently. He talked about New Zealand values. Those values were the acceptance of democracy, of the rule of law, of personal freedom, and of the legal equality of the sexes. That is very interesting. I want to know why a man who believes that the equality of the sexes and democracy are the foremost qualities and values for a New Zealander to have took $1.5 million from the Exclusive Brethren in the last election campaign. Dr Brash took $1.5 million from a right-wing religious sect that oppresses women and whose members do not vote. Why would he stand up not 9 months later and claim that democracy and the equality of the sexes were the most important things to him? Dr Brash then said that maybe those things should be part of the oaths of New Zealand. Why, then, did the National Party state in its minority view on the Oaths Modernisation Bill that it was not appropriate to have those very values put into oaths in this country?

I suggest that Dr Don Brash is on his last legs. If he is on his last legs, then he can count on Gerry Brownlee to knock them out from underneath him, as we saw before question time today. Dr Don Brash stood up to take a point of order and was shoved back into his seat by Gerry Brownlee. The Leader of the Opposition stood in this House to take a point of order, after the Prime Minister had just suggested that we did not know who the real leader of the National Party was. Both Dr Brash and Gerry Brownlee stood up, and who was shoved back into his seat? Dr Don Brash was shoved back by Gerry Brownlee, who is one of the pretenders to the leadership of the National Party.

Equality between the sexes and the rule of democracy are both very important. We in the Labour Party stand for those values very, very firmly. I remember an incident when some female National Party members stormed out of a pōwhiri because they were very concerned about the status of women in Māoridom. Again, I ask National members why they are so concerned about the status of women in Māoridom when they show no concern for the status of women in the Exclusive Brethren. We are talking about double standards over and over again.

I will read out a line from Dr Brash’s speech. When talking about immigration and the countries from which we should accept immigrants, he stated that many migrants to the West “… generally, have come from cultures that don’t share the bedrock values that New Zealanders take for granted”. In this House, I want Dr Don Brash to name the cultures that he thinks do not share the bedrock values of New Zealanders. I want him to absolutely name them in this House—to come clean. He should not hide behind weasel words and pretend that everyone will draw their own conclusions about whom he is talking about. Dr Don Brash should tell us that, because when he goes flitting around all the ethnic groups and talking to all the ethnic organisations, I think they will probably want to know which of them Dr Brash thinks do not share the bedrock values of New Zealanders.

But probably the most bizarre thing in Dr Brash’s speech was his suggestion that the reason New Zealanders are leaving to go overseas is the Treaty of Waitangi, and that they are sick of racial separatism in New Zealand. I think that any people who leave New Zealand because they think we have racial separatism here will get a really big shock when they go to just about anywhere else in the world. I think that perhaps one of the biggest problems we have in this country is that when we look at Parliaments around the world, we see that although they disagree on issues, they all agree on one thing: one does not run down one’s own country. We do not run down our own country in the eyes of people overseas who might want to invest here or who might want to live here, and—most important—the people who were born here and who have chosen to make New Zealand their home. Until the National Party values New Zealanders far more than it has been shown to value them over the last 6 years—or, in fact, over the last few decades—it will never regain the Treasury benches.

I am very proud to stand up in this debate and support the work the Government has been doing for all New Zealanders—and that is the difference between a Labour-led Government and a National-led Government. National governs for its mates; Labour governs for everyone. And it is not easy to govern for everyone, because different people want different things. But that does not mean that we should fail to attempt to formulate policy and pass legislation that is in the best interests of all New Zealanders—even those who may not support us at the ballot box.

I want to talk about the Working for Families package. It is a wonderful package, which is putting more and more money directly into the pockets of working families who need it the most. National opposed that package philosophically because of the way the Inland Revenue Department administers the scheme. Apparently, the fact that the department administers the scheme in a way that National is not comfortable with is a reason to tell working New Zealand families that they do not deserve to have the extra money this Labour-led Government is delivering for them. Well, Labour thinks the most important thing is that the money goes where it is needed the most.

We know that working families in this country with children need assistance. It is expensive to raise children nowadays, and we want to make doing that as easy for them as possible, so that many of the issues that can arise later on in life, where a family does not have a lot of money, will be circumvented by putting that money in and easing the financial burden. That will give parents more flexibility to decide how many hours they will work, and they will make decisions in the best interests of their family, not decisions made simply on the basis of what they can or cannot afford. If that means that members of Parliament have to go without the $100-per-week tax cut that National promised us at the last election, then Labour is prepared to make that sacrifice. Labour is prepared to make that sacrifice.

Labour is committed to providing a strong public education system. Since 1999 we have had over 2,700 extra teachers beyond the number required for roll growth. We have increased the schools operations grant funding by more than 13 percent in real terms, and we have guaranteed all kids the right to go their local school. But if I have to pick one area of education where Labour is making the most difference, it is in the area of early childhood education. More and more of our preschool children are being brought into early childhood education and engaged in education developmentally and socially before they hit school.

In housing, income-related rents, assistance for homeownership and modernisation, Healthy Homes, and rebuilding a housing stock decimated by the last National Government are making a big impact in this country.

The reason I talk about those things is that this House has been very much focused on child abuse lately. All members and all parties in this House have stood up to deplore child abuse and have said that they want to do whatever they can to stop it. Well, those policies will help to address many of the systemic problems that lead to child abuse. We now face a generation of young teenagers who grew up in households that faced the 1991 “mother of all Budgets”. They grew up in households that were forced into poverty by a National Government that told them their poverty was good for the country and it was essential that that happened. People at the top did not suffer; the people at the bottom did. We are dealing with the fall-out from those policies, and this Labour Government, over the last 6 years, has pulled that situation back. [Interruption] Oh, look; those members laugh—it is funny to them. Poor people do not vote for them, and that is why those members do not care about them. That is why they continue to support policies that would drive New Zealand families into poverty, would give them less choice in education, and would see unemployment rise. Those members think that a certain amount of unemployment is good for the country, and they know it is not their voters who would be unemployed.

I just want to congratulate the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Rt Hon Helen Clark. This country is on a path to prosperity because of this Labour-led Government.

Debate interrupted.

Maiden Statement

Maiden Statement

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): Madam Speaker, my first public acknowledgment of you came in 1994 at the University of Auckland, in the preface to my masters thesis. You helped me choose a topic and you encouraged me to persevere with it. Since then you have provided advice and encouragement to me at key times. It is an honour to acknowledge you again.

Earlier today you accepted my affirmation of allegiance in two languages: English and Tahitian. My choice to make the affirmation in Tahitian is a tribute to my father, his Pacific heritage, and to the generations of Pacific people who have contributed to the energy and diversity of our culture in these islands now. My father was born in France. Dad’s paternal heritage is Tahitian—or, more precisely, Rai’atean. His family returned to Tahiti after the war.

Dad was the eldest child, and the family wanted him to receive an English-speaking education. He came to New Zealand alone, on a boat, at the age of 12, in the late 1940s, with no English language skills. His family enrolled him at boarding school at Wesley College, south of Auckland. Having to pay for his schooling meant that they could not afford to bring him back and forth from Tahiti, so he stayed with family friends or attended YMCA camps during the school holidays.

He was bright and he worked hard. As his classmate Jim Peters reminded me at a public meeting during last year’s election campaign, he was dux at Wesley. He enrolled at the Auckland University College part time and worked on the wharves to pay his way. He was one of the first Pacific Islanders in New Zealand to graduate with a law degree, and over time he became the senior partner in a respected law firm in Gisborne. He ensured that we stayed in touch with our Tahitian family and, as children, my sister and I visited them regularly. Before he retired Dad had the opportunity to attend his two children’s four university graduation ceremonies, to move the admission to the New Zealand Bar of both of us, and to witness my admission to the New South Wales legal profession.

Dad’s story is a classic, and timely, reminder of the way in which immigrants, and the children of immigrants, have come to New Zealand and made their contributions to our society. His arrival in New Zealand took place some 20 years before the first modern migration here from the Pacific. So it has taken longer for the pattern of achievement that he and his family followed to be replicated more widely. But the achievements of the present generation of New Zealand - born Pacific people, and their parents, are a catalogue of success in the arts, sport, in business, and the professions.

Our economy is now around a quarter larger than it was when Helen Clark was elected Prime Minister in 1999. As Jim Sutton remarked in his valedictory speech last Wednesday, unemployment has fallen by 75 percent since then. Those are extraordinary accomplishments. Many Pacific people—along with other New Zealanders who struggled through the difficult years of the 1990s and earlier—have done well in our new-found prosperity. People from the Pacific came here and worked as cleaners, caretakers, freezing workers, and wharfies. They did that so that they could enter the middle classes, or at least to give their children the chance to do so. In Cannons Creek, in Ōtara, in west Auckland, in the Hutt Valley, in the central North Island, and elsewhere, they do not forget that they first began to do so under a Labour-led Government. Nor do I. I am very proud to become the fourth member of the Labour caucus, and the fifth member ever directly elected to this Parliament, to be able to trace my origins within one generation back to the Pacific. I am equally proud, through my family’s connection with Rai’atea, or Rangiatea, or Hawaiki—as we now call it in New Zealand—of the genealogy I share with Māori members of Parliament.

I also made the affirmation in English. My pride in my Pacific origins takes nothing away from the appreciation I feel for my European heritage. I remember one of my last conversations with Sonja Davies. I asked her about the significance of the title of her first book, Bread and Roses. In reply, she sang the line from the song: “hearts starve, as well as bodies”. If my father was the principal provider of bread during my childhood, then it was my mother and her family who provided many of the roses.

Mum arrived here in New Zealand in 1946, aged 2. When her father returned to Scotland at the end of the war after years in a POW camp in Germany, there was no work. After inquiries here, he found a job in the freezing works in Gisborne. The opportunities open to Mum’s family in New Zealand in the 1940s and 1950s were more than literally a world away from the life they would otherwise have lived. I still remember how proud my grandmother was that my mother had opened her own business—a dance school—in her teens, and that she ran it successfully and with a good artistic reputation. Much like Sonja, my grandmother instinctively knew right from wrong. She taught me my values. If more strong, funny, caring, clever, passionate, ambitious women—like Flora McLaughlin Blair, Sonja Margaret Loveday Davies, and Regency Fiona Chauvel—were active in the upbringing of more New Zealand children, many fewer childhoods would be blighted by neglect.

New Zealand in 2006 is poised on the threshold of opportunity. We can achieve great things. By international standards, we are still a wealthy country. In recent years we have enjoyed a sustained level of prosperity that many of us in the 1980s and 1990s feared we would not see again. And, for once, we are not squandering that prosperity: there is substantial investment occurring in education, infrastructure, superannuation, and the eradication of poverty.

We possess many other advantages. We speak the world’s only lingua franca. We are well-educated and healthy, and getting increasingly better-educated and healthier. We operate a stable democracy, in which the rule of law is generally understood and respected. There are sufficient renewable resources in our ground, air, and water to sustain our energy and nutrition needs indefinitely, provided we are wise about their use. We are generally regarded as a good international citizen. Our culture is unique and vibrant, and we live in one of the most beautiful countries on Earth.

To back ourselves by restating these advantages is not to be blind to the challenges that face us. We are a small country, and remote from large markets. We are still working through our colonial legacy. We were complacent for too long about economic diversification and infrastructure investment. Too much of our wealth is owned offshore now. We need to meet these challenges head on, in innovative ways to the best of our collective ability, without abandoning all the good things that make us unique and our society worth living in.

We must focus on growing the country’s wealth. In the application of intellectual property to the productive natural environment, we are the world’s best farm. But the suspension of the latest World Trade Organization round and the recent US retreat from multilateralism both suggest the emergence of a far less benign international environment. We have to redouble our efforts to open international markets to our exporters. In the process, we should take care that the interests of poorer countries—including those of the Pacific, where great power interests are beginning to compete for influence again in a way not seen since colonial times—are not damaged.

But subject only to that reservation, we should be ruthlessly pragmatic about our own interests. India and China are obvious markets for high-end, added-value primary production that is created in an environmentally sustainable way. And we must maintain the hope that the US will open its markets to an old friend like us, instead of allowing a host of other nations—with no history of shared values—to join the queue for free-trade agreements with it.

We must also resolve our relationship with the other established great liberal social democracy in our region, Australia. I personally believe that it is time to explore a Pacific union that would have as its core New Zealand and Australia, in an evolving and ever-closer relationship. We need to be clearer about our long-term goals in respect of the nation that will always be our most important international partner.

We also need to continue to welcome people to this country as part of the international brain exchange. There is a pragmatic reason for doing this, but it is not the only one. Our economy is now running at capacity in terms of available skills and labour. To achieve future prosperity, we need more and talented people. Our country was built on immigration, and we should not fear it. Diversity makes our culture much less homogenous and our lives less dull. Immigration enriches us all, literally and figuratively.

As we pursue wealth, we must never compromise our labour standards, our environment, or our commitment to social justice. People choose to reside here—and stay here—largely because it is a great place to live and work and to raise a family. We can have it all, actually—high living standards, good international citizenship, a renewable energy future, and a continued commitment to egalitarianism. We just have to be smart—a little more farsighted, and a little less petty and partisan—about how we achieve it.

These are some of the big issues facing us. If members of Parliament fail to address them, then there is no other group of people with a democratic mandate to do so. And if too many parliamentarians ignore the big issues because it is easier in the short term to grab headlines by focusing on slogans, or by playing personality politics, the long-term cost to faith in our democratic institutions will be very high indeed.

I wish to conclude my remarks by acknowledging with deep gratitude the presence in the gallery of my family, supporters, and friends. Many of my former business partners from Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, including David Patterson, the chairman, and other colleagues from the firm’s board are present. I will always be grateful for the friendship and camaraderie of those most excellent of lawyers, who showed their confidence in me by electing me to their partnership at the age of 30. Colleagues from the Meridian Energy board on which I served, which laid the foundations for returning $650 million of value from our Australian operations to New Zealand and showed that a sustainable energy future is essential and possible for this country, are also present. Colleagues from the Lotteries Commission board are also here. During my service on that board we reversed a legacy of falling profits by some $68 million, while preserving a safe gaming environment. I acknowledge in particular the presence and support of the chair of the board’s audit and finance committee. There are many other colleagues from past endeavours here. People I worked with in the Public Health Commission, the Crown Law Office, the AIDS Foundation, the Institute of Directors, and on Law Society committees have all come to show their support, as have volunteers from the 2005 Ohariu-Belmont campaign, colleagues in the trade union movement, and a host of other friends.

My sister, Fleur, is here with her partner. So is my own partner, David, who has always encouraged me to advance my own chosen career but has never himself sought public office. Despite this, he has had to put up with an intrusive level of media interest in his personal life. When in 50 years’ time sociologists examine the newspapers of the last 3 weeks to monitor our understanding of the cost of the final collapse of the Doha round, they will compare with surprise the column inches devoted to that issue against those reporting that Dave owns a nice car that I sometimes get to drive.

I sincerely thank all of those who have shown me their support, and I hope that they will find my service in this place worth of it. Ia Orana.

Sitting suspended from 5.50 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Imprest Supply Debate

Imprest Supply Debate

Debate resumed on the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Last Tuesday, in response to a question from Te Ururoa Flavell about the policy of neglect that was revealed in New Zealand Living Standards 2004: The Report, the Minister for Social Development and Employment admitted to an astonishing fact. Mr Benson-Pope announced in this House: “This Government is not standing by and not supporting people in areas of need.” This Government will not stand by the approximately one-quarter of all New Zealanders who face some degree of hardship. This Government will not support people in the areas of need that are particularly desperate for Māori, Pacific, and sole-parent beneficiary families. Although this Government likes to boast that it has taken people off the domestic purposes benefit or the dole, it turns a blind eye to those who are left behind to experience a level of social disadvantage that my colleague Tariana Turia has described as constituting a national emergency.

It is interesting that Charles Chauvel, who has just given his maiden statement, spoke about the achievements of the Government, yet last week’s report Children at Increased Risk of Death from Maltreatment and Strategies for Prevention described the dire circumstances for children and adults living in lone parent or workless families in a state of persistent poverty. The report picked up on Unicef’s advice that strategies to reduce child abuse will not be successful if they do not address the question of economic poverty. We cannot address risk factors in isolation. A concerted effort is required if we are ever to address the national emergency of poverty. Dr Nikki Turner of the Child Poverty Action Group has described the greatest impact and cost of deprivation as being the shocking health status of our children. She has said: “It is shameful to us that poverty has been allowed to deepen over the course of an economic boom that has seen companies making record profits. The people who suffer the greatest poverty in New Zealand are our children with 38 percent in hardship categories,”. This is happening under a Government that talks about strong families, healthy, confident kids, and safe communities. I kid members not.

In the Budget speech that Dr Cullen delivered just over 2 months ago, he talked about ensuring that families young and old were able to secure the opportunity to reach their full potential. He used the phrase: “transformation, underpinned by the values of fairness, opportunity, and security.” How can it be fair that Māori and Pacific peoples are overrepresented amongst those with an education and labour market disadvantage? What are the other factors operating outside of social and material deprivation that mean Māori women are more than twice as likely as non-Māori women to suffer from anxiety and from depressive and substance abuse disorders? Is racism fair? What opportunity has been denied to children in severe and significant hardship that has seen the proportion of such children rise from 18 percent to 26 percent since 2000? What opportunity cost is demonstrated by the fact that homeownership has dropped by 12 percent overall and by 21 percent for those with incomes under $40,000 per year? What security can Māori children and families have when almost half of all Māori children will miss out on the new in-work payment because their parents are on benefits? That additional $60 per week could maybe make the difference between insecurity and survival. It is all about-face. The in-work payment turns working families into beneficiaries while depriving welfare families of support they so desperately need. It is back to front. The scheme does not get to the children who need it most and instead expands our welfare State by creating working families as the new beneficiaries of the State.

All this does is tighten the apron strings to a nanny State even further. Political analyst Colin James has put this new phenomenon of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer into the context of a global gap, which he describes as: “pervasive and unyielding, dividing the struggling bulk of the population from the competitive elite.” If we are to foot it on the international stage, we must take the whole nation along, not just privilege the elite and leave the struggling bulk to suffer more. Our future will be a predominantly brown one. If we are to achieve a strong, healthy workforce in order to drive our collective economic advancement, we need to make sufficient investment right now.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty): In taking this call I want to comment on Mr Sharples’ contribution to the debate, and acknowledge the importance of providing more opportunity for all New Zealanders and of giving everyone the opportunity to succeed and do well. But let us make sure that when a person does well, it is not at the expense of others or the integrity of the New Zealand way of life. That is why, throughout this debate, the National Opposition has been asking members opposite why they are covering up for Taito Phillip Field. What does Mr Taito Phillip Field have on members of the Labour front bench that every single one of them is prepared to be complicit with the activities he has been doing that have been exposed in the Ingram report and in other matters associated with that? It goes to the heart of the integrity of this place that members of Parliament, in respect of their constituent responsibilities and also their responsibilities as Ministers of the Crown, behave in a way that is beyond reproach. When it comes to the behaviour of Mr Field, I am certain that those members opposite cannot defend what has gone on.

It is worth reminding members of the House what level this cover-up goes to. In the case of the Thai tiler being employed at below-market rates in Samoa with the full expectation that the Minister would secure the tiler’s residence in New Zealand, the Prime Minister immediately reacted by saying there was no truth to it whatsoever and that nothing needed to happen. That was what she said, immediately. It was only after more evidence came to light—of Mr Field having some strange arrangements with some tenants, and with more accusations that people had provided free painting and other free work on his property in Samoa—that the Prime Minister finally yielded to Opposition calls for an independent inquiry into Mr Field’s behaviour. The Prime Minister did everything possible to avoid doing that. In the end, she got Dr Ingram QC to undertake a report, but she told the nation that it was not an important matter and that it would be over and done with in 9 days. She was absolutely determined to cover it up. Well, of course, anybody who had read the facts of the situation—who had read what immigration consultants had said and what the man who brought the tiler to Mr Field’s office had said—knew that this went way beyond anything that could be investigated in 9 days. So we have ended up with a very long report from Ingram, and, frankly, with many of the important questions not answered. They were not answered because the Ingram inquiry did not have the power to compel a number of witnesses to appear.

Further concerns were raised by the Ingram report, particularly in relation to the involvement of three other Cabinet Ministers. We know that when the tiler for whom Field had said he would get residence was working in Samoa, other Labour Cabinet Ministers went to Field’s property in Samoa. It is beyond belief that those Ministers did not talk to the tiler when they were visiting the Field mansion in Samoa. The Prime Minister has been so keen to cover this up further because this scandal, this corruption, is now swirling not only around Field but also around Damien O’Connor, who was the Minister of Immigration at that time.

Damien O’Connor is very close to the Prime Minister; they have holidayed together. She has invested a lot of her personal capital in O’Connor, and that is why she, together with her front-bench colleagues, is so determined to block any criticism of Field, the Ingram inquiry, and O’Connor. It is all about not only her efforts to protect herself and to stop any inquiry into or public scrutiny of Field’s behaviour in this case but also her determination to deflect attention away from the involvement of O’Connor, the Minister of Immigration at the time, in this case.

It is clear from the evidence provided to the Ingram inquiry that Minister O’Connor’s closest political adviser was told that the tiler and others were working on that property in Samoa and that there were suggestions they were working for next to nothing on the understanding they would get residence in New Zealand. We know that to be the case, because a senior public servant at the New Zealand Immigration Service in Samoa made a file note that he had told the Minister’s closest political adviser—his senior public servant—of those concerns. He made a note that the Minister’s senior public servant said: “Damien knew”. That is what the note said. The Minister’s closest political adviser told an unbiased, impartial public servant that the Minister knew about the accusations about those tilers, those Thai workers, at the time he made his decision to give the Thai tiler residence in New Zealand. The Minister knew. We know that, because an impartial public servant wrote a file note to say that the Minister’s closest political adviser had told him that O’Connor knew when he made that decision. That is the reason why the Prime Minister is determined to heap as much odium as possible on Field; it is to protect her other Ministers who went to Samoa. We know that Minister Goff went to the tiler’s house, we know that Minister O’Connor went to the tiler’s house, and we know that Minister Field was there. With three Ministers there, it is impossible to accept that they did not talk to the tiler. It is an impossibility that they did not discuss the tiler’s residential status in New Zealand.

What has been even more complicated in this case is the fact that many of the key witnesses for the provision of information were unable to appear before the Ingram inquiry, because they feared legal action against them for whatever they said. That is why the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith stood up in this Parliament and asked the Prime Minister whether she would provide a forum whereby people could come forward and tell their stories and receive privilege. The Prime Minister said nothing.

That is, again, part of her cover-up in this Field case. What does Taito Phillip Field have on the Labour Party front bench that they all are standing so firm, in light of the widespread public view of the corruption that has gone on in this case? Surely the Labour people who are not on the front bench—those on the middle benches and in Cabinet—must know that this stench of corruption is all-pervading. New Zealanders want to know why there has been a cover-up. Why is the Government preventing a select committee inquiry into this case? Why is Labour not saying that a select committee, or the Privileges Committee, or some part of the authority of this House can have a look at the Field case?

Very serious issues have been raised not only in the Ingram inquiry but from scrutiny of this case. There is a stench of corruption around this Government. Why are Field and the front bench of the Labour Government so determined to avoid scrutiny of the behaviour of Minister O’Connor, Minister Goff, and Minister Field in this case?

MARYAN STREET (Labour): I am pleased to speak in this appropriation bill debate. In case people are wondering just what the subject of the House’s attention is this evening, it is, in fact, the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill debate. I am pleased to speak on the bill for a number of reasons. First of all, this 2006-07 set of estimates—and the Budget that attaches to it, of course—is the continuation of the economic transformation that has been at the heart of this Labour-led Government’s policy agenda. It lays down the groundwork for 2006-07 and beyond for increasing economic prosperity and increasing care for those who are unable to look after themselves, for whatever reason, for whatever period of time. So we look forward to the enactment and rolling out of the policies behind the Budget.

It is the point about policy that I wish to speak to in particular, because we are at a loss to discern the policy that is coming out of the National Party. National recently had an annual conference. There were so many speeches, particularly from the front bench, and so few ideas. There was so little in the way of policy, and so little in the way of anything that might grasp this country’s imagination and make it look like the people had a choice. At that National Party conference there was the usual litany of trivia that National continues to serve up as policy. We have this vacuum where policy ought to be, if we are to live in a robust democracy.

So I was waiting with bated breath for the next speech from the leader, Dr Don Brash, and we got a speech about immigration. I thought that would be interesting, and that perhaps it would be the start of a policy platform from the National Opposition. But, no, I was disappointed, again. In fact, what we got would have been funny, if it were not so serious. We got gems like the following. When the leader of the National Party was asked to expand on his speech, he said in an interview: “What I was saying was, look, by all means let’s enrich our culture by having people who have different traditions of music and cuisine and dance, and so on. And that’s good, and I welcome that.” As I said, this would be laughable if it were not so desperately serious. What we have here is some idea of tolerance of migrant groups for the purposes of entertaining us, amusing us, and perhaps even extending our culinary repertoire. But if we want them to engage in our society to the extent of writing letters of protest about something in that society, then no, they are not allowed, they are not permitted to be full participating members of our democracy. We will welcome them as long as we can wear them as badges and can trot them out on formal occasions to show how rich and ethnically diverse we are.

But we require immigrants to have what are now called “bedrock values”. The term used to be “mainstream”; now it is “bedrock”. I look forward to the next iteration, whatever it might be. I look forward to the next epithet that the speech-writers come up with for Dr Brash. Once he had been probed on this issue, it was perfectly clear that there was no immigration policy. There was nothing except what was left to one’s imagination. Are we meant, then, to have a screening programme—a screening programme on application, a screening programme on entry to the country, a screening programme on application for citizenship that asks: “Do you sign up to all those bedrock values that Dr Brash outlined: religious freedom, the rule of law, and the equality of sexes before the law?” I think that was about the extent of the list, actually; that was the best he could do in identifying citizenship.

This is a tragedy. It would be good if we were able to debate policy in this House, but we are left with the National Opposition raising, day after day, points of trivia that the public have no interest in, such as the number of people Michael Cullen goes to dinner with, and such issues. If Dr Brash truly wants to lead this country—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He does.

MARYAN STREET:—and I am assured by members opposite that he does—then I suggest that this country is in desperate trouble. If that is the calibre of the Opposition leader, then it is no wonder that those members are looking for another.

It seems to me that the question of immigration policy goes to the heart of economic transformation and economic development in this country. More than that, if the Leader of the Opposition had done any reading at all that might have informed a reasonable policy debate—instead of putting up meaningless epithets such as “bedrock values”—and done any kind of analysis, he would have seen that classical pluralism makes it very clear that stable societies come out of the existence of diversity. The existence of diversity—not simply flag waving and badge wearing—comes about because people of different interests each achieve something they need out of their participation. That is classical pluralism. It has been around since 1952. It is not hard to look it up. It has been there for a long time. If the Leader of the Opposition wanted any kind of academic framework or any kind of analysis on which to base a policy, he could have asked me for a bibliography to start with. Stable societies are born out of the participation and recognition of difference. This is not about having migrants come to this country who look like us and who are like us.

While I am on that note, I finish by saying that I have never understood what the National Party means by “one law for all”. I have understood that one rule of law applies in this country, and applies to everybody. It applies to migrants and citizens. It applies to anybody, and anybody who infringes it is treated in the same way by the appropriate authorities. So that nonsense—that cliché about one law for all—is as meaningless as “bedrock values”. I feel desperately sorry for the Opposition. I would love to engage in a proper debate about things such as immigration, but there is nothing to debate because nothing is coming out of that Opposition.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind Mr Copeland that he has a 5-minute address. The bell will go at 4 minutes for a 1-minute warning.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I would like to follow for a few brief seconds the theme of the previous speaker and the debate about what it means to be a bedrock Kiwi, a mainstream Kiwi, or whatever. Basically, I suggest to the House that maybe we could go beyond all the definitions that have been put up in this debate and simply look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What is wrong with that document? That document goes back to the mid-1940s.

I should make it very clear that United Future is a pro-immigration party. We are a pro - population growth party. Therefore, we want to see new immigrants come here. In fact, the nation has no choice, given the net outflow we have seen in recent years, but to have new immigrants come in. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is tremendously important, and we want people to say, as it were, that they adhere to that list of rights and values.

There is one important value in that document that is not in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that I have not heard mentioned in any debate in this House. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes not only freedom of religion but also the freedom to change one’s religion. That very right is the source of a lot of conflict in the world today. When we think about it, we understand that we do not have genuine freedom of religion unless we also have the ability to change our religion without the force of the law coming down on us for doing so, which is the case in many nations of this world today. So I want to make that point. Why do we not just get people to sign up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to live by that standard? I think these problems would then disappear pretty quickly.

I want, though, to devote most of my speech to expressing United Future’s continued great unease with the growth in Government expenditure and the level of bureaucracy that has resulted. I live here in Wellington, and we see the results all around us in brand new buildings—brand new buildings to house Government departments. We have one by Bowen House for the Ministry of Health; we have a new building just down the road for the Ministry of Defence; we have a new building on the wharf for Statistics New Zealand. With that, if we look at the situations vacant section of the Dominion Post on the weekend, we see entire pages—and I am not kidding—devoted to the great big advertisements of Government departments that are looking for policy analysts.

Now, policy analysts are important people. But, really, if we are looking at economic transformation, I think the Government is on the wrong track in thinking we will get there by employing an ever-increasing number of policy analysts. It takes me back to the days of the early 1980s, before the Lange Government came in, when we had the phrase “paralysis by analysis”. If we take that to its logical conclusion and put more and more analysts into the situation, we will eventually get paralysis, because analysts are not actually built to get things done and to move things forward. We are just swelling the bureaucracy at the public’s expense when we could actually be using that money in better ways. A model that is sometimes put before us in the House is that of the British Labour Government. I advise the House that the British Finance Minister, Gordon Brown, has put forward specific goals on the reduction of Government expenditure and of the growing bureaucracy in that nation—quite specific goals, with targets in mind, to reduce the bureaucracy. He wants to carve Stg£20 billion out of back-line—what we might call back office—activity in the bureaucracy and put Stg£20 billion into the delivery of front-line Government services, and he has a target to do that by the end of 2008. Right now, to the end of March 2006, he has already achieved a saving of Stg£9.8 billion.

I say to the Government that we should do the same here. We should set out deliberately on a course to reduce the bureaucracy and to get rid of back-office activity, which is really a very poor utilisation of scarce resources. By all means let us have good front-end delivery of public services. New Zealanders want that. In turning away, by the narrowest of margins, from tax cuts in the 2005 election, they basically said that they wanted to stick with good core public services. They absolutely want good front-line delivery, but I do not think for a moment that New Zealanders actually voted to see a swelling bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is getting out of hand under this Government, and there is no precise plan to rein it in. I believe that it is about time the Government got real and set out a plan to rein it in.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): One of the most important issues in relation to a confidence vote—even more important, I have to say to the new member Maryan Street, than the issue of policy—is the basic issue of trust. What Parliament has seen is the worst case of corruption—

Hon Rick Barker: This is rich coming from a member who was convicted by the High Court of New Zealand—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Barker wants to interject. The first time I met Mr Barker he was a union official. He used to stand up for the rights of the oppressed. Mr Barker, as a member of the Labour Party, is sitting there in shame because his party has been involved in the most corrupt activity I have seen in my 17 years in Parliament. Let us be clear about what has happened.

Hon Rick Barker: Nick Smith makes it up.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can Mr Barker tell me which part I have made up? Is it the part where Mr Field had his house painted for doing immigration favours? Does Mr Barker think that that is acceptable conduct by an MP?

Hon Rick Barker: The High Court did not believe Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Barker does not want to respond to that. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member does not have to raise a point of order, because I will do it myself. I say to the member on my right that I would like him to look at Speaker’s ruling 57/3. I remind him that interjections are out of order unless they are rare and reasonable, and not a running commentary. If the member wants to make a running commentary he can take the next call and reply.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Such is the stench of corruption in the Government that Ministers like Rick Barker will shout members down rather than engage in debate about the improper conduct he and his ministerial colleagues are covering up in respect of Phillip Field.

I remind Mr Barker and the members opposite who rightly have their heads down in shame that they made a huge deal of Mr Tuku Morgan’s $85 pair of underwear. I am sure members remember that debate. They will remember the independent inquiries, the large sums of money that were spent in relation to Mr Tuku Morgan, and the grilling that took place in select committees, Parliament, and independent inquiries. My question to Labour members is this. If it is good enough to have a proper independent inquiry in respect of an $85 pair of underwear, as was Labour’s view in 1997, why does that not apply when a Minister of the Crown receives benefits of over $100,000 and profits from the sale of a constituent’s property that he bought and sold through his work as an electorate MP? Why, when in not one, two, or three but six different immigration cases Mr Phillip Field received personal benefits as a consequence of getting work permits through the Minister of Immigration, do Labour members turn a blind eye to behaviour that is no less than corruption?

It was interesting to listen to Maryan Street, a former president of the Labour Party. Are the values of the Labour Party founded on standing up for the oppressed, underpaid, and exploited? Have those values become so corrupted by power that the Labour Party will stand by silently and allow a member of the House to take private benefit from his work as a member of Parliament?

I find it absolutely extraordinary that Parliamentary Service had to tell Mr Field that he needed to put a sign in his electorate office stating that services do not need to be paid for. What sort of insult is that? I ask Mr Barnett what sort of state of affairs we have when we need to put in our electorate office a sign stating that constituents do not need to pay for services. I ask Mr Barnett whether Parliamentary Service has written to him, to Steve Chadwick, or to Mr David Parker stating that they need a sign in their electorate offices stating that they are not allowed to accept payment for, and that they do not charge for, their services. I am sure that that is not the way things operate in the case of Mr Barnett, Mr Parker, and Ms Chadwick. So why do those members tolerate and cover up the activities of a fellow member of Parliament for whom Parliamentary Service believes such a sign is necessary? What does that say about the culture of the Labour Government?

We have heard day after day questions from my colleague Lockwood Smith to the Minister of Immigration. Those questions have been straightforward. He has basically asked why, following case after case of overstayers being turned down, not once or twice but over and over again, and applying to appeal authorities, suddenly the Government had a change of heart and allowed those persons to stay in New Zealand. Has Parliament received a single straight answer? I ask Dr Smith whether we are any wiser after 13 questions asking why the then Minister of Immigration, Damien O’Connor, granted work permits for those individuals.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: No.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason we have not had an answer is that the truth is incredibly compromising for the Government. The truth is that the only reason those persons were allowed to stay in New Zealand—why they were not deported—is that corrupt favours had been provided to Mr Phillip Field. That is the reason why those persons were granted work permits, but members opposite will not give a straight answer to questions about this matter. What is most concerning in all of this is the attitude of Prime Minister Helen Clark.

I was interested to hear Maryan Street say that she could not understand—could not fathom—what National meant in saying “one law for all”. Let me explain to that former Labour Party president what National means by “one law for all”. It means this. If there is corrupt activity by a member of Parliament, who is personally profiting as a consequence of the favours they spread out for their particular personal benefit, then he or she should have to front up like everybody else. It is a double standard of the Labour Government that in the very week Phillip Field is found by the Ingram inquiry to have paid substandard slave rates of labour to vulnerable Thai workers to paint his own houses, the Labour Government has the audacity to introduce a bill to the House that states that contract workers must be paid a minimum wage.

Chris Auchinvole: It’s a bit rich.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As my colleague Chris Auchinvole says, it is a bit rich.

What we have from this Government is the shameful sweeping under the carpet of the most serious corruption we have had by a member of Parliament in the modern history of this Parliament of ours. I challenge the next Labour member to say either that our 90-year-old Labour Party is rotten to the core or that there is someone in the Labour Party who is prepared to stand up for some basic standards of decency and see Phillip Field held to account for his corrupt behaviour.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I will comment briefly on the previous speech, which was made by a member of Parliament who has yet to stand up in this House and tell us what he was doing when he was taken to court, and what he was doing for the family that he was supposed to be representing. I have not heard Dr Nick Smith explain why the judge did not agree with him. We have yet to hear it. So we will take his speech with a grain of salt, because it has no standing in terms of morality when it comes from a member like that. He is the only person I can recall in my time in Parliament who has actually been found guilty in the courts of a very serious offence—and he is standing up here giving us a moral lecture about standards!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Standing up for constituents.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: He was standing up for something that he claims was right, but that point was not agreed to by the judge. The judges in this country, thank goodness, are independent of politics—and long may that last.

We have heard from members opposite who have stood up and represented National in this debate on the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill. Some have a spokesperson’s role, as Dr Nick Smith has, on something—one would not know from listening to the member tonight what it is, but from a brief discussion with my benchmate I think it is something to do with conservation and energy, or something like that. But what did we hear about that matter? In a debate where the Opposition is required to come in and put the Government to test, we heard nothing but a moral lecture from a man who got done in the courts for contempt. So that member’s speech is worthless, because it came from somebody who has a record in the courts that no other member of this House will ever come near.

I want to talk a little about the estimates and the Appropriation Bill, because it will make the Opposition sick. It will make them angry to hear what this Government has done. The Opposition hates the fact that every single cent of the moneys that are collected by road-user chargers, petrol tax, and other taxes on motorists is going into solving the transport problems that the previous National Government ignored for 9 years. Worse than ignoring them, National sent the country backwards into a downward economic spiral. Is it a moral thing for a Government to do to send the provinces of New Zealand on a downward spiral because it has failed to do its job? That National Government put people into the unemployment queues. It made them suffer under poverty.

Anne Tolley: That’s a bit rich coming from Labour.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Anne Tolley should know about that. She is supposed to represent the East Coast, which is a place that this Government put enormous amounts of money into for fixing up roading infrastructure, and a place with housing that was shameful.

We heard in question time the audacity of members of the National Party questioning this Government about housing. I went around rural New Zealand when National was in power and saw families living in worse conditions than anybody could imagine in this century, all because of the National Party’s neglect of a basic thing like housing. People were living in sheds—if they were lucky—under canvas, and in cold, wet, damp, and health-threatening situations. Now we do not hear anything from the National Party about those days and what they did about it, which was nothing.

I heard the speech from the spokesperson on health, Tony Ryall, who talks like a 45 record stuck on 33 whenever he gets up in the House because he thinks people are thick and cannot understand him unless he speaks at half speed. Such arrogance I have never heard. Has he recognised the money that has gone into health, which makes sure that people in my community—a community of low-income people, in the main—can afford to go to the doctor and get their prescriptions filled?

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Let’s hear you support Taito, Mark.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Those are very basic things—moral things that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has no concept of. He will stand up and bleat, but he will not acknowledge this Budget and what it has done for primary health care.

In Counties Manukau—which you, Mr Assistant Speaker, will be very familiar with—we have fewer people presenting at the hospitals this year, because they are not sick. Nor are their children, because they are getting a doctor’s visit, a prescription, and proper primary health care. Do we hear about that from the National Party? No, what we get is a lecture on morality from people who would not know morals if they fell over them. A worse Government we have never had as in 1990-99, when the last National Government watched New Zealander after New Zealander being pushed into poverty. National members sold the State houses and said: “We will have mass unemployment because it suits our economic theories.”

We get a little tired on this side of the House of hearing moral arguments from members who, if they had an electorate office and saw constituents, would know better. I know that a great many of the constituents who come to me—about 70 percent of them—come for help on immigration matters. And—whoa!—many of them are actually here illegally. That might come as a surprise to National Party MPs who have never done proper electorate work. They are too busy swanning around the corporate sector, enjoying the wine and food, but do they actually have real people coming through their doors with real problems? And, unlike the National Party, I do not ring up border control and say: “Come and get them and take them out.”, which is what the secretaries in the National Party’s offices are told to do. No, we look at each case one by one and say: “You have a case and we’ll advocate for you.”, or: “You haven’t got a case and we’ll help you to exit this country.” That is what members on this side of the House do on a weekly basis.

But for some of the members over there it is a real rarity even to visit their electorates, because they do not live in them. Oh no, John Key has to get in that big car with the signs painted on the side—paid for by the taxpayer—and drive out to his electorate from time to time so that they will know he has come to visit from time to time. We heard Bill English say that only twice in a year had he ever had anybody come in for help. Well, that is probably because he visits his electorate only twice a year. He lives here in Wellington, so what would he know about electorate work and what constituents’ needs are?

I know about constituents and their needs, because I have a multicultural electorate with a great many people who need help with immigration, and I gladly help them—whether or not they have done things wrong in the past. I have a multicultural electorate where a great many people eventually turn to their MP so we can take those cases to the immigration authorities and, as a last resort, to the Minister, if need be. But National Party people do not know anything about that.

The attitude of the National Party is espoused by its leader in his speech about immigration. They all follow him and they all agree with him. He is number one. He is going to be there forever. Nobody is ever going to challenge him, they say. He says: “We should not welcome those who want to live here but who reject core aspects of the country’s culture.” What else does he say? He says: “The National Party wants a country where people, men and women, are treated the same, and where religious freedom is practised.” What about the million-dollar assistance National received from the Exclusive Brethren? Did Dr Brash forget about that when he was interviewed on National Radio on Friday?

No, what that speech really means is, as Dr Brash said: “We like them when they come here, when they enrich our culture with people who have different traditions of music, cuisine, and dance.” So immigrants can come here and work in the Chinese restaurants or the Viet Namese restaurants, and all the wonderful restaurants that Dr Brash wants them to come and work in, and they can shake their booty and do a bit of dancing. He says that we like that bit, and that we really enjoy the music—but he does not want to let them come here and believe in their own religions or let them think that they can bring their culture with them. Oh no!

If the National Party had its way, my father would have been told to keep his culture where it belonged, in Samoa, and not to think he could bring it here. That is why members of the National Party were sitting in the grandstands in 1981, cheering the Springboks versus the All Blacks—and we all remember the deputy leader, Mr Brownlee, doing that—while the other members of the House were outside, saying: “We reject that part of New Zealand culture.” We would have been accused of treason by Dr Brash for doing that, if we happened to be immigrants.

Anne Tolley: That’s pathetic.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Oh, Anne Tolley says that is pathetic. She should read her leader’s speech. It is pathetic; it is the most pathetic load of nonsense I have heard from a person who is supposed to have been educated in this country to high levels. Shame on National Party members who say: “Come here, and work in the restaurants, shake your bottom and do a bit of dancing, but don’t bring your culture, your language, and your beliefs with you, because you’re not welcome.” That is National; not us.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): I have here my copy of the Ingram report. Members will see that it is pretty dog-eared. They will know from the questions I have asked in the last couple of weeks that I have read this report in some detail, and I have to say that the smell of corruption oozes out of every second page.

Mark Gosche, who has just finished speaking, did not say one word in support of Taito Phillip Field—not one word. One would have thought that somebody from the Labour side of the House would stand up and say: “Taito Phillip Field may have made a mistake, but I support all he did.” After all, those members are fellow unionists; Taito Phillip Field was a union organiser. But not one of them did that. Look at those Labour members over there! They are starting to think that their leader, Helen Clark, has made a mistake in embracing Phillip Field. We know they are starting to discuss the issue among themselves, saying: “Why the hell are we having to cope with all this crap when Helen Clark has embraced this guy, who we know has done real wrong?”. Look at them, over there! All their heads are buried. I have not seen such a bunch. Every time I ask questions in Parliament each day, the heads of Helen Clark and Phil Goff go lower and lower, under their desks.

Chris Auchinvole: Paul Swain?

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Paul Swain tries to disappear. They all know that what Taito Phillip Field was doing was corrupt.

The issue is, though, to what extent other Ministers were involved in all of this. We know that one of the key players in it all—where the whistle was blown initially—was a Thai overstayer called Sunan Siriwan. His activities could not be covered up, because they had been made public. What we saw was that on 17 May 2005 the Minister had a meeting with Taito Phillip Field about Mr Siriwan’s case. The next day Taito Phillip Field wrote to the Minister, laying out the agreements they had reached. Of course, the Minister claims that no agreements were reached. But Taito Phillip Field said they had reached agreements, and his wife, Mrs Field, flashed that letter around in Samoa on 9 June, New Zealand time. The general manager of the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service in Samoa immediately emailed the immigration intelligence unit here in Wellington to tell it what was going on.

Labour members are trying to expect the New Zealand public to believe that the Immigration Service in Wellington had been told what was going on with those people who were working for Phillip Field in Samoa, yet the Immigration Service did not tell the Minister what was going on. The Minister did not make a decision about Mr Siriwan until 17 June, well after the time his department had been emailed from Apia, Samoa to tell it what was going on. Labour members opposite expect New Zealanders to believe that the Immigration Service just sat on this information and did not tell its Minister. The department had the information for 8 days before the Minister made his decision, and it expects this House to believe, and the people of New Zealand to believe, that it just sat on the information and did not tell the Minister.

It is simply inconceivable that the head office of the New Zealand Immigration Service had the information about the conflict of interest, about Mr Siriwan working for Taito Phillip Field in Samoa, and did not tell its Minister when it prepared briefing notes for him on 16 June. I was a Minister for 9 years. There is no way the staff from the Minister’s department would not have said to a Minister: “There’s stuff you need to know. There’s information you need to know.” They would have told their Minister. Yet the Minister still made a decision to issue visas to Sunan Siriwan, when he had to have known he was working for Taito Phillip Field in Samoa.

We have heard in this House, and anyone who has read the Ingram report will know, that there are extraordinary cases involving not just Mr Siriwan but Mr Chaikhunpol, Ms Ngaosri, Mr Nakhen, and Mr Kaewbabpha—none of whom, apart from Mr Chaikhunpol, would talk to the Ingram inquiry. They could cover up because what they were up to was not public knowledge. There is a serious issue buried in this report, on conflicts of interest that Mr Ingram could not uncover. It is the issue of who painted Taito Phillip Field’s house at 51 Church Street, Ōtāhuhu in 2004. I suggest members read what Noel Ingram had to say about that. What happened was that Taito Phillip Field’s little helper, Ms Thaivichit, who seemed to help him with all his painting escapades, told Noel Ingram that a person called Mr Phimpadcha painted the interior of Taito Phillip Field’s house in 2004 and that he got $400 for doing it. The only problem is that Noel Ingram proved he did not do it. So Ms Thaivichit and Mr Phimpadcha lied about who painted the interior of the house.

So what did Phillip Field say about who painted the interior of the house? He gave Noel Ingram several versions of who might have done it. Do members know what Taito Phillip Field finally said to Noel Ingram? He said he thought he may have been involved in doing it. I am not surprised if someone cannot remember when he or she might have started painting a house—whether it was in the middle of July last year, whether it was at the beginning of July last year, or whether it was at the end of July last year. I can understand someone getting confused about when he or she started doing it, but do members believe that anyone, no matter how dimwitted, could forget whether he or she painted the entire interior of a house? That is what Taito Phillip Field expected Noel Ingram to believe. Do members know what Noel Ingram said? He said: “I have difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004.” That is code for Noel Ingram saying that Phillip Field lied to him. Those Labour members opposite know it. They know that corruption was going on.

The question of who painted that house in 2004 is crucial in terms of the conflict of interest issue, because if it was painted by Mr Chaikhunpol—which Dr Ingram could not prove, yet it is highly probable—then Taito Phillip Field was making representations for Mr Chaikhunpol’s permanent residence at that very time. Shortly after that interior painting was done, permanent residence was granted to Mr Chaikhunpol. A clear conflict of interest was covered up. A meeting involving Phillip Field and designed to cover up that issue was held on 2 October 2005. That is why there must be a further inquiry into this whole business. There are all sorts of other issues, as well. This report does not get into half of what Taito Phillip Field was up to. Even if we take just what Noel Ingram uncovered himself, we see that there are issues about which he says, in as many words, he does not believe what Phillip Field said to him. He said that Ms Thaivichit, Mr and Mrs Field’s dear friend who organised a lot of the painting stuff, lied to him.

There is clear evidence of corruption and clear evidence of a cover-up over critically important issues. That is why the National Opposition believes that, for the integrity of this Parliament to be upheld, there must be a further committee inquiry into what went on. It smells.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind the member Heather Roy that she has 5 minutes. The bell will go at 4 minutes, with a 1-minute warning.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): It is hard to understand and comprehend exactly what could have brought anyone to inflict the type of violence on the Kāhui twins that caused their brutal, and what must have been incredibly painful, deaths. It is hard not to think, at least in passing, that those beautiful baby boys are probably better off dead than having to endure a lifetime of violence and abuse from a seriously dysfunctional family. The list just seems to go on and on: James Whakaruru, “Lillybing”, Coral-Ellen Burrows, and the Kāhui twins. It is time that New Zealanders said “enough”.

There is nothing good to be said about the Kāhui twins’ case, but it has allowed New Zealanders to have a discussion not just about family violence and child abuse but also about welfare dependency. For far too long now it has been decided—usually, traditionally, by the left—that poverty is the problem. A diagnosis of poverty seems to have been made for every single terrible case we have heard about. But if poverty was the problem, then surely money would have been the answer. Over a series of decades, money has been thought of, and provided, as the answer. Welfare has been introduced and enhanced in this country, yet over the same time that that money has been handed out by the State to more and more families, the number of children who have been abused or killed, or who have had to grow up in seriously dysfunctional families, seems to have risen and risen. The answers to parliamentary questions that I asked last month were glaringly obvious. The number of children about whom Child, Youth and Family had been notified had gone up yet again, and the highest months on record were February, March, and June of this year, 2006.

So why has this problem not been fixed, when more and more money has been handed out? The answer seems pretty clear to me, and it is something that we in ACT have been saying for quite some time. It is something that only one other party has had the honesty to talk about: the Māori Party. The real problem is welfare dependency. Making people dependent on the State for their income does nobody any good. Rather than welfare being used as a safety net, it has turned into a hammock. There is nothing safe about it. The difficulty is that the people who are really in need—those who really need State assistance and really need a hand up—cannot be found amongst all the others who actually choose to be in that safety hammock.

I get a bit sick of hearing the criticism from the media and others about Child, Youth and Family. New Zealanders need to wake up and have a realistic attitude to that agency. Child, Youth and Family social workers are out there doing their very best. They are required by law to place children with whānau, when that is not necessarily the safest option. Far too frequently, as we have seen, many children, to their detriment, have been taken from one very unsafe whānau environment and put straight into another equally unsafe, if not worse, environment. Child, Youth and Family social workers have had nowhere to place children. At 4 o’clock on a Friday afternoon, when a Child, Youth and Family social worker is faced with removing a child from a family home and placing him or her somewhere else, there may be no safe environment to place the child in.

We need to change significantly the way we operate. Child protection units are the answer, whereby multiple agencies—police, welfare, health, and justice—work together so that children can be placed in a safe environment. It is not rocket science, and it is time we saw some action, not just talk, from this Government.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): As chairman of Parliament’s Privileges Committee, I have removed myself, to some extent, from the debate surrounding Taito Phillip Field. In fact, I made a decision very early on not to read the report, nor to involve myself in the debate in this Chamber on this issue, on the off chance that the issue was referred to the Privileges Committee. As chair of that committee, I would have to come to the issue with clean hands, as one would say. But I can comment on the smell around this issue.

As somebody who, for the reason of the office I hold, has not participated in the debate during question time, or in the general debate, I have been in a bit of a unique position to watch the reactions and body language of the Labour members of Parliament as this issue has unfolded. I genuinely believe that many of the members opposite, although I disagree with their politics, are honourable people. They see the world differently from the way I do on many issues, but I do not doubt that their motivations are pure, and I do not doubt that they believe they are doing the right thing. They are ashamed of what is going on. There are honourable members sitting opposite who know that this is bad news. It reflects poorly on all members of Parliament. That is the real problem with this particular set of circumstances. There are members opposite who just have to sit there and swallow hard, day after day, as this issue is replayed and relitigated in the House.

We have watched members like the Hon David Cunliffe come under, frankly, some of the most incisive questioning I have seen in this House in some time. That he has shifted from saying: “I can’t comment on this because it’s in the Ingram report.”, to saying 24 hours later: “I will comment on this because it is in the Ingram report.” is beyond me. To watch Phil Goff and Damien O’Connor being dragged into this sorry state of affairs makes the issue even more serious than many members of the public probably realise. We have watched middle bench Labour Ministers—the likes of Lianne Dalziel, David Parker, and Rick Barker; people who like to toil away at an honest day’s work—having to cope with sitting there and saying nothing as this issue is played out day after day.

I cannot recall one occasion, as Lockwood Smith was questioning David Cunliffe over the last three or four question times, when Labour front bench members lifted their heads from their papers and tried to defend what was going on. I have never seen Michael Cullen, Annette King, and Phil Goff—who are probably, to be fair, the powerhouse of this Government—seem so distracted by their paperwork and by the important official documents that lie in their manila folders as they have been over recent weeks. They know that this issue is rotten. When members get into taxis and talk to taxi drivers, or talk to hairdressers—the type of people who see plenty of members of the public every day—and find that this issue is all that those people want to talk about, they know that the rot is setting in. They have to sit over there and take it, knowing that their Government is starting to fall apart.

One thing is certain from National’s side of the House on this issue, and if the Government has not picked this up by now, I will let those members in on a bit of a secret: the National Party is not giving up on this issue. There is more to come, and Labour members will have to sit there and endure this treatment for quite some time. We know that the Labour Government’s regeneration and rejuvenation have been personified in the arrival of the new list member of Parliament from central Wellington today. When we look further down the Labour list, we know that that rejuvenation and reinvigoration will be continued when Lesley Soper returns. Well, that will be something to look forward to.

Today, when members put questions to Lynne Pillay and Darien Fenton—as part of members questioning members on a bill they have before the House, or questioning select committee chairs—what was apparent was how shallow the depth and capability of this Labour Government is. Those members have been here for between 2 and 5 years. It was the first time that they had had to answer a question on their feet in this Chamber, and both occasions were unequivocal disasters. So if the middle bench of the Labour Government is looking thin, let me assure members opposite that the back bench looks worse. I say to those members of the Labour caucus who are sitting in the second and third rows that their places are safe, because there ain’t much action happening on Labour’s back benches, from what we saw today. In many ways that is a shame, but that is the reality of politics. There is only one rejuvenation battle going on in this House, and that is the battle between Trevor Mallard and Phil Goff over who will become the next Minister of Finance. That is about as exciting as it gets for that sad, tired, rancid Labour Government sitting opposite.

A good example is that we are hearing regularly what Labour members of Parliament really think about the Taito Phillip Field debacle. We know that they are disgusted and appalled at what this incident is doing to their Government. There is no question—and Labour members opposite know this—that it is damaging this Government and it is damaging it very, very badly. There is no honour in this issue. There is no honour in having members opposite defend the indefensible. I say to Dr Cullen and the Prime Minister that this is not one of those issues where the Labour caucus can be convinced just to hunker down and it will all go away—because it is not going to go away.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith said there must be a further inquiry into this matter, and he is right about that. He is right about it for this reason. What is going on with this issue in this Parliament over the last week or two implicates every member of Parliament in this House. The whole of Parliament, and all the members in it, are being drawn in, in the public’s mind, to the bizarre details of this case. It does this Parliament no good, and it does honourable Labour members sitting opposite no good, to allow this sort of thing to carry on. It is not on. The honourable Labour members opposite—and there are two or three in the House at present—know that it stinks and that it is pulling this Government down. If they had any sense of integrity, they would go to the Prime Minister and tell her to cut Taito Phillip Field loose before he drags the rest of us in this Parliament down. That is the message that honourable Labour members opposite should dwell on tonight.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I have to comment on all the debates and speeches, except for those coming from the Government side of the House, that I have heard tonight. The words “tragic” and “appalling” spring to mind.

I will comment, firstly, on the young whippersnapper Simon Power, who said what an old, uninspiring bunch he thinks Government members may be. While he did that, I saw sitting on the benches alongside him the vibrant and young exciting group of Richard Worth, Anne Tolley, Lockwood Smith, and—last, but not least—Bob what-ever-his-name-is Clarkson. I ask Bob, is that right?

Hon Member: The builder.

LYNNE PILLAY: “Bob the Builder”. We are led to believe that—

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please use the correct address for members.

Dr Richard Worth: Mr Deputy Speaker, you have correctly anticipated the objection that I was about to make in the point of order that I sought to be heard on. You have now dealt with it.

LYNNE PILLAY: I withdraw and apologise. I should not have said “Bob the Builder”; I should have said Bob Clarkson—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: And Colin King.

LYNNE PILLAY: —and Colin King. Those members are a young, vibrant bunch.

I feel a bit awful here, because I also have to mention Chris Finlayson, a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee who, I must admit, does not quite fit into the mould. He is just a little more on to it than that lot, and just a teensy bit younger. But that is the face of the vibrant, exciting National Party. Those are the members from whom we have heard all the criticism, and who have been saying Labour is not cutting it and they have the one true way.

Dr Wayne Mapp: And you’re the first example.

LYNNE PILLAY: Oh God, here he is—“Mr Exterminator”! It is the PC exterminator and the father—if I can use that word; probably I should say “grandfather”—of the 90-day bill. That is the bill designed to help people to get into work. And how does National propose that we help people to get into work? It would make it easier to sack them. That party is so on to it! The National members say that by making it easier to sack people, we will open up job opportunities. Well, I know that the Māori Party said it would listen to Dr Mapp, but I can see those members are over there listening attentively and thinking: “No way, Jose; that is just not right.”

But that is enough of that, because I am not into being tragic and appalling, nor am I into focusing on trading in human emotions without actually providing practical solutions. That is what National is about. National makes attacks on beneficiaries. Anybody who is in any way living in hardship is deemed by that party to be not quite cutting it—to be less than whole. I ask my colleagues here whether that is whistle-stop politics.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes.

LYNNE PILLAY: They said it is. It is actually scratching at the sore—the nasty bits that make people think they may have a problem. Those members do not want to try to solve the problems but want to wallow in them, so they can say how bad things are. That is an insult to this House, it is an insult to the victims of violence, it is an insult to New Zealand families, and it is an insult to all New Zealanders.

I heard one of the previous speakers talk about how bad it is that people now report cases of violence or abuse. The reporting of those cases has gone up, and that is somehow seen by the Opposition to be bad. Well, let us talk about that, because when I was being brought up, society thought—and I was led to believe—that we had no racial disharmony in our society. And that society included all the members on the Opposition benches, who, of course, are far older than I am. At that time New Zealand society believed there was no racial disharmony, no poverty, no sexual abuse, and no real problems of violence—and that if there were any problems, then surely they were the fault of parents who were not doing their jobs properly. We know that was not the case, and that there was simply a culture of not reporting those cases. No mechanisms were in place then so we could stand alongside families and say that if they had problems, we would deal with them.

Let us, several decades later, pick up the pieces of what was not resolved at that time—a time when young children and a number of people lived in families that did not support them, and when family relationships were far from whole. People were unable to speak out then and say that what they were experiencing was not right, because there was simply nowhere for them to go. The culture was one of non-acceptance and of not reporting problems. A person who was not mainstream—if I can use that term—did not count. And we hear members on the Opposition benches using that same old rhetoric about being mainstream now. They say that people who are not mainstream have failed somehow—that they are not delivering, and that they are not bringing up their children properly. They say that if people are not helping themselves and require some assistance in any way, then they are somehow less than whole.

We know that is simply not the case. We know that from Charles Chauvel, who earlier this evening gave his maiden speech. Charles Chauvel did not come from a privileged background. He spoke about coming from an ordinary, working-class background that gave him the ability, with some support, to rise to what I think is the ultimate position a person can rise to today. The ultimate position a person can have today is to enter Parliament as a Labour politician. We cannot pay a greater compliment to anybody in this society than to elect him or her to this House, so that he or she can advocate for working people—for ordinary Kiwis—as a Labour politician. I can see the Opposition members hanging their heads in shame because of what they advocate for. They whine, grizzle, and moan. They actually put situations before the House that have not been through the select committee.

But I do not want to wallow in that; I want to talk about the achievements, the hopes, and the aspirations of many New Zealanders. Some of the most exciting of those are in the area of early childhood development. I absolutely cannot wait until next year, when every 3 or 4 year-old in New Zealand will have early childhood education. There will be 20 free hours—the Opposition members got it wrong; I saw a press statement from them saying it was 23 hours—per week of quality, teacher-driven early childhood education everywhere in New Zealand.

Steve Chadwick: That’s wonderful.

LYNNE PILLAY: It is. We can add to that apprenticeships, interest-free loans for students while they study and when they graduate, paid parental leave, rates relief for our older citizens, and conservation. I see my good friend Chris Carter here. He proudly stands alongside me on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. What a proud moment it was when we stood in Waitakere and advocated for the saving of one of our country’s greatest icons. When I heard the pathetic arguments—I cannot not call them that; they were whimperings—put out by the Opposition—

Steve Chadwick: Carpings.

LYNNE PILLAY: That is a good word. The carping I heard from the Opposition—and I will not even mention whom it was from—was pathetic.

I applaud this Government. I feel very proud to be part of it, and I feel really proud that we will see a number of great initiatives in the future. Thank you.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I am saddened to have heard the last speech from the honourable member from the Labour Party. At its highest it could be described only as being little more than an abusive rant of unconnected ramblings. I would like to move back to the issue that has detained the House in the course of today, and that concerns the actions and the response of the Government to the activities of Taito Phillip Field.

Parliament jealously guards its privileges. There is little doubt about that, and that tradition is picked up in our Standing Orders. Standing Order 23 makes it clear that on the election of a Speaker, the Speaker is to lay claim to the privileges of the House. Those privileges are there described, in the Standing Order, as especially freedom of speech in debate, free access to the Governor-General whenever occasion may require it, and that the most favourable construction be put on all the House’s proceedings. We are talking there about the privileges of Parliament. These privileges are not defined by statute, but clearly they include, in the context of the Taito Phillip Field issue, privileges that include the power to inquire, the power to obtain evidence, the power to punish for contempt, and the power to discipline members. So it is not surprising that there is an anger in the public and a frustration by members in this House when, in the face of apparent wrongdoing, Parliament is painted as powerless to intervene.

I note a short extract from the third edition of a book entitled Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand by the present Clerk of the House. On page 637 he talks about the power to exercise discipline over members, because that is what the issue is in this case, and states: “Members are exempt from being punished or disciplined by anyone outside the House on account of what they may have said or done in the course of parliamentary proceedings. But members are subject to being held accountable to the House for their conduct in parliamentary proceedings. Thus the House’s rules of order in debate and its rules for disciplining and ultimately suspending members from service in the House and on committees subject members to the power that the House possesses to exercise disciplinary authority over its own members.” If the present Government could have its way there would not be that power of discipline in the present circumstances.

It is quite clear that Dr Ingram was constrained in what he could do to ascertain the truth of the allegations made against Taito Phillip Field, a member of Parliament. They are very serious allegations. I suggest that it seems the Prime Minister deliberately set terms of reference for this investigation that would produce a result that would be inconclusive as to outcome, would damage Mr Field irreparably, and would ensure that his hitherto good name was forever tarnished. We can only speculate on what the Prime Minister’s motivation can be, because an inquiry in the nature of a commission of inquiry would likely have reached the truth. Why is that? It is because of old legislation contained in the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908. That old statute sets the framework for appropriate investigation and follow-up discipline. If one glances at that Act for a moment, one will see that its sections include “Powers of investigation”, “Power to summon witnesses”, “Protection of persons appearing”, and, of course, it has offence-creating provisions.

Why was the Prime Minister not prepared to allow such an inquiry to be held? She has told us the reason, in this debating chamber. Apparently, for reasons of cost it was not appropriate to allow such an inquiry to occur. I guess we are to commend her thrift, but the hypocrisy is galling, because this Government is characterised by waste.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please withdraw that word and apologise.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: I withdraw the word “hypocrisy”, and I apologise.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that my learned colleague used the word “hypocrisy”, but I suggest he did not use it in relation to any particular member. The rule of the House is that one cannot accuse another member of hypocrisy. I suggest to you that Dr Worth did not actually do that. He talked about hypocrisy in a context of events; it was not directed at any particular member. So I submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Dr Worth has not transgressed the rules of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter has been dealt with. I took the remark to be a reference to a member or a group of members. The matter has been dealt with, but thank you for raising it.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: I have been characterising the Prime Minister’s actions in respect of an assertion of thriftiness as allegations that bear no scrutiny, at all. That is because this Government is characterised by waste. A really good example of this is the case of Ahmed Zaoui, the Algerian Muslim who secured refugee status and is currently trying to fight off a challenge that he is a security risk. That exercise has involved the Government—as we heard on 27 July, from the Minister of Finance—in expenditure to date that amounts to $2.4 million, with no end in sight. According to Dr Cullen there will be a further hearing early next year. So these cries of thrift ring hollow. More significantly, I ask what price the reputation of Parliament and its members has. I would say that when one member is challenged for corruption, all members of Parliament risk the possibility of contagion.

I do not understand the Prime Minister, because she has moved from a starting point where Mr Field was guilty of errors of judgment, to a new position where serious errors of judgment were made that render him wholly unfit for ministerial responsibility. It is a harsh sentence that is in breach of well understood notions of natural justice. That is why National continues to call for a proper inquiry into these issues.

Dr Ingram’s report is damning—there is no doubt about it. I will refer to two extracts of that report, the first of which appears at paragraph 295. This is the report that Dr Ingram was commissioned by the Prime Minister to undertake into these allegations against Mr Field. At paragraph 295 the following statement is made by Dr Ingram: “I have difficulty understanding why Mr Field would be confused as to whether or not he personally was involved in the painting of 51 Church Street in 2004.” That address was one of the properties in respect of which it was asserted that Mr Field had deployed labour. Surely Mr Field would have known whether he himself was involved in painting that property. A second illustration of this point occurs at paragraph 309 of Dr Ingram’s commentary: “The first blush response to the prospect of a mere tenant, even one that was a close friend of Mr Field’s, having repainted the entire interior together with the exterior of the windows after less than six months occupation is that it is a highly unlikely, if not improbable, proposition.” The theme that runs through this material is hugely damaging to the credibility of Mr Field.

But it is more than that. I would suggest to members of the House that it provides the basis for serious criminal charges of corruption and bribery to be brought against Mr Field. I refer to section 99 of the Crimes Act 1961, where the term “bribe” is defined. Bribe means “any money, valuable consideration, office, or employment, or any benefit”—those are the words I emphasise—“whether direct or indirect:” Then in section 103 there is the heading “Corruption and bribery of member of Parliament”. The effect of that section is to impose a penalty of imprisonment for a term of 7 years. A great disservice has been done to Mr Field by the course that the Prime Minister has followed, which is calculated to wreck his name and the reputation of members of this honourable House.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): It gives me great pleasure to rise in this debate and to say again how wonderful the recent Budget was. Of course, I want to talk particularly about transport. At the last election in my electorate there was a huge banner—I do not know whether it was paid for by National or the Exclusive Brethren—that asked: “What are your petrol taxes for?” [Interruption] I do not know whether the Exclusive Brethren paid for that banner. It would not surprise me if they were writing the cheques in my electorate, because a lot of money was spent there by the Opposition. I tell members there was a picture of the current Leader of the Opposition, Dr Brash, on that huge billboard. It asked: “What are your petrol taxes for? For roads.” Unlike members opposite, I can say that under this Government within 5 years we will be in the situation where we will be spending $300 million more on roading and transport than has been raised through petrol and excise levies, etc. It is an example of a Government that actually does something.

What a pleasure—what a privilege it was last week to go to witness the Minister of Transport, the Hon Annette King, opening the Mercer to Long Swamp section of the Waikato Expressway. As I have said in this House before, the rest of those members on the opposite side of the House—with the honourable exception, I think, of David Bennett who has just arrived—were comatose in terms of transport in the Waikato. They were comatose; they were in a deep, deep slumber, yet they had the gall and the “h” word—I cannot use the “h” word—to criticise this Government on transport. The honourable exception to that was a very good Waikato member, the Hon Rob Storey. Members opposite will know about the Hon Rob Storey. What did they do to the Hon Rob Storey? He was a good Minister of Transport, a good Waikato member, but of course he was removed in a previous Government. But let me acknowledge his contribution.

In regard to the Long Swamp to Mercer expressway—the dual carriageway—let me take the opportunity to praise Transit, the contractors, and the people who worked on what is a very geologically difficult area. As people will recall, for a number of years there was a joke about the “Bridge to Nowhere”. Well, it was built at the appropriate time in terms of its funding to get it in there, and it is now definitely the “Bridge to Somewhere”; it is the bridge to a vastly improved Waikato Expressway route. In the context of that opening, I acknowledge the extra $1.3 billion over 5 years to guarantee our State highway programme. Indeed, I acknowledge in fact that this Government is spending a record amount on roading and transport in this country, and of course we are the beneficiaries. We won that amount because of the advocacy of Government members of Parliament in the Waikato region, which resulted in $200 million extra going into a special Waikato transport roading package. So while members on the opposite side of the House were snoozing, sleeping, and twiddling their thumbs, Government members were getting on with the job.

I know that the member for Hamilton East, Mr Bennett, was shocked. I know for a fact he was shocked when he fully realised and discovered how little his other colleagues had done in terms of transport and roading issues in the Waikato over the last few years. In his heart of hearts he knows that this Government is doing a fantastic job—as in their heart of hearts do Opposition members. In their moments of truth, in the moments when they look in the mirror in the middle of the night, they know that this Government is doing fantastic work in terms of investing in our infrastructure.

Let us talk about rail and how the previous National-led Government literally tried to destroy rail in this country in a most shameful way—how National members literally stood by and twiddled their thumbs while the proud rail network was consigned to be bled and become inoperative. This Government invested in rail. I acknowledge people like Paul Swain, a previous Minister of Transport, and Mark Gosche, for their leadership. They have vision and they have capacity, in the best tradition of people like Bob Semple from the first Labour Government. Those people opposite would not know who Bob Semple was, but he was a great visionary in his time. I remember back in the 30s and 40s, people were criticising him then for backing things like good roads—

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite impossible to hear Mr Gallagher, and that is not because of the noise from this side of the House; it is because he is shouting hysterically into the microphone. If he could lower his voice a little, I am sure members of the House might gain some faint value from his comments.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: The member should not mistake enthusiasm for hysteria—or mistake passion and absolute pride. But I thank that member, because I know he is one of the more thinking members on the other side of the House, and in his heart of hearts he too must think: “Gee, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had been Government, doing all of this. I know the speeches we would have made if we had been able to do this—I know the speeches of absolute pride.” I know that Mr Worth thinks that, in his heart of hearts, but I thank him and I ask him not to mistake that I am very enthusiastic and very, very proud.

The issue of transport infrastructure is one of the wonderful aspects of our Budget, and it is so important and meaningful for the Waikato region because we are situated on the north-south major transport hub. As Hamilton, we serve and relate to two very important seaports in Tauranga and Auckland. We relate to our own international airport, but also to our other major international airport in Auckland. So that is why all this transport infrastructure is very important. It is tied up with jobs and with economic growth.

One of the wonderful things that I went to with Pete Hodgson was the opening of the Fonterra inland rail port—huge, major sheds from where the Fonterra dairy product is railed, either to Auckland or to Tauranga. I, myself, had the great privilege of going on a rail locomotive through the Kaimai tunnel and seeing the wonderful port of Tauranga. The people who drove that locomotive told me that my Government cared about rail again, that my Government was passionate about rail—and that was absolutely wonderful. Bob Clarkson knows that to be true. He can see that incredible growth at the port of Tauranga, and he knows that the economy of Tauranga relies on transport. He knows it is true that this Government is doing some fantastic work in terms of developing our infrastructure.

Other speakers have talked about Working for Families and how important that is. Other people have talked about boosting people and giving them a chance in terms of tertiary education. I also want to talk a wee bit in the context of our national identity, and to say how delighted I am in terms of the money and funding around defence. I take this opportunity, as the member for Hamilton West, to acknowledge our wonderful men and women of the Territorial Force. I also take an opportunity in this speech to acknowledge the even younger people who serve in the various training and cadet corps. Again, I acknowledge the money being spent towards the $4.6 billion defence sustainability initiative. We know how important a modern, well-equipped defence force is in the current climate we find ourselves in, in terms of international affairs. I am very proud that this Government has invested in that area.

In the brief time I have left, I want to finish on broadcasting, and to say thank you to the Minister and to the Government for the extra funding towards local television through New Zealand on Air, Radio New Zealand, and broadcasts to Pacific nations.

I thank them for that money because, again, it is very important in developing our national identity and our cultural identity, and in celebrating our diversity and putting funding into local organisations.

I am very proud to be a member for Hamilton West. I compliment this Budget and this Government. Some very, very exiting things are happening in the Waikato under this Government. If members on the opposite side of the House do not believe me, I invite them to come to my city any time.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I would happily accept the invitation of the previous speaker, Mr Gallagher. I enjoy visiting that member’s city because it is exceptionally well represented by Martin Gallagher and Dianne Yates. They do a great job for the people of Hamilton.

Today I felt very proud to be a Labour member of Parliament and a member of this great Labour-led Government, because I listened to a great new Labour member of Parliament give his maiden statement. It makes me very proud to know that I have been a friend of his since 1989. I am really, really pleased to see him here, joining us in Parliament.

I have listened to members of the Opposition with difficulty. I think a lot of people on this side of the House have difficulty reconciling the fact that we are having an important debate here in Parliament with the fact that all the members opposite deal with are the sideshows—they do not deal with the real issues.

I remind people that our Minister of Finance and Peter Dunne together released a business tax review recently. This review has already caused those who said that only the headline rate mattered to think again. People have been confronted with a document that lays out some real choices, and the word that has been fed back to me time and time again is “investment”—not “cuts” but “investment”. People want to invest in the future of our economy and in the future of our country. They want to invest in new technology. They want to invest in research and development. They want to invest in innovative staff training. They want to invest in developing export markets. They know that the Labour-led Government is a Government that believes in investing in the future. All they know is that on the other side of the House are some grizzly, griping young ones who, despite their born-to-rule attitude, just have not got over the fact that they are still on that side of the House. Well, I tell those members that those in the business world do not care who is in Government, as long as the Government is talking and listening to them. This side of the House has been working with business, because this side of the House is able to make a difference.

The bottom line is that the business tax development document is just a further building block on what we as a Government have already delivered, which was over a billion dollars worth of changes in the 2005 Budget. We have increased depreciation rates, we have reduced the fringe benefit tax, and the list goes on. I am glad we can end the debate on that note.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Abstentions 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Appropriation (2006/07 Estimates) Bill read a third time.

Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill read a second time.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2006/07) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 61

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

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Abstentions 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Coroners Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 25 July.

Part 1 General Provisions (continued)

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Deaths to be reported and post-mortems

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Part 2 deals with a lot of the machinery provisions of the Coroners Act and will re-enact a lot of what is contained in the 1988 Act, so I will concentrate on one issue in particular—that is, the retention of bodily parts and bodily samples. But before I do so, I want to acknowledge the huge contribution to law reform in this area by Denese Hēnare, when she was a member of the Law Commission. For those who do not know her, Denese Hēnare is an extremely distinguished Auckland lawyer who made a huge contribution to the Law Commission, and it is fair to say that, at the end of her term, the Law Commission was very keen for her to be reappointed but the then Minister in charge of the Law Commission—a Labour member—refused to reappoint her, and instead appointed—

Dr Wayne Mapp: What appointment did they make?

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON I think it was a Labour flunky. Labour appointed Professor Ngātata Love who, I have to say, has made absolutely no contribution whatsoever to the Law Commission, and, in fact, it is fair to say that no one in the Law Commission wanted him. Be that as it may, let us move on to Part 2, “Deaths to be reported and post-mortems”. I begin by saying that I think it is pretty unacceptable that we have the term “post-mortems”, because it should be “post-mortes”. But this is the way legislation is going; no one observes correct Latin terms any more, and no one seems to understand them. It is a very sad state of affairs.

So what are the sorts of deaths that need to be reported in this legislation? They are set out in clause 11 and there are five of them. The first, obviously, is suicides and deaths where there is no established cause; the second is deaths for which no doctor’s certificate is given; the third, and important, cause is deaths during medical, surgical, and dental operations, which happens quite a lot—although I would not have thought it happened very much in dental operations, but there we go—the fourth is deaths in official custody or care; and the fifth is deaths in detention.

I point out to honourable members an interesting jurisdictional clause in clause 11(2), which provides that the subsection will apply only to deaths that have occurred in New Zealand, or deaths that are on or from an aircraft registered in New Zealand or a New Zealand ship, or a ship or aircraft of the armed forces, which is all pretty standard stuff and not surprising. Then there are a number of clauses that deal with custody and removal of bodies, and as they simply re-enact relevant provisions of the 1988 Act, I am not going to dwell on those.

There are very important provisions that deal with the interests of families and other relevant people or organisations and the need to keep families informed about exactly what is happening with a post-mortem. But the particular part that the committee spent quite some time on was the clauses from clause 40 onwards dealing with the release of bodies and the retention and return of body parts and bodily samples. We spent some time dealing with the definitions of those two terms, because as the bill was originally drafted the phrase “bodily sample” was very generally defined and we thought that some specificity was required, so that members of the family would know exactly what was involved and what rights they had. Then, secondly, there is the definition of “body part”. Originally it was simply going to be that a body means any part of a body, but as members can see from the definitional section the definition is that much clearer.

The important part about these sections are the ones that the committee substituted—that the pathologist, although he or she may remove a bodily part or bodily sample, has to keep the family, the immediate family, or those interested advised of what is going on with that bodily part, and, importantly, a person is to be advised of the right to request the return of those parts or samples. The sort of situation that we heard of during the Justice and Electoral Committee hearings—a situation which often occurs, surprisingly—is that some months after the funeral, the body having been buried or cremated, the immediate family is sent a bodily part or bodily sample, which can cause a great deal of stress—

Dr Wayne Mapp: The brain case.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As my friend the member for North Shore, Dr Mapp, said, there is a famous case concerning a brain. Imagine the feelings one would have if a relative’s brain turned up in the mail. It would probably not affect Labour members because there are not too many with them. But anyway, that is what those clauses are about. They are very important clauses. The rest of them are basically machinery and that is why we spent quite some time on those clauses in the select committee.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): In rising to speak to this bill I acknowledge Chris Finlayson, who was a very hard-working and conscientious member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I know that we worked very, very hard on this bill to make it the bill it is today. It will deliver a much better coronial service in New Zealand and enhance public confidence in that service.

I acknowledge in particular all the work done by JPs who worked under the former system, who gave tremendous time, energy, and skill with no remuneration. I point out that we on the committee, whilst wanting to deliver a better system, spent quite some time discussing how the new system in no way denigrated the contribution that JPs and coroners provided under the old system. Quite to the contrary, many—in fact, most—went far beyond the call of duty in their commitment to providing a good service.

I also acknowledge the Law Commission. It spent a lot of time on this bill, which replaces the Coroners Act 1988. The Law Commission worked very hard on this bill and looked at how we could have the best system to address a very difficult circumstance for people in New Zealand.

The key element that the bill establishes is the office of the chief coroner. We know that that is quite instrumental to providing the best system and support for people who use the coroners service, and moving to a smaller number of mostly full-time and appropriately legally qualified coroners will be the best service.

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. To this point the honourable member has not dealt with Part 2, at all. She is dealing with Part 1, “General provisions”; Part 2 is headed “Deaths to be reported and post-mortems”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I was just about to address that issue.

LYNNE PILLAY: I thank the member for drawing my attention to a technicality—something, I have to say, he was not quite so good at earlier in the Chamber this afternoon. I will end this call now, but I just say that this bill does actually ensure that families are notified at significant steps. I feel really proud to be part of a Government that has introduced this legislation, and proud of the hard work the committee has done, despite Dr Worth’s slightly obsessive manner of dealing with things. I know that this is a good bill, and I commend it to the Committee.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of this Coroners Bill, which National is supporting. Unfortunately, the Labour member opposite who has just spoken, Lynne Pillay, seemed to go a little astray as to which part she was addressing. Part 2 certainly deals with deaths to be reported and post-mortems, and I am grateful to my colleague Chris Finlayson for being a Latin scholar and pointing out that the correct term is post-mortes.

This part of the bill is particularly important in the historical context of informed consent, because this country has gone through some very important inquiries where, unfortunately, the lessons were not learnt initially. I am, of course, referring to the National Women’s Hospital cervical cancer inquiry, where the issue was around informed consent. The inquiry really revolutionised the practice of medicine, to ensure there was a thorough process of gaining informed consent.

Unfortunately, following that inquiry came the Gisborne Cervical Screening Inquiry, and after that the Green Lane Hospital heart library episode, which resulted—[Interruption] I am sorry; there was an interjection from across the Chamber? The Green Lane Hospital heart library episode was particularly important. A group of health workers and clinicians had totally altruistic aims of collecting body parts to be used for learning and for improving techniques—indeed, that is exactly what happened. Unfortunately, despite the previous inquiry, they had not been thorough in their informed consent processes. So it is particularly worthwhile to see in Part 2 the extremely thorough informed consent processes relating to post-mortems, and particularly to body parts and bodily samples.

If I may digress for one moment, I want to acknowledge the work of the Auckland coroners Dr Murray Jamieson and Sarn Herdson, who have been full-time coroners there over the last 4 years. They reported in their submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee that since 2001 the number of coronial files opened and post-mortems carried out in Auckland has fallen by 30 percent, despite the fact that the Auckland population has increased substantially. They point to three major reasons for this. One is changes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, which widened registered medical practitioner powers in respect of issuing medical certificates and stating causes of death. The second is the availability of one of the coroners from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., 365 days a year. That is quite an incredible service. In fact, the service begins even earlier; police officers gather at the mortuary at 5.30 a.m., and call through to the coroners themselves at 6.45 a.m. This enables the coroners to discuss deaths with doctors, police officers, and families, which results in much more complete understanding and information transfer than previously. The third reason they point to is that the education processes put in place for medical students, medical practitioners, police officers, and the general public have generally been enhanced. Those three reasons together have meant that there has been a 30 percent decrease in post-mortems in the area, under the Coroners Act. That has been a very important contribution.

The Auckland coroners have also been responsible for supporting the whānau facility, which is available to all, although it is used mainly by Māori whānau. It is also used by Pacific Island families and members of the Jewish and Muslim faiths. It provides for an early-release scheme such that a body can be returned to a family within hours of its arrival. That too is an incredibly important change from a situation where bodies could remain for days and even weeks, to the huge distress of the family.

To finish, the other point the Auckland coroners’ submission makes relates to clause 44 and to the retention and return of body parts or bodily samples. The Auckland coroners, although they agreed with the general intent of clause 44, felt that the proposal: “A part or sample retained under section 43(2)(a) or (b) or (c) must be returned … ” was problematic. The reason was that usually these samples are very tiny—minute, in fact—and can be used much later for either chemical, biological, toxicological, or genetic analysis. If retained, such remnants might be quite valuable to the family later on.

So it is pleasing to see that this part has, on the one hand, detailed very carefully the informed consent procedures, and, on the other hand, allowed the technical ability, if the family agrees, for bodily samples to be retained so that they may be used later on.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I stand to support Part 2, “Deaths to be reported and post-mortems”. When I looked over the bill I realised that it is very important to have clarity in detailing exactly what types of deaths need to be reported. This bill serves that purpose. I support the bill, which standardises practices. The types of deaths that are required to be reported are all very sudden and unexpected deaths, and it is really imperative that no confusion whatsoever exist about which cases need to be referred to the coroner. The unexpected nature of these deaths means that families and practitioners will be shocked and that many questions will need to be answered. It is important that the process be managed in a sensitive and expedient way. This bill sets out the framework for that to occur.

The bill lists the types of deaths that are to be reported and provides great clarity as to the situations that arise when deaths occur as a result of a medical or surgical procedure or an anaesthetic. Other situations listed are fairly standard, and we are all aware of them. They include death without known cause, suicide, unnatural or violent death, death for which no doctor’s certificate is given, death that occurs while a woman is pregnant or while giving birth, and death of a patient who has been treated for alcohol or drug addiction. An important inclusion is death that occurs through an army, maritime, or aircraft accident or incident. In such cases the clues to working out how such a dreadful accident or other event has occurred are very valuable and important to the families.

Clause 12 deals with reporting of deaths to the police. This is quite an important clause. It is absolutely appropriate that the police be the proper authority to receive reports of sudden and unexpected deaths. I am sure no one would dispute that. This clause covers not only persons who discover a death but persons who learn about a death. The only time a person is not required to report a death to the police is when he or she believes that the death is already known to the police or will be reported to a member of the police. Clause 13 describes the reporting of a death to the coroner by police and, of course, applies to members of the police, as such.

There are some clauses in Part 2 that have been modified—I believe for the better. I would like in particular to comment on clause 23, which deals with the viewing, touching, or remaining with or near the body in a coroner’s custody. There have been changes to this clause, which means there is provision for members or representatives of the immediate family, or people who are performing religious or spiritual services or advice, to be present. This indeed is a very compassionate clause. It has regard for the family’s need to grieve and be counselled and supported by a religious person or spiritual adviser. Those people will, of course, need the coroner’s permission to be present. I believe that these provisions are excellent additions to the bill.

I would like to make some additional comments about clause 38, which has also been modified. The old clause 38 stated that a coroner may direct a doctor who attended a person before death to attend a post-mortem and/or give the coroner a written report relating to the person. That has now changed so that a doctor who attended a person before death can no longer be directed to attend a post-mortem. I doubt whether the original provision would ever have been enforced in recent years, as doctors are busy people. Also, autopsies are conducted by specialist pathologists and I do not consider that the attending doctor would be able to add any extra information. So I think it is quite right that this clause has been amended.

Clause 40 has also been modified. It deals with the return or retention of bodies, body parts, and bodily samples, as has been mentioned by my colleague Chris Finlayson. I would like to make a few comments about it, as well. In particular, clause 40C deals with the release of still-born children. This clause gives the coroner authorisation to release a still-born child, if the coroner has directed the pathologist to perform a post-mortem and if the pathologist has concluded that the child was still-born. In the old bill, there does not appear to be a specific reference to still-born children, and this might have resulted in a variety of different practices. So it is good that this clause brings uniformity and standardisation of practice. Clause 42 is about the receipt, removal, and taking of parts and samples.

KATE WILKINSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to take this call on Part 2 of the Coroners Bill. The issue of death is a particularly sensitive one, and it is important that violent and sudden deaths, especially, are dealt with not only with due sensitivity but also with absolute professionalism and timeliness. This bill is designed to reform our coronial system, recognising the rights and interests of families but also putting some emphasis on cultural and spiritual sensitivity.

Coroners deal with often sad and tragic deaths. When someone dies of a violent, sudden, or uncertain death, there should be a proper inquiry, and the bereaved friends, family, and relatives need to know what happened and why it happened. Part 2 deals with the reporting of deaths, the custody and removal of bodies, the interests of families, post-mortems, and the return or retention of bodies or parts thereof. Death is not an easy subject. It is an emotional time for families and friends, and it is important that the situation is dealt with properly and professionally, yet with sensitivity and, certainly, timeliness. This bill is not just about dealing with bodies; it is about dealing with bereaved family and friends.

Clause 11 provides for the reporting of deaths—not all deaths, but those that appear to have been without known cause, suicide, or unnatural or violent. It covers, to name some of the instances, death that occurred whilst a person was undergoing a medical, surgical, dental, or similar operation; death during childbirth; death of a patient detained in an institution for alcoholism, drug addiction, or mental health reasons, or under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act or Corrections Act; and death in the custody of the police.

It is interesting, if we go back in history, to compare those with some of the original examples of death covered by coroners. One of the old editions of Halsbury’s Laws of England, if members will permit me to digress a little, covered deaths in prisons—not unlike what occurs today—and deaths of persons of unsound mind. In the case of a death of a patient of unsound mind: “Notice thereof, together with a statement relating thereto, must, before the expiration of the second day after the day of the death, be sent by the person in charge to the coroner of the district.” Today we still have persons of unsound mind. The old Halsbury’s Laws of England refers to “infants taken into care”. Again, this is quite interesting. I do like to go back in history, because I think history is really important. The book states: “If any person undertakes for reward the nursing and maintenance of an infant under the age of 9 years, apart from its parents or having no parents, such person in case of the death of any such infant must, within 24 hours of such death, give notice in writing thereof to the coroner of the district within which the body of such infant lies”—

Simon Power: What does that mean?

KATE WILKINSON: —I have no idea—“and the coroner must hold an inquest thereon unless a certificate under the hand of a duly qualified medical practitioner is produced to him certifying that such medical practitioner has personally attended such infant during its last illness and specifying the cause of death, and the coroner is satisfied that there is no ground for holding an inquest.” It does not matter what it means. The interesting thing is: “If the person having the care of such infant neglects to give such notice, such person is on summary conviction liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding £25.”

Simon Power: That clears that up.

KATE WILKINSON: Yes. One of the other types of death that the coroners legislation covered, under Halsbury’s Laws of England, was that of drowned persons.

Hon Member: Tell us about that.

KATE WILKINSON: OK, I will: “If a dead human body be found in or cast on shore from the sea or any tidal or navigable waters, or is found floating or sunken in any such waters and brought to the shore or bank thereof, the person finding the same must within 6 hours thereafter give notice to a police constable acting within the parish in which such body is found, under a penalty of £5.”

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 71

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

Noes 48

New Zealand National 48.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.