Wednesday, 6 September 2006

Wednesday, 6 September 2006

Wednesday, 6 September 2006

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

People’s Republic of China—Internal and Judicial Affairs Committee, National People’s Congress

Madam SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Internal and Judicial Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, led by Mr Liu Zhenhua, Vice Chairman of the committee, are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish to welcome them.

Points of Order

Questions for Oral Answer—Interruptions

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may be appropriate to raise this point at this stage, before questions commence. Yesterday was probably the most raucous, rowdy question period I can recall in over 20 years in this place, and, for at least one correspondent this morning, who is a regular listener to Parliament, it was the worst in over 35 years. Last week, or the week before, you ruled that orchestrated barracking would not be tolerated. We had that from both sides yesterday on occasion. Before today’s round begins I am seeking your assurance that you will honour your previous ruling and that those who indulge in orchestrated barracking will be asked to leave the Chamber, so that the rest of us can hear what is going on.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comment. I will certainly enforce that to the best of my ability, but it is largely in the hands of members themselves; otherwise, there would be few people left within the Chamber, and I do not see that that would serve any useful purpose—though some may disagree with me. But I do ask members to respect the right of others, and those who are listening, to be able to hear the answer. It is not to prevent people from expressing themselves but, in fact, to provide that freedom of expression that I think this House wishes to uphold—the right to hear what others say.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I make a suggestion that perhaps part of yesterday’s problem arose from the decision there could be interjection while questions were being asked—and I would point out that it was in fact Mr Dunne who sought that ruling from you some weeks back. I also think you cannot avoid—and I note that Mr Dunne’s correspondent made it abundantly clear—that it is the answers given by Ministers that cause much of the problem.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): Madam Speaker, if you cast your mind back to yesterday, you will recall there was actually a lot more barracking during answers than during questions. I think members who are relatively new members cannot remember the days when there was some balance in this House between Government and Opposition, and Government members were allowed to interject regularly, and there was what, I think, was generally regarded as a free and even flow. That has tightened up in recent years. Following a request, there has been some balance restored, and I think it now behoves both sides of the House to decide whether that balance comes down to a level that is reasonable or not.

But I want to make it clear that as far as I am concerned, and many Government members are concerned, if allegations of corruptness are used against us, then we will tell the truth about members opposite.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their comments. I did, of course, consult widely before the last ruling was made, and it was made in the context, as I have said before, that all members in this House should be free to express themselves, but they should be able to do that in a way that is consistent with other members being heard. That is all that is being sought within this House. As I said, it is for members themselves, also, to take some responsibility for this. In my judgment, often the answers follow the questions, as well, and I do intend, in respect of both questions and answers, to make them as consistent with the Standing Orders as is humanly possible.

Housing—Replies to Questions

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall I wrote to you on a matter of privilege to do with the Minister of Housing. I thank you for your reply to that. I also wrote you a second letter regarding the ongoing habit of my receiving misleading answers on housing questions, and the media receiving different answers from those given to myself. One was on hui and whānau, where the Minister replied that he could not collate the information for me over 5 working days, but he gave it to the media, when they asked for it, within hours. Another was where the media were given corrected answers to a parliamentary question on State house income earnings, but I did not receive a corrected reply for 3 weeks. Another was on declared boarder numbers, where the Minister told the media there were 1,000 boarders, then told this House there were 7,000 boarders.

I wonder when I will get a reply on that particular complaint about my receiving wrong, incorrect information from the Minister of Housing, and the media receiving different information from the Minister of Housing or receiving it in a more timely manner.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member is aware, that is not a point of order; the member will receive a reply in due course.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Police—Assaults on Officers

1. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: How many stabbing and slashing assaults have been committed on police officers in each year since 1999?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): The number of assaults on police where a stabbing or cutting weapon was used is as follows: 2000, five; 2001, seven; 2002, 17; 2003, 48; 2004, five; and 2005, six.

Ron Mark: Why, after the Commissioner of Police said that he would resign if front-line officers were not equipped with stab-resistant body armour in the last financial year, are front-line officers still waiting for their personal stab-proof vests to be issued?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am advised that the police would have dearly loved to roll out the stab-resistant vests to all front-line officers by now, but unfortunately there have been delays in manufacturing with regard to the UV protection quality in the fabric. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rob Pope, is meeting with the manufacturers to ensure there are no more delays.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that, according to internal budget documents, stab-resistant vests for new police officers will not be available until the 2007-08 financial year; if so, what input did New Zealand First and Ron Mark have in negotiating a budget package for new front-line cops that sees them go without this protection for at least a year?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can assure the member that New Zealand First had no input into a decision to roll out stab-proof vests for police officers, just as the Minister did not.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister seen reports that suggest that, aside from the explanation she has been given from head office today, the delay in the issue of the vests has been caused also by cosmetic changes to the design requested by New Zealand Police head office—changes that should have been made right at the outset when the contract was let, and that front-line officers argue are totally unnecessary and not worth the risks they pose through the delay?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have been advised that there has been no change in the colour of the vests—which I believe was an issue that had been raised by the association. There has been a decision after the trial that there will be no reflector on the vests, either. My understanding is that the delay is to do with the fabric.

Ron Mark: Has the Minister seen these photographs I have, which show the level of damage that can be inflicted by a knife-wielding assailant on a police officer who was not wearing a stab-resistant vest, despite the officer in these photographs being highly trained in hand-to-hand combat; and can the Minister tell the House when will we see issued the stab-resistant vests that were promised to front-line officers?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I thank the member for taking an interest in this issue, rather than just grandstanding, and say to the member that I am unable to give him an exact date of when the stab-resistant vests will be available. I hope they are available as soon as possible. The delay, I understand, was unavoidable. We need them as soon as possible—I do not like to see those kinds of photographs of our officers, who put themselves in harm’s way every day of the week on behalf of New Zealanders.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a photograph depicting back wounds suffered by an American police officer who was attacked by a knife-wielding assailant.

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

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that we are in the middle of a point of order. People are warned.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In light of the objections raised earlier by the leader of the National Party about interjections during the asking of questions, the blatant disregarding of the Standing Orders just then—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I have ruled on that. Mr Mark, would you please just proceed.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table a photograph of a chest wound suffered by a police officer, which was caused by a knife-wielding assailant.

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

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table another photo showing a wound to the side of a police officer, which was caused by a knife-wielding assailant. All of those injuries were inflicted on an officer who was not wearing a stab-resistant vest.

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

Gerry Brownlee: Do we know the source of the photos?

Madam SPEAKER: What is the source of the photos? Could the member please enlighten us?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask the member, to make it efficient, simply to advise the House whether these are New Zealand police officers or whether these photographs are from overseas.

Madam SPEAKER: The member did say US, as I heard him, but if he wishes to clarify—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Then I object, because they are not relevant to New Zealand.

Madam SPEAKER: Would Mr Mark please clarify whether all of the photos are from the United States.

Ron Mark: All these photos are from the United States. The injuries were suffered by an American police officer who was attacked with a knife.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we have got ourselves into a bit of a pickle here. You asked whether there was objection to at least one of the photos, and there was none. Members cannot retrospectively withdraw leave.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you for that. I agree with that. Members should object at the time.

Hone Harawira: Given that the Tasers are to be deployed in areas of high Māori population, what role have police iwi liaison officers had in developing the Taser trial and hosting consultation meetings in the target communities; if they were not involved, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I understand that police liaison officers were involved in the policy development. I do not believe that the liaison officers were, at a local iwi level, involved with local Māori.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like some clarification as to whether Dr Nick Smith would object to me tabling later on a photograph of a New Zealand police officer who was stabbed with a screwdriver.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. We are trying to get some order in this House.

Speech from the Throne—Political Integrity of Parliament and Electoral Process

2. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement in the Speech from the Throne in 1999 that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, by keeping our promises—not like National in the 1990s.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Prime Minister explain why she refused to meet with the Auditor-General when he was drafting his June 2005 report into Government and parliamentary publicity and advertising; and did that have anything to do with her locked-in plans to use over $446,000 of parliamentary funding to pay for the now infamous pledge card?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As the member is well aware, the Auditor-General wrote to the two major party leaders asking whether they or their representative would be available for a meeting. My able representative Mr Mallard met with the Auditor-General.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister believe that public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process is enhanced when a political party can secretly accept “cash for policy” arrangements through trusts that keep the identity of large corporate donors anonymous, as National did at the last election?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Indeed, I do not think that confidence can be maintained. I look forward to the National Party’s support for clamping down on anonymous donations. I understand that in Australia everything over $250 has to be declared. That sounds like a good idea to me.

Gerry Brownlee: If the ridiculous assertions by Mr Goff were to stand, what conclusion would the Prime Minister expect the public to draw from Labour receiving donations from the unions to focus on employment law, from Toll NZ to give it cheap access to the rail track and a cash deal for its business, from WestpacTrust in order to get the Government’s banking business, and from the various “cash for policy” deals that we know it has done with regard to the eight anonymous donations the Labour Party took during the last election campaign?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would like to know what the privatised accident compensation policy was worth. I would like to know what a policy that promised billions of dollars to private insurance companies was worth to the National Party. I would like to know what the tax exiles paid the National Party. I would like to know what other big corporates paid the National Party. I would like to know why Gerry Brownlee was not told that Don Brash was meeting with the Exclusive Brethren. There are a lot of things I would like to know about National Party funding, because that is where corruption comes in.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is it the Prime Minister’s practice to take appointments with chinless scarf-wearers out of her diary after they have been put in there, as Dr Brash ordered to be done in his diary?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Indeed, I do understand—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Firstly, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for Dr Brash’s diary. Secondly, that is a total lie on the part of Trevor Mallard, and is a fictitious assertion. Frankly, such assertions from a Cabinet Minister do not enhance the reputation of this Parliament or the Labour Party one little bit.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Madam Speaker, I ask first that you deal with the comment that the member made, and then can we come back to the substance of the point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry; I am not quite sure—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The unparliamentary allegation that he made during his point or order.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, but I did not actually—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, it may be the practice to call people liars here in the House far too often, but I would like that to be dealt with first.

Madam SPEAKER: Right, yes; I am sorry. In relation to the allegation that was made, would the member please withdraw and apologise for that particular bit. I then also want to deal with the member’s “chinless” whatevers, as well, which seemed to me to be completely irrelevant to the question.

Gerry Brownlee: Thank you, Madam Speaker, but for obvious reasons you do not have to protect me from being accused of being chinless. I offer to withdraw and apologise for that remark.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you for that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The substantive question, and of course—

Madam SPEAKER: No. I think the “chinless” remark—withdraw that, please.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am happy to. I withdraw.

Madam SPEAKER: And the purpose of that, if I may say this to members, is that we would be able to maintain better order if people did not put into their questions and answers those sorts of innuendos.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Continuing with the point of order, I say that it is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to have responsibility for her diary, and that is what the question was about. Gerry Brownlee, during the campaign, was misled by Don Brash with regard to the Exclusive Brethren—

Madam SPEAKER: No. That is not part of the point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard:—and he cannot answer for Don Brash now.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The first part of the question was in order—the part about the Prime Minister’s diary—but the second part was not. So would the Prime Minister please address the first part.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand that indeed Dr Brash did meet with the Exclusive Brethren, against the advice of staff, but his concession was to take the meeting out of the diary so that Gerry Brownlee did not know about it—and Gerry did not know until Don fessed up.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated, Prime Minister. That did not, in fact, address the first part of the question. We will now move on.

Gerry Brownlee: What is the Prime Minister’s response to today’s New Zealand Herald editorial, which tells the Government that “It must pay the bill and call it a salutary lesson in the limits to which the public will pay for political puff.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Surprisingly, that particular document has not passed my eyes yet. But I want to say—because, unlike the National Party, I do not rush off to have my prejudices confirmed by the New Zealand Herald—we are awaiting a final report and, further, we are very busy with campaign law reform to stop National rorting elections through covert funding. We will be going to the parties with proposals that clamp down on anonymous donations of the kind National received, because we believe that is where corruption enters into politics.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister believe that the political integrity of Parliament is enhanced if a leader can get up in this House and say he did not get a dime from the Exclusive Brethren, when I have in my hand a document from the Exclusive Brethren that reads as follows: “Accordingly, we have put together an election programme”—with a budget of $1.2 million—“with the goal of getting party votes for National, as this is the only way change will come about.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Obviously, such actions by political parties do nothing for confidence in Parliament, and it is impossible to believe that that pamphlet was not prepared with the help of National Party members. It may be that they never told Gerry Brownlee about it, but it was prepared with their help. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I must say, observing the House, that the comments did come from that side, this time, so I ask members on that side of the House to please allow the rest of us to hear the answers.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was all out of order, anyway.

Madam SPEAKER: It was not out of order, I say to Dr Smith. The question was about the political integrity of Parliament.

Gerry Brownlee: Who was responsible for the $446,000 rort of taxpayer funds: the Prime Minister or the Hon Trevor Mallard?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Labour played by the same rules as Bill English did when issuing his pledge card, and what is good enough for Bill is good enough for others. National played by the rules then; we play by the rules now.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Prime Minister been made aware of section 214B of the Electoral Act, which gives a particular description to the practice of knowingly exceeding campaign spending limits, and can she deny to this House that she played a part in the Labour Party’s decision to overspend by a million dollars on advertising in the last 2 weeks of the election campaign, so breaching the electoral cap and section 214B of the Electoral Act?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There was an allegation in that question that was unparliamentary, and I ask you to rule it out. The idea that people knowingly breached the law is absolutely incorrect, and criminal activity cannot be alleged by way of questions.

Madam SPEAKER: I understand the point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: My question asked whether the Prime Minister was aware of section 214B of the Electoral Act, which gives a particular description to the practice of knowingly exceeding campaign spending limits. That is in the Electoral Act; I am not making it up. It is not unparliamentary, surely, to read the laws of this country in Parliament. We know that the Labour Party is particularly upset by this particular incident. We are staggered that it does not fix it by simply paying the money back.

Madam SPEAKER: I am not sure that the allegation that was made ruled that question out of order, but unfortunately it was difficult to see where ministerial responsibility lay. Perhaps the member would like to rephrase the question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Prime Minister could answer a question—as you have just told the House—from Mr Goff because it was about the integrity of Parliament, then surely it would be OK to ask the Prime Minister about her knowledge of the Electoral Act, which puts Parliament together in the first place. How can it be some sort of an allegation against the Prime Minister to ask her whether she knows what that particular section of the Act states?

Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility for delivering seminars on the Electoral Act to Opposition members.

Madam SPEAKER: Nor for giving legal opinions. I think the member may like to rephrase his question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have not asked for a legal opinion. I have asked whether the Prime Minister is aware of that section. We know that the Prime Minister spent $446,000 of her leader’s budget on this pledge card. We know that you have ruled that we cannot ask her about that as the leader of the Labour Party. But the issue has gone well beyond that. We have had some days of questioning on this, where the issue has not been affected. I think the precedent is set. It is not unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister what she knew of the spending. That is the heart of this question. If the answer was “I knew nothing.”, that would be interesting. But if it was “I knew something.”, then I think that takes us into different territory. It may be that this question is too hard for the Prime Minister to answer. It may be that it is too difficult for the Prime Minister to answer.

Madam SPEAKER: The member is now giving a speech. [Interruption] I am about to help the member, I hope. Would Mr Brownlee like to put his question again, so that I can judge it.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Prime Minister been made aware that section 214B of the Electoral Act gives a particular description to the practice of knowingly exceeding the campaign spending limit, and can she deny to this House that she played a part in the Labour Party’s decision to spend over a million dollars on advertising in the last 2 weeks of the election campaign, so breaching the electoral spending cap and section 214B of the Electoral Act?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 371(1)(b), which states that questions must be concise and not contain, inter alia, inference or imputation.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for drawing that to the attention of all members of the House, but I would ask the Prime Minister to address the first part of that question, please.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No major party sets out to break the law—no more than the National Party did in 2002 with this commitment card I am holding. I want to say that the only knowing avoidance of election law was the National Party’s dodging of $1.2 million from the Exclusive Brethren spent on a political campaign—and I say to Mr Key that I would be careful if I were him, because he met with them and he did part of the deal. [Interruption]

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Was that barracking, or what was it—just for the sake of the record?

Madam SPEAKER: It was from all members, Mr Brownlee—from all members.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is the Prime Minister so reluctant to indicate whether she was party to the decision to spend $446,000 of taxpayers’ funds on the Labour Party election campaign?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There are very good precedents for issuing pledge cards. Look at it—no rule changes. It was the same rule and the same practice, but National had so much secret money from big funders it did not touch it this time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Prime Minister been advised by the Minister of Finance or any other responsible Minister of an offer from the Hon Bill English to refund the hundreds of thousands of dollars spend in 2002?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, because I understand that the Hon Bill English, in good faith, believed it was within the rules—just as Labour played within the rules all the way through.

Accident Compensation—Changes to System

3. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Has she received any reports regarding potential changes to New Zealand’s ACC system?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): Yes, I have. I have read recently of a policy release from the National Party—shocking though that might seem. It is a rerun of its 1990s accident compensation privatisation agenda—

Madam SPEAKER: I am asking Ministers not to make these statements, please. Just answer the question.

Hon RUTH DYSON: It is a rerun of its 1990s accident compensation privatisation agenda. [Interruption] Either it is driven by pure ideology or it is the price that the National Party has to pay for anonymous campaign funding from the insurance industry.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you going to allow the last part of the answer to that question to stand?

Madam SPEAKER: I wish I could have heard it, Mr Brownlee. Would the Minister please repeat the answer, but more concisely, so that I can know whether it was in order.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. The accident compensation privatisation agenda is either driven by pure ideology or is the price the National Party has to pay for anonymous campaign funding from the insurance industry.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister should not have made that last comment about the National Party, now that I can hear the answer. [Interruption] There has been a request for the Minister to withdraw just that last remark, so would the Minister please do so.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although inferences are not to be drawn from questions, it has always been within the rights of members of this House, both during question time and a debate, to speculate on the reasons for parties making particular decisions. The Minister speculated that the very large donations made anonymously by the insurance companies to the National Party were a reason for that. [Interruption] Well, we are told that that was the case. Gerry Brownlee, who claims he does not know what is happening in the National Party, cannot deny it.

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind the front bench on the Opposition side of the House that most of its members would have been ordered out for intervening on a point of order. But the point of order went beyond making a point of order and into making comments. So I ask members to please observe the Standing Orders. The last part of the Minister’s question was ruled out of order. Mr Brownlee, I think we will leave the matter there. It was not a personal reflection.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: But you asked—

Madam SPEAKER: Please, Dr Smith. The second part of the Minister’s answer was out of order, because it related to a party matter. The matter should be left there. It was not a personal reflection; it strayed beyond a legitimate answer.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know how challenging this is becoming for you these days, with the level of interjection and barracking. The problem that has been raised by the alternative parties—ACT, United Future, and New Zealand First—is how difficult we are finding it to hear answers given by Ministers. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of control there appears to be. This afternoon there have been interjections by National Party members on three points of order, the last of which was when you yourself were on your feet. Rather than put your foot down firmly and demand the sort of order that Mr Brownlee was requesting earlier today, you have again shown leniency and again allowed those National Party members to remain. I simply ask, Madam Speaker, in the interests of the alternate parties at least getting to know what is happening in this House, hearing, and being able to participate, that some even-handedness be applied across the House, and where people like Dr Lockwood Smith seek to interject on a point of order, that they be ejected from the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments. I did rule on that matter. I ask all members, when they are making points of order, to ensure that they are in fact points of order, not speeches, and that they are made concisely.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to ask about your ruling on this particular matter. It seems that you are not requiring the Minister to withdraw that comment, on the basis that it was not personally directed and, therefore, it was difficult to take offence. It was not difficult for us to take offence, in that regard, because there was a degree of recklessness with the truth behind that particular statement.

Madam SPEAKER: In the interests of moving on, would the Minister please withdraw and apologise for that last remark.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I withdraw and apologise, Madam Speaker.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The last expression used by Gerry Brownlee has been repeatedly ruled out by Speakers, and I ask that it be withdrawn and apologised for.

Madam SPEAKER: Would you please withdraw and apologise, Mr Brownlee.

Gerry Brownlee: That puts me in a difficult position, because if I had not put it to you in that way, I suspect you would not have asked the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think you need to speculate on what I may or may not have done. In the interests of moving on, would you please withdraw and apologise.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Georgina Beyer: Has the Minister received any other reports regarding potential changes to New Zealand’s world-class accident compensation system?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. I have seen a memo from the chief executive of the Insurance Council of New Zealand, which refers to the National Party’s announcement last year that it intended to privatise accident compensation. It states: “The details of the policy have been deliberately kept out of the announcement after consultation with the Insurance Council.”

Georgina Beyer: Has she received any reports regarding the effects of those potential changes to New Zealand’s world-class accident compensation system?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I have seen numerous reports from New Zealand and overseas that show that our accident compensation scheme is a world leader in every respect. Many New Zealanders, including private businesses, would pay higher levies under a private scheme. In other words, New Zealanders would end up paying for the National Party promise to repay the insurance companies for any funding donations.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister for ACC turned a blind eye to the appalling accident record of Toll Holdings Ltd because of the huge political donation it made to the Labour Party in return not only for her turning a blind eye but for the Prime Minister accepting a huge cash sum, as well as providing it with cash for the railway line and very cheap access to the rail corridor?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to the Standing Order I referred you to earlier. Clearly, the Prime Minister would never receive a cash donation.

Madam SPEAKER: I think we will call that a marginal call and I will permit the question.

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member’s question demonstrated his total ignorance of the way the Accident Compensation Corporation’s no-fault scheme operates. That is further compounded by the fact that the Occupational Safety and Health Service investigates all injuries, including those of Toll. I seek the leave of the House to table the memo of the Chief Executive of the Insurance Council of New Zealand, Chris Ryan, about the Insurance Council’s involvement with the National Party accident compensation privatisation policy.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Was there objection? Perhaps members would like to be silent while these matters are being dealt with, because when they are having conversations it is sometimes difficult to know whether they are objecting.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Was there any objection?

Madam SPEAKER: There was no objection.

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

Immigration Service—Operational Arms

4. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Which specific offices, teams, or sections of the New Zealand Immigration Service or the wider Department of Labour was he referring to yesterday when he told the House that information regarding the involvement of Thai nationals with Taito Phillip Field was passed on “through to the operational arms of the department.”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): The relevant sections were the department’s border security group and service international group.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the director of the Pacific division received information on 4 May 2005 about Thai nationals working for free on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa in return for work visas in New Zealand, and what did the director of the Pacific division do with that information?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, because he is a member of the department’s service international group.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does he confirm, as he told the House yesterday, that the Pacific division received further information emailed by the Apia branch manager, Mr James Dalmer, dated 10 May 2005, spelling out the fact that Thais were working for no pay on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa; and precisely what did the Pacific division do with that information?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, and the director of the Pacific division recalls that he attempted to pass it on to the Minister’s private secretary. However, the Ingram report concludes that in all likelihood it was not passed to the Minister.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the director of the Pacific division received still further information on 27 May 2005 about the involvement of Taito Phillip Field’s ministerial office in the cases of Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm; and what did the director of the Pacific division do with that further information?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, and I believe I have already answered exactly the same question on 24 August 2006.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that the team leader of the short-term overstayers compliance team and the team leader of the failed refugee compliance team both received information on 27 May 2005 that Taito Phillip Field’s ministerial office had requested the amount of the removal costs for Ms Phanngarm, and that Mr Siriwan was living with Ms Phanngarm in Samoa; and what did those team leaders do with that information?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, they are part of the divisions to which I referred yesterday and earlier in this question, and, yes, they assumed that the director of the Pacific division was conveying that information to the Minister’s office, so far as we can tell from the Ingram report.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: In relation to the Minister’s telling the House yesterday—and repeated today—that the manager of the Pacific division had attempted to pass through to the Minister’s office the information received from the immigration intelligence unit on 9 June about the involvement of Taito Phillip Field with Mr Siriwan and Ms Phanngarm in Samoa, how and on what date was that attempt made by the manager of the Pacific division?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I have previously said, the department has accepted that its procedures could have been strengthened; in particular, the information in question was not placed in the usual system that supported the Associate Minister’s decision making.

Rates—Independent Inquiry

5. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Local Government: What progress has he made on establishing the “independent inquiry into issues around local government rates funding” that he announced on 23 August?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): The Government is discussing the terms of reference for the inquiry with a range of parties and consultation is progressing well.

Rodney Hide: Which political parties has the Minister consulted with on the terms of reference for this inquiry, and on what dates?

Hon MARK BURTON: Between myself and officials, or staff from our party, there have been a number of consultations. I do not have the dates with me, but I am happy to supply them. In fact, we are meeting, one way or another, with any party that has expressed an interest—[Interruption] including, I say to Dr Smith, Mr Carter from his own party later today. Unfortunately, the ACT party has not expressed any interest in having a meeting.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister assure the ratepayers of New Zealand that the inquiry will in fact deal with the issues that concern them, unlike Mr Hide’s poorly drafted bill, which pandered to popularism but provided no real solutions?

Hon MARK BURTON: Indeed, and that is entirely why those parties that have a genuine interest are being consulted with, and I particularly refer to the member’s own—unlike Mr Hide’s bill, which, as the member said, would have resulted in communities facing a decline in infrastructure over time, had it progressed.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that as we approach the end of cheap oil it is important that the rates inquiry examines the amount that local government and therefore ratepayers are having to spend on public transport, and the need for more central government assistance for public transport infrastructure; and can he confirm that this important issue will be considered in the forthcoming inquiry?

Hon MARK BURTON: I can confirm to the member that it is important that pertinent issues relating to local government funding are addressed in the inquiry, which is exactly why we are consulting parties such as the Greens, New Zealand First, United Future, and so on, on this important matter.

Mark Blumsky: Will the independent inquiry into issues around local government rates funding investigate the effect of Government-imposed compliance costs on rate increases, given comments made by the Vice-President of Local Government New Zealand, the Mayor of Wellington, Kerry Prendergast, that it has a huge impact and that those compliance costs have placed a huge burden on some local authorities, and given the evaluation of the Wellington City Council on costs imposed by central government of, just to name two, $1.75 million for the Building Act and $220,000 for the Dog Control Act?

Hon MARK BURTON: I would respond to the member by saying that a factual analysis of the long-term community plan shows that 70 percent of the expected expenditure will go on core infrastructure and a further 18 percent will go on core community amenities. I have to say that, of the supposed list of Acts that have brought such costs to local government—and that is typical of the misinformation we have seen from that member’s party—as I pointed out yesterday, some 28 of them carry no cost at all. I refer to legislation such as the amendment to the Dog Control Act, which included hearing-ear dogs and allows dogs that provide safety assistance for the Deaf to be in places where dogs are normally not allowed. That is the sort of measure that that member’s party seems to be criticising, when, in fact, the legislation is a response to the stated needs of the community, and often of local government itself.

Mark Blumsky: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question concerned the independent inquiry into issues, not the spending that came out of the long-term council community plan process, and at no stage did the Minister raise or address the issue of the inquiry.

Madam SPEAKER: But your supplementary question did raise those matters, and in all supplementary questions when a member raises more than one thought, it is for the Minister to select the thought to address in that question. So I am sorry, but that is not a valid point of order.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that it is unfair that State highways—for example, Wellington’s inner-city bypass, whose sole purpose is to move Wellingtonians who drive cars a few hundred metres—are 100 percent funded by central government but that, say, improving the rail services on the Kapiti line has to be 50 percent funded by local ratepayers; and can he therefore assure the House that this blatant inequity in local government transport funding will be considered in the upcoming inquiry?

Hon MARK BURTON: It would hardly be credible of me to assure the member of every detail of the inquiry while we are still engaging in good-faith consultation with the parties. But I can assure the member that that process will provide the opportunity, as it is doing already, for parties to put forward their particular concerns that are relevant to the purpose of the inquiry.

Rodney Hide: What is the timetable for announcing the terms of reference, and who will be conducting this well-thought-through, principled inquiry, which is designed to deliver real gains for ratepayers up and down New Zealand, or is the Minister not sufficiently organised to even tell us when he will have the terms of reference done?

Hon MARK BURTON: I anticipate that part of the process for the terms of reference will be complete this month, but it is important not to put an artificial deadline on something as important as this when we are committed to consulting properly with a range of parties.

R Doug Woolerton: Did the Minister read any reports or media statements where Mr Hide acknowledged that his recent member’s bill was an inadequate attempt to address the issues behind rates increases, stating: “I do not pretend that my bill has all the answers.”?

Hon MARK BURTON: Yes, I did read such a report, and I can say only that on this rare occasion I have to agree with that member.

Waiting Lists—Removal of Patients

6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: How many patients so far this calendar year have been returned to their general practitioners for ongoing care from first specialist assessment waiting lists and hospital booking system waiting lists, and how many more patients does he expect to be removed from these waiting lists before 30 September 2006?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Over 555,000 people receive either elective or specialist treatment every year. An additional 3 to 5 percent are sent back to their general practitioners. That will be the case for the calendar year through to September 2006.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister seen the open letter from 74 of the Canterbury region’s 80 surgeons criticising the Government’s waiting list policy, which states that compliance with the Government directive “will deny many of our surgical patients the benefits of modern surgery and force them to continue to live with worsening disabilities and in some cases undiagnosed and untreated conditions including tumours that will lead to premature death.”; and does he not realise that it is absolutely unprecedented to have virtually every surgeon in a district health board come out and warn the Government that under its waiting list policies, patients will die?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of the views of those surgeons. I am also aware that the Canterbury District Health Board has acknowledged that it could have handled the process better. It has apologised and it has committed an additional $2 million to elective surgery in the next year.

Sue Moroney: Has the Minister seen any reports on the results of patients being returned to their general practitioners for an updated assessment of their condition?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes, I have seen reports that people receiving an updated assessment from their general practitioners has meant that thousands of people have been booked for treatment within 6 months. In Hawke’s Bay, for example, 800 people were given certainty that they would either be seen by a specialist or get surgery. In Nelson-Marlborough, around 200 people were given that certainty.

Barbara Stewart: Has the Ministry of Health considered the likely effects of the current trend to reassessment on overworked and understaffed general practices, and how this constant recycling of patients may affect the recruitment and retention of general practitioners?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We have been very aware of the situation with general practitioners. That is why the previous Minister, the Hon Annette King, increased the number of placements at medical schools in order to increase the number of people training. A huge amount of money has been put into primary care to acknowledge the pressure on general practitioners, and to put in place preventive measures that, over time, will reduce the pressure not only on general practitioners but on the hospital system.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister going to take any notice of the fact that 74 of the 80 surgeons at the Canterbury District Health Board have this morning released a letter that warns the Government that its waiting list policy will see people die; does that not expose the fact that this Government’s waiting list cull is nothing other than a cynical, political ploy of data cleansing?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: As I said to that member before, I acknowledge that those are the views of those surgeons. The Canterbury District Health Board has acknowledged that it could have handled the situation better, has apologised, and has committed $2 million more into elective surgery for the next year.

Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister aware of the memo written by a Canterbury District Health Board manager, and leaked to the press, stating that for every culled patient returned to hospital care, another must be axed, and does he consider this revolving door approach to patient care satisfactory?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have not seen that memo and I would dispute that it is a replacement of “one-on, one-off”. The acting chief executive officer, Karleen Edwards, has also said that the health board is working with general practitioners, hospital doctors, and primary health organisations on the process of again referring people into the hospital system.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is the Minister gloating about 200 extra operations when the doctors of Canterbury have already identified over 500 patients who were culled from waiting lists and who urgently need to have their operations dealt with; and is it not time that the Government realised that it has gone past the stage where it can keep defending this data cleansing of patients, and that it should put its money where the operations should be?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We have increased funding for health from $6.6 billion under the previous National Government to over $10.6 billion. We have committed a huge amount of money to the health system. We believe that the booking system introduced by the previous National Government should be a fairer, more honest, and more transparent system, and that is why these changes are being made.

Hon Tony Ryall: What responsibility will this Minister take when it is his waiting list cull, it is his threats of financial penalties, and it is his pressure for district health boards to meet political ends; and why will he not act, now that the surgeons are telling him that he is letting people die?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I do not accept the wisdom of the words of that member at all, but I do accept the fact that the district health board has acted, has apologised, and has committed $2 million more in funding to assist the people on the waiting list in Canterbury.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Can the Minister explain why it is that, despite the population of Greater Auckland increasing by 160,000 over the past 5 years, there were fewer elective operations performed in the region this year than last, and there were fewer performed last year than 5 years ago; and should we not be seeing more elective surgery as the population grows, rather than fewer?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The answer is yes to the member’s last assertion. He may not have noticed that in Auckland there has been a brand-new hospital built and that the Auckland District Health Board has been shifted into that hospital. We accept that surgery has not been what it should be. It has improved over the last year and we expect that it will continue to improve.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table two documents. One is an apology from the Canterbury District Health Board for the fact that patients have been culled from a hospital waiting list without a specialist being involved.

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

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a letter from 74 of the 80 surgeons in the Canterbury District Health Board that warns the Government that under its waiting list policy, patients will die.

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

Universities and Research Institutes—Access to Infrastructure

7. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What is the Government doing to ensure New Zealand universities and research institutes have access to world-class infrastructure?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): Last week the Government launched the Advanced Network, which is a super - high speed Internet 40,000 times faster than the conventional Internet. It will link universities and research organisations here and around the world. The Government is investing $43 million in this major piece of infrastructure. Our scientists can now deal with their data in real time and in large amounts. I welcomed the attendance of National’s communications spokesperson, Maurice Williamson, at the launch. In doing so, he acknowledged the importance of this piece of infrastructure.

Moana Mackey: What other investments is the Government making to transform New Zealand’s economy through science, and what reports has the Minister received of support for those investments?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Government invests around $640 million a year in research and science through the science portfolio alone, which is a 65 percent increase since 1999. Although that spending has been widely supported, unfortunately we do not enjoy the support of the National Party’s spokesperson on this sector, Dr Paul Hutchison, who made a joke of himself in Queenstown last week when he chose to attack Labour’s science policy.

Madam SPEAKER: I have asked Ministers not to make those kinds of comments. Mr Maharey, please withdraw that comment about the member.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I withdraw.

Dr Paul Hutchison: How can the Minister expect New Zealand universities and research institutions to carry out world-class research, when the regulatory environment imposed by this Government around biological science is such that the chief executive officer of HortResearch said only 7 days ago: “In reality, the costs mean this won’t happen in New Zealand and the opportunity for world leadership here in New Zealand is lost.”

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I expect our science institutions to do science consistent with biosecurity and biodiversity, but I also expect them to be able to get an idea from the Opposition spokesperson, who likes to criticise these things, of such basic things as how much money he would spend on science.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What is the Minister doing to ensure that New Zealanders who are doing research into promising marine energy technology, such as tidal currents and waves, have access to world-class infrastructure for testing their machines and their integration into the grid, given New Zealand’s urgent need for more renewable electricity generation?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member may like to know that one of what are called the road maps for major areas of science being prepared by the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology—and, hopefully, it will be delivered around the end of November—will be on energy, and that it will look at those kinds of renewable resources, like marine energy. Hopefully, it will be a point of discussion for the member, because we do need to resolve those kinds of issues—and fund them—going forward.

State Houses—Sale and Disposal

8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Why did Housing New Zealand Corporation dispose of 420 houses, including 149 by sale, in the 2002-03 financial year, 563 in 2003-04 and 510 in 2004-05; and what is the Government’s policy on the sale and disposal of State houses?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): As part of normal business, Housing New Zealand Corporation disposes of properties which become vacant in areas of low demand, when leasing arrangements with private owners expire, or when houses are demolished or shifted for redevelopment. Some were also destroyed by fire. Throughout the last 7 years under Labour, the total number of State houses has significantly increased. Unlike the National Party, this Government does not have a policy of selling State houses while we have families in urgent need of secure accommodation.

Phil Heatley: What are the Minister’s plans for the $520,000 State house in Invercargill, the $690,000 State house in Christchurch, and the State house in Auckland worth $2 million, so that we get more State houses in those cities for the same investment?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The value of those State houses is in the land they sit on, not the homes themselves. The Government has asked the Housing New Zealand Corporation, as a prudent landlord, to actively look at each of those high-value properties when they become vacant to determine whether the property should be sold, with the proceeds reinvested in new houses elsewhere; whether the site has redevelopment potential and can accommodate more houses on it; or whether we should rent the house to a new tenant.

H V Ross Robertson: What steps has the Government taken to increase the number of State homes?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Since the change of Government in 1999 we have added more than 6,000 homes to the State housing stock, and 827 homes since the last election. We still have a long way to go to recover the 13,000 houses that National sold during the 1990s—13,000 houses sold mostly to speculators.

Barbara Stewart: Does the Minister agree with the assessment contained in New Zealand’s History Online that sales of State houses “skyrocketed during the 1990s, fuelled by National’s desire to reduce the state housing stock”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I do, and I remind the House that most of those houses were not sold to tenants but to speculators.

Phil Heatley: Why are thousands of needy Auckland families allowed to languish on the waiting list while three lucky Auckland families enjoy State houses worth well over $1.4 million, and one very lucky tenant lives under a $2 million roof?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I remind the House that that member’s party sold 13,000 houses. I am amazed it missed those three.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am afraid that it is a predictable point of order, it is just to say that I could not hear the latter part of the Minister’s answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister address the question.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am surprised the National Party missed the three houses that the member quoted.

H V Ross Robertson: How was the Government’s policy on the sale of State houses developed?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Government worked with community organisations and churches to develop our housing policy because we were forced to pick up the pieces for shattered families locked out of State houses by market rents and an aggressive sell-off of State houses. I can only speculate as to how much influence property speculators had in the development of National’s housing policy—perhaps it was more “cash for policy”!

Phil Heatley: With the Minister having been in Government for 7 years now and the waiting list at 14,000, why does he not better arrange the housing stock and get more houses for his bucks if he really cares about low-income people?

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members that they ask questions, and they do not preface them with statements.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We would have 13,000 of those families or individuals off the list if National had not sold off the houses.

Phil Heatley: Does not the idea of trading in grossly high-value houses for higher numbers of respectable but average-priced houses fit in with what the Minister is already doing, given that the Minister disposes of 400 State houses year in, year out for all sorts of reasons, and why does he not trade up the $2 million one?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The member clearly was not listening to my earlier answers when I said that we would look at it as those houses become vacant. I remind the member that the 400 houses he refers to could be many, many hundreds of kilometres from Auckland. Some of them have burnt down, and some of them were leases we have terminated because they were owned by private landlords. Once again the member does not have his facts right.

Phil Heatley: What confidence should needy families on the waiting list have in this Minister’s conscience, when he accepts State house tenants who are earning $95,000-plus after tax, tenants who are running boarding houses with five, six, and seven boarders, tenants who vandalise State property, and now other tenants who are enjoying the comfort of million-dollar homes?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: What an astonishingly short memory that member has. Market renters entered State houses under the period of the National Government. The $2 million house that the member quoted a few minutes ago was tenanted 8 years ago, under a National Government.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table question for written answer No. 11513, which shows the valuation of State housing across the country.

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

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the three last annual reports of the Housing New Zealand Corporation, which show it sells 500 houses year in and year out.

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

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the State house waiting list, which is now at 14,500 across the country.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I seek leave to table a press release from my office, which illustrates that National sold 13,000 houses during its period in office.

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

Cluster Bombs—Controls

9. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What steps will New Zealand take to press for the legal regulation of cluster bombs in light of the experience in Lebanon?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): New facts are emerging from the Lebanon on the seriousness of the humanitarian situation that has been created by the use of cluster bombs. These, I believe, give urgency to the need for much stronger international controls over the use of such munitions. I have asked that the New Zealand delegation in Geneva take a lead in calling for strong and legally binding controls to restrict the use of cluster bombs. That message was delivered at a meeting on the inhumane weapons convention that took place in Geneva yesterday.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What information has emerged from the use of cluster munitions in Lebanon?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The latest information I have from the United Nations Mine Action Service is that the situation there is, without a doubt, the worst post-conflict cluster bomb contamination that it has ever had to deal with. The information I gave the House last week was that 10 percent of those bombs did not go off on impact, and were therefore potentially lethal for civilians, particularly children. The latest estimate is that 50 percent are not being detonated on impact, and are there, waiting for an innocent person to come along. There have been, so far, 68 confirmed casualties, 12 of those proving fatal. That is a situation we cannot tolerate. One hundred thousand cluster bomblets are currently estimated to be lying on the ground in places in the Lebanon where people are living today.

Keith Locke: Will the Minister push for a ban on cluster bomb trading, to restrain hold-out countries like the United States from providing these abominable weapons to users like Israel?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Of course, in principle we want to see the total elimination of cluster bombs. There simply is not a majority in the international arena to support that. We are therefore targeting our efforts at goals we think we can achieve, in terms of where those bombs can be used—certainly, excluding civilian areas—and in terms of the use of obsolete weapons. Some of the weapons used in the last 3 days of the war in the Lebanon had a 100 percent failure rate; they were munitions dating from 1973. Clearly, that sort of munition ought also to be banned.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister may have misheard my question, which was about trading, not about the manufacture and possession of cluster bombs. In the small arms area and other areas of arms control, trading is an important target.

Hon PHIL GOFF: What we are seeking to do, working with like-minded countries, is to do the achievable, which is to limit the use and design of cluster bombs. That is a good place to start.

Hon Marian Hobbs: While trying to achieve the achievable, does the Minister think we are going to get any support for our campaign?

Hon PHIL GOFF: There are clearly countries, regrettably, that believe that cluster munitions should be produced, traded, and used in any circumstances. They will not be supportive of what we are trying to do. But we do have a strong group of like-minded countries—the Scandinavian countries and countries like Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Mexico, and Jordan, which hold very similar views to New Zealand. I believe that through our working with these countries, and in the face of the humanitarian crisis obvious to everyone in the Lebanon, the majority of countries will eventually be persuaded to support our point of view.

Child, Youth and Family (CYF)—Associate Minister’s Statement

10. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she stand by her reported statement last week that “police may have become overly cautious and are referring too many family violence cases to the service”?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)): I stand by all my reported comments that were made in the Radio New Zealand interview. It may be that the member’s attention span is such that she did not hear my other comments, including the comment that increased referrals from the police and other agencies were a good thing—

Madam SPEAKER: I have mentioned this before. That was an irrelevant comment. Would the Minister please start again and remove all irrelevant comments from the answer.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I stand by all my reported comments that were made in the Radio New Zealand interview. My other comments included the comment that increased referrals from the police and other agencies were a good thing, but that notification to Child, Youth and Family was not always the best course of action. Sometimes it is better for the child, or the family, to be referred to another agency. The police and Child, Youth and Family are in full agreement on that.

Anne Tolley: On reflection, does she admit that it was irresponsible to suggest that the police are too risk-averse, when reports released today show that police child abuse caseloads have doubled in the past year and the police describe themselves as being swamped?

Hon RUTH DYSON: What I consider to be irresponsible are that member’s press statements, which are factually incorrect, very lazily written, and irresponsible in total. With regard to the police action, I note the comments of the acting deputy commissioner of operations, Peter Marshall, who has stated that in all districts the child abuse systems are being managed appropriately.

Hon Mark Gosche: What is Child, Youth and Family doing to ensure children and families are referred to the most appropriate agencies for help and support?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Child, Youth and Family is working with other agencies, including health, education, and police, to ensure best practice in all its referrals, including those to agencies other than Child, Youth and Family. As the police spokesperson said in the report referred to in the primary question, Child, Youth and Family is working closely with the police to develop a case management process with the result of a sharing of responsibility between a number of agencies. Everyone agrees that that results in better outcomes for children and families.

Judy Turner: Does she agree that most notifications are considered medium to low risk, and that a timely way to respond to those would be to have such cases investigated by competent community agencies through the differential intake model?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I do agree with that, and that is exactly the process that has been introduced into Child, Youth and Family.

Anne Tolley: Would the Minister not rather have 10 overly cautious complaints from the police than have one slip through the cracks, especially in the light of Child, Youth and Family being previously unaware of 80 percent of all child homicide cases?

Hon RUTH DYSON: My preference would be that every suspicion of child abuse was notified to the appropriate agency. If that member had bothered to listen to the whole radio interview, she would know that that was exactly what I said, and she would not have misrepresented my interview in her press statement and again in the House today.

Judy Turner: What progress has the ministry made in the development of the differential intake model proposed by United Future, and where is it at in terms of its implementation?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The differential response model has already begun at sites throughout the country. The legislation to back up that process has yet to be progressed through the House, but I am pleased to report to the member that that will not delay the spreading of the model throughout the entire country. It is a very good model and it is working, and that member should take a lot of credit for its proposal.

Anne Tolley: Why have two recent reports from Child, Youth and Family, one into child homicide and one into increased child abuse notifications, failed to discuss or even acknowledge the number of actual established cases of child abuse, which have increased from 6,000 in 2000 to 13,000 in 2005?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member, yet again, misrepresents facts. Notifications, calls, or referrals are different from actual cases of child abuse.

Anne Tolley: Will the Minister, in order to have meaningful discussions with the cross-party working-group on family violence, produce evidence to the group on the increasing trend of established child abuse, which the two previous reports have omitted; if not, why not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: If the purpose of either of the reports had been to report on that question, then they may have included that, but it was not the purpose of either of the reports.

Anne Tolley: How does the Minister reconcile the statement in the unreleased internal report on notification increases, which states there is no clear evidence that violence, abuse, or neglect overall has changed, with figures that she has released in replies to written questions, which show that cases of established child abuse have risen, from 6,000 in 2000 to 13,000 in 2005?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I do not know whether anybody in the country other than that member thinks that a reduced tolerance of child abuse, and therefore increased notifications, are not good things. I welcome the increased notifications. It is important that our processes ensure that those notifications are made to the appropriate agency.

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table the item in the Dominion Post this morning from the police themselves, stating that they are swamped with child abuse cases.

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

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table a transcript of the item on Morning Report where the Minister says the police are more inclined to refer cases to Child, Youth and Family because they are getting a little risk-averse.

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

Hon RUTH DYSON: I seek leave to table the release from the acting deputy commissioner of operations in the police, stating that the police have systems in place, and that in all districts those systems are being managed appropriately.

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

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table the later release from that very same assistant police commissioner, which states that reported cases of child abuse have doubled in the past year.

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

Drugs—Border Control

11. DIANNE YATES (Labour) to the Minister of Customs: What reports has she received on the success of the Government’s investment in initiatives to reduce drug importations?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs): I have seen a report detailing a significant drug bust by the New Zealand Customs Service netting approximately 5 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine. This has an estimated street value of $5 million. I commend the New Zealand Customs Service, as its work in this area contributes to safer communities for all families, young and old.

Dianne Yates: How is the Government’s investment in this area reflected in the Customs Service’s drug seizures?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: This year there have been 42 significant drugs seizures by the Customs Service and 36 arrests, all of which have proceeded to prosecution. In the calendar year to date, the New Zealand Customs Service has seized up to 110 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine and in excess of 1.38 million capsules of precursor substance used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The Government has made a significant investment in tackling drug problems, from reducing supply and demand to community programmes, increased law enforcement powers, and continued information-sharing methods, to name but a few measures.

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): I seek leave to table a document from the Housing New Zealand Corporation showing that the statement made by National’s housing spokesperson, Mr Phil Heatley, in this House this afternoon that there are 14,000 people on the corporation’s waiting list is incorrect. In fact, there are 11,651—which, of course is fewer than the 13,000 National sold off.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon Member: There is.

Madam SPEAKER: There is objection? Thank you. As I have said, if members would please be quiet when I am putting the question, it would be a lot easier to hear whether there is any objection. There is objection.

Te Ohu Kai Moana—Appointment of Directors

12. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Did he satisfy himself, when appointing directors of Te Ohu Kai Moana, that they were independent of the Labour Party and the Labour Government; if not, why not?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): No. Appointments are made on the basis of merit.

Gerry Brownlee: If Shane Jones’ position as a member of Parliament and as chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana does not involve a conflict of interest, why did the Prime Minister summon him to her office about 12 months ago and tell him that she did not expect him to be in that position very long, after he had repeatedly told the New Zealand Herald newspaper that he had no intention of giving up the $86,000-a-year job of chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The first question is the relationship between the primary question, which has to do with appointments made by this Minister to that commission, and the supplementary question. Shane Jones, of course, was appointed by the previous National Government.

Gerry Brownlee: Well, I suppose it depends on how you rule, Madam Speaker. I think Mr Mallard is obviously showing some sensitivity here. The reality is that Mr Jones serves on that commission at the behest of the Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is responsible for the appointment, but the Minister is not responsible, and cannot answer for, the Prime Minister. So if the Minister responds just in terms of his ministerial responsibility.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I reiterate that Shane Jones was appointed to the commission in 1993 by the National Government. I am not too sure whether it checked whether he was a member of the Labour Party. Shane Jones has previously advised publicly that he will have stepped aside as chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana by the time of the next annual general meeting in February 2007. This was announced by Mr Jones at Te Ohu Kai Moana’s AGM this year.

Gerry Brownlee: Is he aware that on 5 October 2005 Mr Jones said that he was “in transition from the world of Maori fisheries into the realms of parliamentary life”, and that he would give up his position with Te Ohu Kai Moana once he had made that transition; and by allowing Mr Jones to maintain his position of conflict of interest, is the Minister implying that Mr Jones has still not fully taken up the role of a member of Parliament, even though he chairs Labour’s Māori caucus?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think there are two points. One is the question of responsibility, and, again, there is an implication that there is a conflict of interest, when, in fact, there is not.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. The question has to relate to the Minister’s responsibility. The Minister has no responsibility for Mr Jones as a member of Parliament, though he does for him as a board member. So would Mr Brownlee like to work his way around that.

Gerry Brownlee: The pedantics of asking a question and avoiding the sensitivities of the Labour members are becoming more difficult.

Madam SPEAKER: No, it is the Standing Orders, actually. The ministerial responsibility is the key responsibility.

Gerry Brownlee: Madam Speaker, how many times have you ruled that a Minister may give an opinion? This question asked “Is he aware …?”.

Madam SPEAKER: Because that is the Standing Orders. The awareness has to relate to the ministerial responsibility. All I am asking is that there is no reference to Mr Jones as a member of Parliament. But, of course, there is responsibility for his appointment in that position.

Gerry Brownlee: If I may respond to you, Madam Speaker, the Minister is responsible for ensuring that there is a board for Te Ohu Kai Moana, he is responsible for making sure that there is a chairman of that particular organisation, and he is responsible for the $86,000 that Mr Jones is currently double-dipping in salary. Surely the Minister can answer questions that relate to the various comments that Mr Jones has made about his potential exit from this particularly, one might say, enriching position.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is not hard to create a question round that. If the member wants a seminar later, I will give him a hand.

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not relevant, either. If Mr Brownlee could just re-put his question in terms of the Minister’s responsibility. The Minister can give an opinion, but it must relate to his ministerial responsibility.

Gerry Brownlee: All right, I will ask this question. Why does the Minister consider that Mr Jones can carry out the dual roles of the $86,000-a-year chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana and a member of Parliament, when his own fellow member Maryan Street was required to relinquish her position on the Crown Forestry Rental Trust because it was considered inappropriate for her to hold the two roles?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: We need to go back to the beginning. Section 44(2)(f) of the Act requires that we have regard to the purpose of Te Ohu Kai Moana. The directors of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd are to have commercial expertise and business skills, and are to be well versed in matters of tikanga. The other issue is that the initial directors of Te Ohu Kai Moana were appointed from the incumbent Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission commissioners. Mr Jones has all those abilities that are needed in that role.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the Minister telling Parliament that there is no one else capable of filling this position, and that only Mr Jones can take the $86,000-a-year salary—in addition to his parliamentary salary—for that position?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Matters relating to the finances of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd are its responsibility. I want to be very clear, just taking a basic commercial step forward, that it was important to continue the confidence in the leadership that really had attracted the Japanese investors—and Mr Jones had that. Most certainly, that was his role. It is important that members take note that he has stated when he is transitioning out. I would ask the question of the members on the other side of the House who are on 70 directorship boards—what about that?

Hon Trevor Mallard: When the Minister is making his decisions as to what is appropriate and what is not, will he take into account practices such as the case of Nathan Guy—I think he is a member opposite—who indicated he would stand down from a council but has not done so, or the practice of over 70 directorships currently being held by double-dippers opposite?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am very thankful the member reminded me of that, because I am quite certain that Jim Bolger is not a member of the Labour Party, and he does a good job at a great bank that this Government set up. Mr Jones was educated at St Stephen’s College, he is a graduate of Harvard University, and he is renowned for his prowess in the sense of talking on the marae. He is both bi-literate and bilingual, and it is hard to find directors like that in this country.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may surprise the Minister that Jim Bolger is no longer a member of this House, and therefore he is not double-dipping. Not one of the members who hold directorships on this side of the House has been appointed by the Government.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: Would the Minister consider it appropriate and acceptable for Mr Jones to take a parting gratuity from Te Ohu Kai Moana in addition to his $86,000-a-year salary when he finally relinquishes the chair and seat on the board, or would such a gratuity fall into the category of lafo or koha?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Matters relating to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd are not my responsibility. But I do want to talk about koha, and I want to ask the question—[Interruption]

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did you hear that outrageous interjection?

Madam SPEAKER: No, I did not.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, an absolutely outrageous interjection was directed at the Minister by a member opposite.

Madam SPEAKER: If the Minister took offence, then he would ask that to be withdrawn and apologised for.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am used to outrageous insults. Seeing that the member brought up the subject of koha, I ask myself whether Te Ohu Kai Moana ever provided koha or some other form of contribution to the Labour Party. As Minister I have no responsibility for such matters. [Interruption] Yes, that is right. I am aware that when the Maori Fisheries Act was passed in 2004 the commission provided crayfish as a koha for the celebratory function here in Parliament, and Gerry Brownlee subsequently boasted that he ate more crayfish than anyone else—even more than me. That is the truth.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the risk of making an unbecoming comment, I think it is abundantly clear to everybody that I have certainly not eaten as much crayfish in my life as has that Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you could give me some guidance on an issue of misleading the House. Both Trevor Mallard and the Minister of Māori Affairs claimed that National appointed Shane Jones in 1992 to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. Of course, under the Maori Fisheries Act that was passed 2 years ago, what Mr Jones chairs at the moment is a new entity. I find it surprising that the Minister—

Madam SPEAKER: That is a debatable matter.

Phil Heatley: No, no. I am surprised that the Minister who—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Heatley. You sought guidance; you have got it. It is a debatable matter. [Interruption] Please be seated. If you have a new point of order, that is fine. I have ruled on that point of order.

General Debate

General Debate

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Over the last month the nation has been engrossed in debates that at their very heart demonstrate the significance of the relationship between tangata whenua and other New Zealanders. Dr Paul Tapsell, Māori director at Auckland Museum, welcomed these debates as expressing the maturity of the nation. In his article in yesterday’s paper, he reflected on the value of debating and reviewing cultural practices as a means of bridging cultural spheres. The Māori Party has eagerly accepted the challenge to immerse ourselves in the ongoing debate towards nationhood. We need to have the dialogue, to listen, to grow, and to learn.

The debates over the culture of gift-giving in Samoa, known as lafo, and the tikanga of utu or reciprocity associated with koha—indeed, the notions of altruism and social obligation found in European practices of gifting—have opened up the kōrero. What we have are notions of tikanga Samoa, tikanga Māori, and tikanga Pākehā. They followed an experience of unprecedented cultural learning represented at the tangihanga of the late Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu.

I myself have taken time to reflect on an opinion piece by Dr Ranginui Walker, who wrote about another tangihanga—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There is too much conversation in the House. It is discourteous to the member speaking.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: —within the Tainui confederation of tribes some 15 years ago, in 1991. Dr Walker described the tangi of one of New Zealand’s most gifted entertainers, Billy T James, in terms such as “the clash between two cultures”; “the cultural divide between Maori and Pakeha”; or “the media hype about the event by ignorant, monocultural commentators only served to inflame the situation between Maori and Pakeha”. What a huge contrast. What has made the nation willing to learn now, at the time of the passing of Te Arikinui? What were the prevailing factors that created the atmosphere of openness that paved the way for future understanding?

Much has been written about the manaakitanga of the host, Tainui waka. People have been so overwhelmed and amazed at the organisational detail that they showed to the nation—Māori and Pākehā, and the many ethnic groups of Aotearoa—and people from overseas. Their huge generosity to their manuhiri—their visitors—in opening up their tikanga and their marae to the nation has been appreciated by many. But the funny thing is that this sort of manaakitanga is expressed on marae throughout the motu, but technology enabled this occasion to be seen in real time, rather than from archival footage.

But there are many other aspects to tangihanga that make the experience so unique. As one example, one of the most special moments for myself is when I have the privilege of digging the final plot, the resting site for the deceased. It is nothing for me to jump into the hole, to feel that sense of connection, and to appreciate being so closely involved—it is the very last time one will see that person. Some whānau members find the process of digging the grave and getting on the end of a shovel to bury their loved one to be very therapeutic. In our hapū the qualification to perform this final ritual is not one linked to New Zealand Qualifications Authority unit standards in grave digging, using machinery, or grave collapse consolidation; the qualification we have acquired is through whakapapa—the overlapping layers of connection built on genealogy.

As a nation we must never lose sight of the value that can be gained through opening our eyes to different ways of being. In the Māori Party we have been interested in the values that Pākehā may bring to the process of death and dying, and the rules of engagement that determine how relationships develop. I have reflected on the research of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, and her work On Death and Dying, which is an analysis of the process of grieving. This is an example for me of tikanga Pākehā associated with death. I wondered what my tikanga Māori regarding death has in common with tikanga Pākehā, and what was different. Kubler-Ross identified five areas: denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. I think the difference lies in the manner of expression, the rituals, and the processes of recounting history and further affirming the nature of the relationships between people. These things are inherent in the practices of tikanga Māori.

We need to understand the norms and values of other cultures, before relationships can be developed. The recent discussions generated from the tangihanga for Dame Te Atairangikaahu have opened the door. The challenge for us is to continue the dialogue as a nation. The Māori Party relishes the opportunity to learn from each other, and to nurture our relationships. I am confident that Te Ao Māori will continue to share as we deem appropriate. We have much to share.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): I want to talk about election funding today; and I want to talk about the dishonesty, the deceitfulness, and the double standards that the National Party has portrayed right through this debate. Yesterday in the House we heard Don Brash say that the National Party did not get a dime from the Exclusive Brethren—not a dime. He was right about that—it was not a dime; it was $1.2 million, which increased National Party election spending by 50 percent. And the National Party knew right through the campaign where the money had come from and what it was there for. It is set out in a letter from the Exclusive Brethren to the Chief Electoral Office, in which the Exclusive Brethren said it wanted to put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million with the goal of getting party votes for National.

Don Brash met with the Exclusive Brethren at least three times before the election campaign. When asked by the media whether he knew who was behind these pamphlets he said no. Not once, not twice, but three times he deceived the public by saying he did not know who was behind the pamphlets and where the money had come from. Finally, he had to own up to lying to the country and to knowing all along where the money had come from.

That money was from a narrow-minded, intolerant religious sect, the same sect greased up to by Chris Finlayson in the House the other night, notwithstanding the fact that the members of the Exclusive Brethren, in their narrow-minded way, think that member is an abomination because of his sexual orientation. I say to Mr Finlayson that I cannot understand his double standards on that. I have no problem with who that member is and what he is. That is not a problem for me, but it is for the members of the Exclusive Brethren, and still we get the double standards of that member talking to them—they were in the gallery wearing their scarves—and saying that this Government is unchristian.

The amount was $1.2 million, and I have here an example of the sort of pamphlet I am talking about. This one went out in my electorate. It was authorised, as the law requires, by Mr Powell of 30 Stephen Lysnar Place. We checked the telephone book and the electoral roll, and we went around to the house, only to find that no such person ever lived there. That happened up and down the country. The National Party is saying it knew nothing about the Exclusive Brethren, and is standing behind the lies and the dishonesty shown by the Exclusive Brethren all the way through.

While we are on dishonesty, let us talk about Mr English. Mr English has been remarkably quiet, but he has gone along with the accusations by the National Party that the Labour Party and other parties in the House broke the rules. We put out a commitment card. That was within the rules as interpreted by the Parliamentary Service and every other party in this House. What about this piece of paper, I ask Mr English. It states: “My commitment.” This came out during the election campaign in 2002—exactly as Labour had done. Why the dishonesty? Why the double standards of saying that Labour broke the rules, when the National Party had been doing that year after year from 1989? Double standards, dishonesty—that is what we have had from the National Party.

Then there is another thing from Don Brash. He admitted on radio the other day that 90 percent of the funds used by the National Party went through a secret trust fund. We do not know who gave the money, and we do not know what was promised by the National Party to those who gave the money. What we do know most certainly was that it was “cash for policy”. The National Party was allowing itself to be bribed by outside groups that would give it money only anonymously—people like the multinational insurance companies that had millions of dollars to gain if that party, once in Government, privatised accident compensation. One of those members opposite should get up and deny that the insurance companies were not major funders of the National Party in return for that promise—a promise that would have seen tens of millions of dollars going into private pockets. That is corruption, that is dishonesty, and that is double standards. The very thing that those people have the audacity to accuse Phillip Field of doing, they were doing for the corporates. They were selling out their souls.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but in the interests of consistency, and given that I have objected to members opposite describing members on this side in those terms, I ask the member to abide by the higher standards of the House and not to use that term again.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Absolutely. Let us use another example. Lockwood Smith asked for foreign funds so that the National Government could sell out this country’s non-nuclear policy.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): Clearly, in putting up Phil Goff to speak, Labour is not taking this issue seriously. All the activities that Phil Goff referred to are subject to examination by the statutory officers of the law of this country, and any number of those activities have been looked at by those officers. Nothing that Labour members have said this week makes any difference to the facts. Like school bullies who are worried their bluff has been called and like spoilt children who have finally been told off, all those members can do is lash out.

Here are the facts. The Labour Party spent $440,000 of taxpayers’ money on its pledge card. The matter is being examined by the Auditor-General. That is a fact. The Labour Party leaked the Auditor-General’s report. That is a fact. The Auditor-General is to bring out a final report on that spending. That is a fact. The Labour Party spent the money for a purpose not appropriated for by this House. That is a fact.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Wrong, Bill.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will tell the Labour member about the next set of facts. Before the election, the Labour Party received a letter from the Chief Electoral Officer, which stated that no matter who paid for the pledge card it counted as an electoral expense. So even if the Auditor-General found that the right people paid for it and the money was rightfully used, the pledge card still counts as an electoral expense. And if it counts as an electoral expense, the Labour Party broke the law and overspent in the 2005 election campaign.

Before the election the Labour Party said to the Chief Electoral Officer: “We agree that it counts.” After the election it changed its mind. In both cases—the pledge card and the overspending—it was coldly, deliberately calculated. The Labour Party thought it could breach the law and get away with it afterwards by bullying our statutory officers, by spinning with the media, and by chucking Mr Mallard’s dirt around as far as it could. Well, the public will not wear it, for two reasons. The first reason is that the public cannot abide a Government that believes it is above the rule of law. The second reason is that the Labour Party has always campaigned on its credibility, and this blows its credibility.

We say it is of a piece. The Labour Party spent $400,000 of taxpayers’ money on its own political objectives, but that is not much worse than wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a tertiary education strategy that has totally failed, wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on Child, Youth and Family Services, which failed, and wasting billions of dollars on a health service that has led to longer waiting lists and people being threatened with premature death, as we found out today. That is why the public is reacting against this. The Prime Minister says it is a beltway issue, and she still believes that. She is wrong. The Prime Minister thinks we should pack up and move on. She is wrong. The Prime Minister thinks the National Party will give up on this issue and on the issue of her corrupt handling of Taito Phillip Field’s corruption, and she is wrong.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just checking that you were listening at that point and heard a word that has been proscribed. I ask you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I did hear that word, thank you, Mr Mallard. The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I withdraw and apologise.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you now ruling that the word “corrupt” cannot be used in this Parliament?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am saying that “corruption” is a word that cannot be used unless it is used in connection with Speaker’s ruling 25/5. If that is done, then members have every right to use that word. Speaker’s ruling 25/5 states: “It is not only the right, but the duty, of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way, but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” Exception has been taken by another member, and I uphold the member’s right to do that. I have asked the member to withdraw, and Mr English has done that.

Gerry Brownlee: Mr Assistant Speaker, I think you need to provide a written ruling around this issue, because in using the word as he did, Mr English is complying with the Speaker’s ruling as it is expressed. It is not appropriate for anyone else in this House to intimidate a Minister by referring to the Standing Orders, the Speakers’ rulings, or the prejudice that may or may not exist from the Chair. Rather than take action on this immediately, I believe you need to think very, very carefully about the constraints that you are now ruling that members of Parliament are under. All Mr English said was that allegations had been raised of corrupt practice. What is wrong with that, and how does it fit outside the current Speaker’s ruling?

Hon Trevor Mallard: The difference, of course, is a factual one. It is a question of what the member said and his association of two members of the House with that practice. It is very clear—the ruling dates back to 1934—that any allegation of that practice has to be put down in writing.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Speaking to the point of order, I say that we need to remind ourselves what has actually happened. Firstly, Taito Phillip Field is being investigated by the police under a precise statutory provision that refers to taking bribes. Are we not allowed to talk about that, Mr Assistant Speaker, according to your ruling? Secondly, the Labour Party has already been investigated by the police under a section of the legislation that refers directly to the words “corrupt practice”. There are no allegations; there is no speculation that Labour might be investigated—it has been. That is a matter of public record. It would be rather odd for you to rule out the ability of members of Parliament to refer to the facts of those investigations.

Hon Trevor Mallard: These matters have been traversed at least once before during my time in the House. Members at the time had their attention drawn to Speaker’s rulings 25/5 and 26/3. Those rulings make it absolutely clear that if members are making allegations of the type that Bill English is making, there is a proper constitutional way of doing so, and that is in writing, not by veiled reference during a speech.

Gerry Brownlee: This is a very important issue, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I want you to consider the particular part of the ruling that talks about “veiled suggestions”. No veiled suggestions were made in Mr English’s comments. They were factual and they were straightforward. I think you are getting into a position where your ruling will supersede the protection that members can expect from Speaker’s ruling 25/5—a ruling that, as Mr Mallard himself says, has stood since 1934. I ask you once again, Mr Assistant Speaker, to think about maybe taking some time to produce a written ruling for the House, because the writing up of the ruling as you have given it will, in fact, supersede Speaker’s ruling 25/5.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I would like to agree with Mr Brownlee. This is a very important ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker, because you are being invited to change a longstanding practice. If that is to occur, it should happen in writing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable members and remind them that a member cannot suggest corruption or illegality, because that would be a personal reflection and is out of order under Standing Order 116, which concerns personal reflections. I have taken on board what both Mr Brownlee and Mr Mallard have said, and consideration will be given.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you, when you are deliberating on that matter, to replay the tape of what Mr English said. The argument that has been proffered to you in the House suggests he said things that he did not say, and it ignores what he actually said. If you were to deliberate and come to a decision based on the arguments that were being put forward by Mr Brownlee, you would totally miss the allegations and the transgression that Mr English made. Sometimes these points of order get diverted when people reinterpret the words that were used. The words that were used by Mr English referred to the corrupt manner in which the Prime Minister handled the corrupt practices of Taito Phillip Field. It would be easier for the House to go forward if you focused on the tape recording of exactly what Mr English said, as opposed to what his colleagues say he said and what he intended.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Mark. I have heard what you said. I repeat that a member cannot suggest corruption or illegality. That would be a personal reflection and out of order under Standing Order 116, when it comes to an individual member.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will give Labour some advice, and that is to make a genuine apology, to own up, and to front up to the public. What is now mystifying the public is just why Helen Clark is digging in so hard when she is so obviously wrong.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): Well—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Gutter.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: We hear about the gutter from Nick Smith—the person who rolls in every gutter that is going, as well as in a few other places. [Interruption] Shall we move along to that member, Bill English, who is, allegedly, a person of great integrity. I ask Bill English for a bit of balance. If I were picking a leader for the National Party—the person with the most integrity on the National front bench—I would pick Bill English. But Bill English is the person who authorised over half a million dollars of parliamentary expenditure in 2002 on billboards, pamphlets, and cards, all of which were outside the rules according to the current ruling of the Auditor-General.

Now, I do not agree with the Auditor-General. He has not made a final ruling, but I disagree with his interim one.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about the Solicitor-General?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I actually think the Solicitor-General is closer to it. If the Solicitor-General is right, then the airfares that that member used to go to and from Nelson during the campaign in order to make speeches—[Interruption] The member did not use airfares to go to and from Nelson during the campaign? If the Solicitor-General is right, then those airfares should not have been paid for by the taxpayer. So we know there is a dilemma; there is a bit of a debate to be had.

I go back to a comment that I made in the House quite early this afternoon, and that is that members on this side value their integrity. Members on this side have had a gutsful of comments made by members opposite; we have had an absolute gutsful. What we are saying is a comment that has been made on a regular basis in this Parliament, and if members opposite, or National Party members outside, tell lies about us, we will tell the truth about them.

One of the things generally known in this House is that some things are off-limits, and some things are inappropriate, but when members opposite cast aspersions on our core values, such as on members’ integrity, then those rules do not count any more. I am telling members opposite that they have a clear choice to make.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You cheated. Come clean!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Clearly, members opposite, especially Nick Smith—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: More threats!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Clearly, Nick Smith, who talks about threats, should think about who he has threatened recently. I ask him to think very carefully about the husband whom he threatened recently—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Go on! Say the name.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, I am not going into any further details, but Nick Smith needs to think about whether he wants to deny that, as he just did—whether he wants to get up in the House at the end of this speech and totally deny it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The expert at gutter politics has alleged that I threatened a husband—of which there are probably about 1.6 million in New Zealand. I assure the House that I have not threatened any person. I just think the member needs to be brought back to order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Smith.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am pleased that that is on the record, because what that means, in my opinion—and it will take a little while to get the affidavits—is that the member has gone for breach of privilege.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot allege breach of privilege on the floor—that must be put in writing.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Thank you.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Withdraw and apologise.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, there is no requirement to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member has acknowledged that he said the wrong thing. He will withdraw.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): He has withdrawn. I call the—

Gerry Brownlee: And apologise.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Mark Burton: You can’t tell the Speaker what to do.

Gerry Brownlee: I tell Mr Burton that we are demanding that the Speaker require an apology.

Hon Mark Burton: You can’t demand that of the Speaker.

Gerry Brownlee: Well, we are, and if the member does not like it, he can go and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. This is a point of order and it is between the Speaker and the member taking the point of order; it is not to criss-cross back and forth across the House. The Speaker has a number of alternatives available: one is to ask a member to desist, another is to ask for a comment to be withdrawn, and another is to ask for a withdrawal and apology. I have decided that Mr Mallard will withdraw, and there the matter ends.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The next point—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have made a ruling, Mr Brownlee.

Gerry Brownlee: It only ends, Mr Assistant Speaker, if this side of the House has decided not to take offence at the absolute guttersnipe approach of Mr Mallard. And we have not. We do take offence at that, and Mr Mallard needs to know that if he persists along this line, if he refuses to back off, if he refuses to apologise, then subsequent speakers may cause him quite a problem.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brownlee.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, it may just be that we are getting close. [Interruption]

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you decided not to rule on the issue I have just raised with you—[Interruption]—and just simply to ignore it?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I did not ignore it. I asked the member to withdraw the comment for alleging the breach of privilege, but if the member himself takes exception to it, then that is a different matter.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. The first is that during Gerry Brownlee’s point of order Jill Pettis screamed out, and it is a very clear offence to interject during a point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Are you asking for an apology?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No. The first point I raise is that during Mr Gerry Brownlee’s point of order, every member of the House heard Jill Pettis scream out. She is nodding her head and agreeing that that occurred. If a member interjects during a point of order, then that is a breach that requires the member to leave the House,

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Jill Pettis: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During an earlier point of order of Gerry Brownlee, Nick Smith interjected. I ask that you require the same of him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): If the member did that, then I ask him to withdraw and apologise. [Interruption] He did not? Well, then I have to take the member at his word.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh, come on!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All members are honourable members. Their word is their bond.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): It is a very, very sad time in the history of New Zealand politics. One of the things New Zealanders and New Zealand politicians used to be able to do was hold their heads up high when they went overseas to international forums where a lot of Governments that were incredibly corrupt would parade on the world stage. We could get up and say that the good thing about New Zealand politics was that there was no corruption—there was absolutely none.

But in the last few months two separate issues have emerged, which I think bring no credit on this House, no credit on members of Parliament, and most certainly no credit on this Government for the way it has handled them. The first concerns Mr Taito Phillip Field—a man who quite openly says he does not know how four of the houses he owned got painted. Now, I ask members of this House today to put their hands up if they have ever arrived home, walked in the front door, and gone: “My God! Someone has painted our house for us! This is fantastic; this is as good as it gets. I hope the other three have been done!”. And then I ask if they have driven off down the road to find the houses painted, have thought: “Oh, and look at the tiling on that one!”—but have not known who did it. I say: “Hands up those who have had that happen to them!”. There is not a mutter, not a murmur, and not a hand up.

I do not believe it can happen that way. If we find our houses have been painted, it is probably because we had contracted a painter, a contractor, or someone to do it, and that person would have scheduled when it would be done and how long it would take—and the owner would have paid the bill. We now know that Taito Phillip Field had all those Thais up in Samoa working for him—known now as an “orchestrated litany of Thais”. They were working for him up there in Samoa, but he says he did not know what they were doing when they were up there. So, again, it is not just about the four houses in New Zealand.

He magically went up to check his house in Samoa—about twice. He took Phil Goff and a number of other members, including you, I think, Mr Assistant Speaker. He suddenly found that his house in Samoa had had that miraculous transformation his houses had had back here in New Zealand. It had been painted and tiled! All I want to say is that that is great for New Zealand, because we should show the world how someone can get a house done up and not have to pay a cent for it.

And what has happened? That member is still a member of this House. Helen Clark, as leader of the Labour Party, demanded Denis Marshall’s resignation when the Cave Creek platform fell, even though that member could never have known that nails had been used instead of bolts. No Minister of Conservation could have known it, but she said that it was such an offence he should go.

Hon Member: Really?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Oh, yes, that is what she said, and now she has a member of her own caucus behaving in what the general public think is the most despicable manner possible. Members should check what the Pacific Island papers are saying, check what the Pacific Island radio stations are saying, check what the Herald-DigiPoll is saying—and he is still there.

Now Labour has done its trick. It has clouded the issue by trying to make out: “I know other members who took a box of Roses chocolates” or “I know other members who got some flowers.”

Dr Wayne Mapp: I took a beer.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Wayne Mapp took a beer. Oh, well, that is almost cause for resignation! Mr Mapp had a beer. If members think that that is the same as tilers working for months for no pay on four of someone’s properties and then painting those properties, then something is wrong. But that is how Labour is dealing with it.

It is the same with the funding issue. Labour has now tried to muddy the waters by using the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. I need to tell members that I am not a Christian. I am not a member of any of the faiths that other members of our team are, and I do not have a great deal of truck with what the Exclusive Brethren believe. But I will die in a ditch defending their right to hold that view and their right to express that view. This is a democracy.

We hear from Helen Clark that we need to be sympathetic to minorities. We need to be sympathetic to Muslims. I agree; we need to be sympathetic to Hindus, and to others. But suddenly we get to one other minority who she decides is not in the same category, and we can put the boot into them as hard as we like. That minority is the evil, dreadful, disgraceful Exclusive Brethren—but it is wrong to have had that view on all the rest. So now we really get to the substance. Is Helen Clark saying that a group of individuals in New Zealand does not have the right to spend its own money? No, she tries to make out that what it did was attributable to the National Party—and that will not work.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs): The only thing that brings this House into disrepute is a party like National that is prepared to sell its policy for money. Once a party starts heading down that track, it is a very long road for New Zealanders to gain any sense of transparency about what drives this country. [Interruption]

Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but it simply is not good enough for the Hon Dr Nick Smith to keep bringing you into the debate and demand of you where your proof is. Why you should have to prove anything is beyond me, but, in any event, it is against the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was listening to the interjections very carefully, because they were of great merit. There is some sort of delusion, I think, on the part of the member that the word “your” was used. That is not correct. In fact, it was “the”. So you were never brought into the issue. There simply was no valid point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that an interchange was going on between two members, and that, in itself, was what I was just about to rise on and call a breach against Speakers’ rulings, because the rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. What we saw was an interchange between two members, one on each side of the House. Interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the call.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I say again that the only thing that brings this House into disrepute is “cash for policy” tactics, which are practised by members of the Opposition.

We have seen invisible threads that pull the Opposition into line when it needs to be pulled into line, but that is not what the public wants to see. The public wants to see accountable, transparent processes. National members have spent quite a long time focusing on a couple of issues, which I will address. The first issue is in regard to our colleague Taito Phillip Field. When National members brought these issues into the House, they called for an inquiry. An inquiry was held, decisions were made, the public judged, and Taito Phillip Field lost his ministerial portfolio. What more does National want? Those members want to publicly castrate him, even though a public process of inquiry has been undertaken, the public have judged, the Minister has lost his portfolio, and the issues that need to be addressed will be.

However, what is not so public is the way in which the Opposition clouds issues. Opposition members cloud issues in terms of the level of accountability they are prepared to face up to. It is interesting that, as shown in previous contributions made by my colleague Trevor Mallard, in 2002 National was operating by the exact same rules that we were operating by. But National members are not talking about the exact same rules that we were all operating under in the 2002 election. No, they want to focus on this last election. Let me ask a question, because I think the public would want to know. What did the National Party spend on the election campaign before the 3-month period? Are National members prepared to stand up in the House and tell the public of New Zealand what they spent? Ah, no. They are quite happy to let the Auditor-General’s opinion rest on just the 3-month period. We were all judged by the same rules, certainly, but how much money did the National Party spend outside of the 3-month period on their campaign?

Every New Zealander around the country saw the big billboards throughout the country 4 or 5 months out from the election. At 3 months out, there was a different scene. How much did the National Party spend 5 months out from the election? Are they prepared to tell the public where they got the money from? Which secret trust funds did they get the money from to fund their campaign? How much was spent? That is a level of transparency that the National Party will not front up to, yet it is committed to focusing on a 3-month period, about which the rules were unclear. That is all it was. They were unclear.

The Auditor-General has certainly offered an opinion, which is a draft opinion, not a final opinion. National does not talk about the fact that Bill English used the same rules as the Labour Party operated by to fund a campaign of over $500,000. It is an interesting time, but accountability and transparency are values that should be applied to everybody. The National Party does not want to uphold its level of accountability in the same way. That is actually not the type of country we want to live in.

In terms of the issues before us and the issues raised by the Opposition, we know there are some very serious issues that we want to address, going forward. If we had the situation where secret parties were paying for our campaigns and running our Governments, nobody would know what we would end up with in terms of policies. That is not the kind of country we want to live in, but it would have been the kind of country we would be living in if National had won the election. We cannot have that. We are not going that way. There are no secret strings pulling this Government, even though they continue to pull the Opposition. Kia ora.

RON MARK (NZ First): Today I raised a question in the House about stab-resistant body armour. I raised that question in the House because of reports in the Christchurch Press and the Dominion Post recently that the body armour that was promised has not been issued. I take the House back to 8 June 2005, when the Commissioner of Police was brought before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I raised with him the issue that it had been some 5 years, and we were still waiting for stab-resistant body armour.

Why did we raise that question? New Zealand First believes that our policemen and policewomen, who put on the blue uniform and go into the community to protect us, our communities, and our properties, are people whom we value. They are people who do a very dangerous job, and they should be looked after by the Government and by this House. We raised the question particularly because, on 8 June, when I pressed the commissioner, he gave a commitment that the armour would be issued in one year. I said to him: “If it’s not issued, will you resign?”, and he said yes.

So we raised the question today, and I showed the House the photographs I am holding up. Interesting, are they not? These are photographs of a wounded American police officer. Was not Nick Smith’s response interesting? Dr Nick Smith, the nationally renowned erratic MP, objected and stopped New Zealand First tabling some of these photos. The question is why did we table those photos. We tabled those photos to make a couple of points. Firstly, the National Party itself agrees with New Zealand First that crime is up. It agrees that violent crime is up. It agrees that youth crime is escalating out of control, and that the level of violence from youth crime is at historic levels.

A policewoman has been critically injured and hospitalised, and when New Zealand First tries to draw attention to it, National objects. National members say that the photographs are of a police officer from the United States. Well, I say to them: here is a photograph of a New Zealand police officer in hospital with his baby beside him. Now the National members are laughing—I want this in Hansard. David Carter is laughing about wounded police officers. David Carter and the National members rave on about how they support the police, but here in the House they heap scorn, mirth, and derision when we try to raise the issue of police safety. This shows how little the National Party understands about policing.

Internationally, within the police, the profession of policing is considered a family affair. A police officer knows that the crimes we see in the United States today will be visited upon the community here in New Zealand tomorrow. The warnings are there, clear for everybody to see. In 5 years the police have not seen the stab-resistant body armour issued. Now it has taken another year beyond the year in which the Government said it would deliver. We bring this issue to the House because we do not want to see a photo of a New Zealand police officer bearing wounds such as these from a knife-wielding assailant. When we do—God hope we do not, but it is obvious that it is going to take another year to get this body armour out into the hands of the troops who need it—then New Zealand First will come back to National, which considers it a laughing matter; we will come back to the Government, which has been slow and tardy in making things happen; and we will come back to the Commissioner of Police and ask him what he will do to put right the crime inflicted against the family of that police officer.

Is it not amazing? We all want so much out of the police. There are gangs running rampant, yet when New Zealand First proposes legislation to this House to outlaw gangs—to make it illegal to be a member of a gang, and to make it an offence, just as we did with terrorist organisations—people like National members laugh. They say it is not possible. The Minister of Police herself says that she thinks we are dreaming. We do have a dream in New Zealand First. We have a dream that the New Zealand police will be effectively staffed and resourced; we have a dream that the public will support the police; we have a dream that National might one day take the police seriously; and we have a dream to make it into Government one day so that we can see the serious resourcing of the police force through—something that David Carter, who is heading for another 3 years in Opposition, should be having nightmares about.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): The Government is facing a perfect storm, and it is pretty clear that Ron Mark has been sucked into the centre of it.

Ron Mark: I apologise to the most honourable member for interrupting his speech. I seek the leave of the House to table a photograph of a New Zealand police officer who was stabbed in the performance of his duty—a photograph of him lying in bed with his baby beside him.

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

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Mr Mark could have waited. He is being sucked into the vortex of the storm engulfing this Government. The Prime Minister keeps saying that the election spending issue is some kind of beltway issue that no one out in New Zealand actually cares or gives a toss about. Labour members keep asking themselves questions in the House and having Mr Mallard give extraneous points of order, and they think that this will all go away.

What do Labour members take New Zealanders for, and what do they take the press gallery for? Do they think that we are fools? The answer is—absolutely no. If Labour members need some kind of a constant reminder of this, then they only need to read today’s New Zealand Herald. What did the Prime Minister have to say about that? She said she does not read the New Zealand Herald any more. Well, who can possibly believe that? Do members know why she does not read the New Zealand Herald? It is because she has censors.

Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am listening very carefully to what Dr Mapp is saying, and he is completely misrepresenting what the Prime Minister said in the House during question time today. She said that that piece of information had not passed her desk that day. The member is completely misrepresenting that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a debating issue.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: What an absurd point of order. It shows the desperation of Labour members that they have to use every little parliamentary device to try to avoid the truth.

Well, let me tell the member what the New Zealand Herald stated today: “If the parties cannot distinguish between bona fide information and blatant electioneering, they should not be entrusted with funds for the former.” It also stated: “Now Labour has dredged up National material from the election before”—it was 2002, for heaven’s sake—“the rules were clarified.” What did the paper say about that? It stated: “It is all a bit desperate.”

Sue Moroney: What law change was this?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Sue Moroney over there is desperate and dateless. If Labour members think they can fool the public by dredging up something from 2002, they are just dreaming. Actually, Labour members were told by the Auditor-General and the Chief Electoral Officer last year—literally within weeks or months of the election—to be careful and to not use the money allocated for parliamentary purposes for electioneering. Labour members know the truth of that.

Do people know what Labour members’ desperate refuge is at the moment? Those members say that the draft Auditor-General’s report is just that—a draft. They say it is not a final report, so who could possibly believe it, and they ask who would accept a draft report. Those members know the truth. They know that the train is coming down the track. They are standing on the tracks ready to be bowled by it.

I tell those members over there, one of whom is a Minister, to get their cheque books out. They should write out that cheque, because that is what the public expects. Frankly, Ministers of the Crown should be writing out much bigger cheques than should new Labour members of Parliament who have just come in, as hapless and hopeless as they are. The public has one demand for this Government—pay it back. Those members can do it. The public is saying that Labour should not use public money to pay the money back. The Government should not use some trickery or chicanery, which it is likely to try to get up to, to try to avoid its responsibilities.

One of the things this Government always went to the public on was that it was responsible, it listened to the public, and it took action. I guess that is the sort of thing a new Government says before it is tired in office and before the arrogance has seeped in. That was almost a lifetime ago—it was 7 years ago, and the arrogance has seeped in now, has it not? It is no wonder that Marian Hobbs decided to decline to be in Cabinet. She said she did not want to have a bar of a Cabinet that would do that sort of thing. I say at least one thing to Marian—

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

Dr WAYNE MAPP: Ms Marian Hobbs’ cheque will be smaller than that of the honourable Minister Nanaia Mahuta, but in both cases those members have to do their duty, which is to be honest with the public and to pay back the money.

Labour members also thought they could duck and dive on the issue of Mr Field. I was, frankly, quite amazed, given the Prime Minister’s disowning of Mr Field, that we would have an honourable Minister of the Crown in this Chamber today defending him. Actually, we have news for her. Mr Ingram said that the invoices cannot be believed. There is a police report, and justice will be done.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): Spare me! Talk about collective amnesia!

Hon Dover Samuels: Wayne Mapp with a cheque book!

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Let us talk about the cheque book. Let us talk about the $1.2 million cheque. That was a big cheque. Let us talk about a National Party leader who did not know there was a $1.2 million cheque from the Exclusive Brethren floating around. I tell members that David Henry certainly knew about it. If we are to talk about scrutiny and media scrutiny, let us look at that.

I remind the House of an email sent on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 to one David Henry, with the subject heading of “Electoral Act 1993”, and stating: “Dear David”—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Would the member please continue.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: I hope that is added to my time, Mr Assistant Speaker. The email states: “Dear David, many thanks for your phone time today and for making time available Tuesday next 9 a.m., your office. Those attending the meeting will be Mr Simmons, Mr Win, Mr Goudie, Mr Hickmott”—all men—“to assist in the process. We represent a group of Christian businessmen”—what a misuse of the term, but never mind—“concerned as to the course and direction of the current Government. Accordingly, we have put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million with the goal of ‘getting party votes for National’ as this is the only way change will come about. Our programme involves extensive publications throughout New Zealand, with a theme showing and demonstrating mistrust in the current Government and building trust in a Brash-led National Government. We write seeking clarification and direction re the election funding issue, specifying that anything we do does not compromise National’s funding position. Typically, does it compromise National’s position if we communicate to MPs and candidates our strategy? Does it compromise National’s position if we show them draft publications before they are published? Is there any legality prohibiting us printing ‘Vote National, Vote Brash’ and including a photo of Dr Brash on these, and can it be done without compromising National’s funding position? To what extent can we legally advise, direct, assist, communicate to others with National MPs and candidates? We would appreciate your directives on the above and any other legal points you think are appropriate.”

Then I have a report from a TV3 news clip dated Monday, 5 September: “Reporter: Do you know who is responsible for the pamphlets? Dr Brash: I don’t.” Another report, from Tuesday, 6 September, states: “Presenter: Who’s doing the nasty pamphlets? Dr Brash: I don’t actually know, Paul. One thing I do know: it’s not the National Party.” Further, on Wednesday, 7 September: “Dr Brash says he met with representatives of the Exclusive Brethren church about a month ago.” I have this report, as per the Television New Zealand website: “Presenter: Did they tell you about their plans for the pamphlet drop? Did they tell you anything about that? Dr Brash: OK. (walks away).” On Thursday, 8 September, Dr Brash said: “I knew they were going to use some pamphlets attacking the Government, and I said ‘Tremendous’.” My source is 95bFM on 8 September, from transcribed audio. On Friday, 9 September, when asked why he had not owned up to his knowledge of the pamphlets sooner, Dr Brash said: “I wasn’t asked whether I knew about it.”

Does anyone in this country believe that the National Party stumbled across a golden cheque of $1.2 million from some so-called Christian businessmen and did not know anything about it? Does anyone in this country honestly believe that, in terms of the pamphlets that came into people’s letterboxes? In my electorate they even arrived in my personal letterbox on election day, stating: “Vote for a party that can actually change the Government. Your party vote is critical; use it wisely. Change the Government to one that cares. Use your party vote.”, and so on and so on. If we are to talk about credibility, about paying the money back, and about using a cheque book, does anyone believe that National members did not know about that? The other question we are asking National members today is to tell us, please, what money they got from insurance companies and from the Insurance Council.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): The first comments I want to make concern the rather stupid comments made about 10 minutes ago by the New Zealand First member Ron Mark, when he stood up and modelled himself as a latter-day Martin Luther King and said he had a dream to be in Government. I take this opportunity to remind the member that he has been in Government twice. He was in Government between 1996 and 1998. He and his leader were so unstable that they could not sustain the pressure and they pulled out of that. And the member is in Government now, supporting the corruption on the other side of the House.

Martin Gallagher: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to reflect on, and to rule on, if you will, whether it is appropriate for a member on the opposite side of the House to reflect on the stability—presumably mental or otherwise—of the Rt Hon Winston Peters or Mr Ron Mark.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is a frivolous point of order. The member’s time will start again.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was commenting on the comments made by Ron Mark, who said he had a dream to be in Government. I was taking the opportunity to remind the House that he is in Government now, supporting the corruption on the other side of the Chamber.

Ron Mark can come into the House and talk about police resources and stab-proof jackets, but he has the ability to make sure that contract is delivered on immediately. He has the ability to do so, and, if he cannot make progress, then he should have the gumption to pull his vote from that Government and let the people of New Zealand decide how happy they are with the level of sleaze and corruption we are seeing at the moment.

In the time I have been in this House we have never seen things so low. Helen Clark is up to her neck in the issue of whether the Labour Party used $446,000 of taxpayers’ money to print a pledge card that went into the letterbox of every New Zealander. That broke the rules. That was stealing money from taxpayers. Helen Clark’s feeble attempts day after day to try to say she is not responsible for that, and her attempt to blame Heather Simpson, and, today, Trevor Mallard, and everybody else but herself, will not be accepted by the people of New Zealand.

The people of New Zealand know better. A recent poll in the New Zealand Herald—a paper that today we learnt the Prime Minister of this country does not bother to read; yeah, right!—stated that over 80 percent of New Zealanders surveyed say that Helen Clark and the Labour Party should pay back the money they stole from the taxpayers. They should pay back that $446,000, and pay it back quick. That is what makes democracy work in this country.

When Helen Clark came into this House as Prime Minister in 1999 she said she would restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament. That is what Helen Clark said. But what she is doing today is destroying the integrity of this Parliament and certainly destroying the integrity of every member of the Government, including New Zealand First and MP Ron Mark.

If members think that scandal is not enough, then what about Taito Phillip Field? Where was he today at question time? When is he attending to his constituents in his electorate office? He is not there because Helen Clark has told him to go on painting leave. He is repainting the four houses that he had painted by exploiting Thai overstayers on the promise of giving them residency in this country. That is where Mr Taito Field is—slapping the paint on his four houses with his paintbrush. He is not here serving his constituents, but he is collecting full pay. How appropriate is that?

Helen Clark organised the Ingram report. It cost half a million dollars. She designed the terms of reference so that the real questions would never be answered. When the report was tabled in the House, she said that was the end of the matter, that it had been tidied up once and for all. Well, where is Mr Field? If the matter has been tidied up once and for all, why is he not working for his constituents? I have another question. If the matter has been tidied up once and for all, why are the police investigating him?

There are further questions to be asked about Mr Taito Phillip Field. I say that at this stage Helen Clark should demand the resignation of that member and go to the people of New Zealand with a by-election. That is what should happen—she should let the people of Māngere decide how happy they are to have that member, who has exploited Thai nationals to have his four properties painted, not to mention his house in Samoa. And the other question that needs to be asked, while we are talking about the sleaze around this Government, is about what role the former Associate Minister of Immigration, Damien O’Connor, played in approving the final residency status of those Thai nationals.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Well, it is no wonder that member, David Carter, is not in Government when he thinks he can bellow his way, for effect, through a speech that has literally no substance. It is no wonder he is still sitting on the benches opposite. I will try to restore a sense of decorum to this general debate, because a lot of allegations have been swirling around the debate here today.

The public do deserve to know the truth. The public deserve to know about the pamphlets that were sent out prior to the last election. Transparency is needed around the publication of pamphlets, and I have some of those pamphlets here. They were circulated around the Cambridge area and the Morrinsville area, where I was campaigning as a candidate for Labour at the last election. This one reads: “Health care—who cares?”, and it is printed in blue and white, which immediately makes one suspicious. “Change the Government”, it states, “to one that cares—use your party vote.”, and there is a big blue tick. Who distributed this pamphlet?

Well, it was distributed by an organisation called “NZATH”. I had never heard of it. Who was “NZATH”? On this pamphlet it says: “New Zealand Advocates for Timely Healthcare”. I had been working in and around the health sector for a long time, but I had never heard of that organisation. Immediately, that made me suspicious. Who were these people who were asking people, with a blue tick, to use their party vote correctly on the eve of the election—the “New Zealand Advocates for Timely Healthcare”? It turned out that they were Exclusive Brethren. They were telling people in Cambridge to use their party votes, yet they tell their own members not to go and use their party votes. That is not transparent; that is not democracy; that does not sound like bedrock values to me.

This pamphlet was designed to try to get National in to Government—and it failed. The New Zealand public saw through its $1.2 million secrecy. The funders did not put their names on the pamphlet, would not say who they were, and made up a name: “New Zealand Advocates for Timely Healthcare”. It is an organisation that no one involved in the health sector had ever heard of—

Jacqui Dean: Back the unions!

SUE MORONEY: Unions put their names on materials they distribute. People can say: “Yeah, that’s right—that is from the Council of Trade Unions; we know where that is coming from.” But in relation to the “New Zealand Advocates for Timely Healthcare”, guess what? The funders were the Exclusive Brethren, an organisation that does not like to give women their rights. I think the women of New Zealand should be deeply concerned about that, because that was where the funding for the National Party’s campaign was coming from.

I have here another pamphlet that was going around at the same time. This one is targeted at senior citizens, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Who is this pamphlet from? It is also trying to convince people that their party votes are critical and to use them wisely, with a blue tick. Who was this pamphlet distributed by? It also came from the Cambridge area. Well, it was distributed by a group called “Fellow New Zealanders Deeply Concerned about the Care of our Elderly”. I had never heard of that organisation either, but it turned out—guess what—it was the Exclusive Brethren, hiding behind a made-up name and not saying who they were. The pamphlet was targeted at the elderly of this country, to try to trick them into voting for a National Government. That is not transparency, and we need real transparency before we arrive at the next election.

I want to issue a challenge, because some of these pamphlets came from the area where I live. I am a person from that electorate, and I think the voters in that electorate deserve to know what the involvement of the Exclusive Brethren was in the National Party campaign in the Waikato. What was its extent? The only honest thing that I think was done by the Exclusive Brethren in that campaign was that they fronted up—after Don Brash had tried to deny it all—and said: “Here are the seven of us. This is what we look like and, yes, it was us.” They eventually fronted up. They tried to hide behind all those sorts of phrases, but they eventually fronted up. I would like them to come clean about Waikato, and to say how much money they put into National’s campaign in that area. I would like them to tell us how many of them were involved in the shocking push-polling that was going on in the Waikato in the time leading up to the election, and I would like them to tell us how much money they put into the hoardings that were displayed in the Waikato. However, the campaign did not work.

The unions, quite clearly, say “Here we are. This is a pamphlet from the Council of Trade Unions; here are our views and opinions.”

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago): An interesting question was just raised by the member Sue Moroney, about putting money into campaigns. I think we must remember that this issue is not about the Exclusive Brethren, this issue is not about National, this issue is not about pamphlets—signed, or otherwise—this issue is about the Labour Party using taxpayer money illegally to fund its election campaign. That is all this argument is about.

All this flailing around by Labour members is like fish dying in a pond with the tide running out and their life-giving water ebbing away from them. The more desperate they get, the more they lash out. Is it working? No, it is not working, because nothing they can say, or their supporters can say, can detract from the facts. The facts are—for the benefit of members sitting opposite—very, very clear. The Labour Party spent—and I will say this slowly so it sinks in—$440,000 of taxpayer money on its pledge card. It was not its own money; it was not money donated to it; it was taxpayer money—end of story. Labour is being investigated by the Auditor-General—full stop. The Auditor-General has written a draft report saying that the Labour Party spent taxpayer money on electioneering, which is against the electoral rules—full stop. It is about the Labour Government and the Labour Party spending taxpayer money.

If the final report of the Auditor-General shows that Labour acted unlawfully, what should it do? Well, it is very simple: Labour should pay it back. All the games in the House—and we have seen them today—all the sniping by Labour, and all the attempts to divert attention from the facts, are just a desperate attempt to divert attention away from its dodgy, dodgy decision to spend $440,000 of taxpayer money on its election campaign. And these are the people who govern our country! What is at question here is the political integrity of the Government.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply wish to ask that member a question: how much did National pay, 5 months out from the election—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. Frivolous interjections are out of order, and they can lead to disorder. The member will stand and apologise.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I apologise.

Lindsay Tisch: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have dealt with the situation.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is another point of order. I note that the three members who are sitting over there are not in their correct seats. They are continuing to barrage and interject when we have a very fine speech being given by my colleague here. The Standing Orders are very clear that a member cannot interject from a seat at which that member has an advantage over the position where the member normally sits. We have three members over there who are incessantly carrying on with those interjections against my colleague.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Tisch. I remind members that under Speakers’ rulings 58/4 and 59/1 they cannot move to facilitate interjection.

JACQUI DEAN: Just for my own information, in relation to the last couple of points of order you have awarded that the member might start from the beginning. I wonder whether you will be according me the same courtesy.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I will consider it.

JACQUI DEAN: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. In the meantime I thank members opposite for illustrating the very point I have been making in the House today. Try as they might to distract attention from what essentially we are talking about, they cannot. There is no getting away from the fact that it does not work, and that what is at issue here is that the Labour Party spent $440,000 of taxpayer money on its election campaign.

From where I sit, on the back benches, the behaviour during question time today from the Government benches was nasty and disgraceful, and I have to say that that is typical of the Labour Government. Well, I have news for this Government. The public will not accept a Government that believes it is above the law. The Government must acknowledge that it has misspent taxpayer money, and apologise. What must it do next? Pay it back. All the Government’s personal threats—and I am referring to Mr Mallard—and unpleasant innuendoes and shouting will not change the facts.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Westpac New Zealand Bill

In Committee

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central): I seek leave for the Committee of the whole House to take the bill as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed.

LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Are we talking about one debate on all the parts, and then we will move back into the House for the third reading?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is what leave has been sought for. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Preamble and clauses 1 to 24

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Westpac New Zealand Bill. First of all, I would like to note that the National Party is supporting this bill. It has supported the bill at its first reading, through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and at its second reading. We are happy to help the progress of this bill through Parliament. The bill comes with a couple of small amendments that came from the select committee process, and, again, we endorse those amendments. We are quite happy with the bill in its current form. I thank the honourable member Marian Hobbs for her work in steering this bill, in its various stages, through the Parliament, and for the way in which she has been more than open to consideration and discussion around the bill.

It is an interesting reflection to get up now and speak in the Committee stage of a bill like this, given the behaviour we have seen in the Chamber over the last 3 or 4 hours. It is a nice change, I think. I guess people listening out there can now turn down the volume on their radios. It is certainly a pleasure not to have to listen to some of the diatribes and the gutter politics that we have heard here today. Mud has been thrown around, and, believe me, if people are worried about where politicians stand in various trust surveys, I think they will find that today they just went down again.

On 1 November 2006 the largest New Zealand transaction in history will take place. It is a transaction of about NZ$35 billion, affecting 1.3 million – odd customers. Some are individuals and many are corporates. Interestingly, and I will come to this point later, Westpac in its current form is the Government’s banker, and, of course, the incorporated Westpac New Zealand will also be the Government’s banker. That raises interesting questions over who wrote and signed various cheques, and about the cash flows going through Government accounts, particularly in relation to last September.

This bill incorporates Westpac New Zealand Ltd. It is a coming of age for Westpac. This argument and discussion has been going on for a long time in financial circles in New Zealand, and between the Reserve Bank and Westpac. Interestingly, of what are known as the four pillars of Australian banks—the ANZ, National Australia Bank, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, and Westpac—Westpac is the last one to be incorporated here. I congratulate members, officials, and Reserve Bank members on working their way through the ramifications of this. If we look at the share price of the two different companies, we see that they have converged somewhat, as the incorporation has come closer.

I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee that considered this bill, heard submissions on it, and reported it back to Parliament. I must say that it is a very good committee to be on. There is a very strong standing of National Party members on that committee—myself, Mr John Key, Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, and Chris Tremain. We bring a lot of gravitas to that committee. Currently, the Finance and Expenditure Committee is also considering the Taxation (Annual Rates, Savings Investment, and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. That bill will affect Westpac and the new Westpac New Zealand. It will hammer those who have provided for their retirement savings by putting a capital gains tax on their unrealised earnings in countries outside New Zealand and Australia, and in what is, under that other bill, almost effectively a country, the Guinness Peat Group. Some of the submissions that have been heard so far on the taxation bill—and many of those submitters are customers of Westpac, and will be customers of the new Westpac New Zealand—are almost unanimous in their opposition to the bill in its current form, which will create huge anomalies. Quite frankly, I do not know how Westpac New Zealand will be able to address and manage those problems in its back office.

The new Westpac New Zealand will be affected by the taxation bill because the bill affects migrants who are thinking about coming to New Zealand. Of those migrants who have already arrived in New Zealand, many are thinking about leaving. Goodness, gracious! We have a capital deficit in New Zealand. We have a higher taxpayer deficit, although inflation has dealt to that. Twenty percent of people are on the 39c tax rate now. Many people are feeling sold out, let down, and deceived by the Labour Government. The Government has said to those people over the last 6 or 7 years: “Come to New Zealand, invest your money here.”, and once they have landed here, suddenly they have been whacked with a capital gains tax that was not even on the horizon when they first talked about coming here.

Westpac New Zealand is the Government banker. It is responsible for managing the cash flows in and out of various accounts. It will be interesting, once various reports come out from the Auditor-General, etc., to see who signed what authorisations, and what prudential requirements were adhered to when the cheque for $446,000 was signed by someone in the Beehive for the pledge card—or perhaps it was signed by the Parliamentary Service, but with the authorisation of someone in the Beehive. We are yet to find that out, but we look forward to that. It will come out in time.

This Westpac New Zealand Bill is one amongst a few other bills going through Parliament at the moment. We have recently seen the KiwiSaver Bill go through. That legislation made fundamental changes to the savings industry of New Zealand, particularly in terms of the last-minute changes that were rammed through 4 hours before the second reading, the scope of which even Labour members were totally oblivious to at the time. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill and the taxation bill are also currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. All these bills contain quite fundamental changes and, taken as a whole, they are a giant lurch backwards for New Zealand and for investment in New Zealand.

Coming back to the Westpac New Zealand Bill, I say again that National supports it, given the integrity of the Reserve Bank, the submitters who came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, the Australian officials who were also involved in this bill, and the officials from the various New Zealand Government departments. I thank those people very much. National looks forward to this legislation, and we look forward to everything going very well and very smoothly from 1 November.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Last night, while we were discussing the Insolvency Law Reform Bill, it seems that we forgot some really important statistics. So being ever-helpful, as we are, the Māori Party humbly brings the following information before the Committee to help us better understand the Westpac New Zealand Bill, as well.

In 2002, 47 percent of bankrupts had more than one credit card, 53 percent had two to four of them, and only 17 percent of bankrupts were Māori—thank heaven! These are big issues that we face—issues that banks like Westpac and other important banks in Aotearoa must address in order to protect their clients’ finances. Yet, as the cash registers were ringing last Christmas, the Banking Ombudsman was condemning banks like Westpac for encouraging their customers to take on debt they could not afford, for extending credit to clients that could not make the repayments, and for giving credit cards to people who had not even asked for them.

There is an old saying about a weka escaping a snare and not going back to it. In this case, though, it was precisely because of the way Westpac snared its customers and dragged them back into debt that, along with BNZ, it jointly won the 2005 Roger Award for the worst transnational corporation operating in Aotearoa—the first banks ever to win the Roger Award for being corporate criminals. The award described how both banks pressured their staff to sell credit cards to people rather than to provide things that the customers had actually asked for. It is the McDonald’s philosophy. Instead of fries with one’s meal, the banks are serving up debt with one’s credit—and they are making their staff serve it up by forcing them to meet targets based on increasing customer debt or losing their jobs.

Westpac staff are required to meet a specific target of 8,575 points a year and, although every new account opened attracts 10 points, selling a credit card gets the staff member an extra 25 points. Union spokesperson Karen Skinner said that these targets are putting increasing stress on bank workers and customers alike, and they also place stress on the New Zealand economy. Why are staff paid incentives to put customers into more debt, and why is it that if the staff do not sell enough, their jobs can be under threat?

The Māori Party will support this bill because it will enable the Reserve Bank to ensure that Westpac and all big banks operating in Aotearoa are incorporated here. We support the view of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise that because banks are vital and strategic players in our economy, they should come under the control of this country’s laws, and local incorporation offers that greater level of domestic security.

But protecting assets and savings must also recognise the huge levels of bankruptcy, insolvency, and credit card debt this country has. I tell members to think about this: New Zealanders are the worst savers in the OECD, bar none. For every $1 we earn, we are spending $1.13. This time last year we owed more than $4 billion on credit cards—up a full $217 million on the previous year. It is hard even to contemplate what this year’s credit card debt level might be. We cannot just ignore these facts and forget to mention them here, or just say tut-tut and condemn people for not being thrifty enough, and hope that it all goes away. We all have a responsibility to talk about this and to deal with it.

Westpac, when lending credit to customers, must be bound by the code of banking practice to act fairly and reasonably towards the customer in a consistent and an ethical way. The explosion in numbers of credit cards and the greater use of credit cards instead of cash, and the growth of e-commerce and the use of performance targets, are forcing Westpac staff to sell more and more debt to Kiwi customers. Incorporating Westpac here is expected to protect Kiwi depositors if Westpac goes belly up, because current Australian law gives Aussies first call on the funds and limits overseas claims. It means that when incorporation is complete, it will be Kiwi customers at the front of the line, and we welcome that.

The bill is also supposed to make the New Zealand banking system more resilient in times of stress, make Westpac subject to the same rules for capital and insolvency as all the other banks in Aotearoa, make Westpac answerable to the Reserve Bank for regulation, monitoring, and discipline, and enable the Reserve Bank to better manage any potential bank failure. Hopefully, that will mean New Zealand does not have to deal with the wider costs of bank failure, like a collapse in investor and consumer confidence, higher borrowing costs, and low economic growth.

But the questions we keep coming back to are, what about Westpac customers trapped in credit dependency? What about those customers who are overspending and plunging into bankruptcy? Last night I reminded the House of the dream of Martin Luther King—that, hopefully, we might never open an account in the bank of justice only to find it bankrupt. In Westpac will we find a bank that dispenses justice to its customers and treats its employees fairly, justly, and with accountability and integrity? When I think of its staff targets and its drive for profit at any cost, I harbour deep concerns about Westpac’s moral bankruptcy, ethical insolvency, and lack of social responsibility. This bill also states that current staff who become employees of Westpac New Zealand should have their contract of employment protected, so we will be watching carefully to see that this does indeed happen and to see that Westpac employees’ rights are upheld in this process.

The Māori Party will support the third reading of this bill, in order to support initiatives that protect our nation’s economy, as well as the finances of its clients. But we will also hold Westpac to account for its investment in social responsibility and efforts to promote a genuine progress index. We will be watching carefully to see whether the growing of its assets is matched by the growth in well-being and security of its staff and clients. Kia ora, Mr Chairperson.

Preamble and clauses 1 to 24 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That the Westpac New Zealand Bill be now read a third time. I wish to give some reassurances in this third reading. I wish to reassure New Zealand depositors with Westpac that their deposits will be as safe with Westpac after the passing of this legislation as they were before. Under Australian law, in the event of bank failure, Australian depositors have preference over the assets of the bank, including the New Zealand assets of the bank. The assets of Westpac New Zealand, as a subsidiary, will not be available to Australian depositors of the Australian bank in the event of failure. In addition, as a registered bank, Westpac New Zealand will be required to comply with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s capital adequacy and other regulatory requirements. That was the purpose behind the Reserve Bank of New Zealand asking Westpac—as it has previously asked banks—to comply in this way.

The second point I will make is on the question of transparency. This bill is transparent. It is not just a decision that has been made by the Minister of Finance. Under this bill, Westpac New Zealand has to disclose what assets and liabilities it will vest in the new entity, and it has to have that vesting order published in the Gazette and through the Statutory Regulations series.

Also, during the debate on this particular bill there have been claims that the Minister of Finance makes these decisions. This is not so. The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, approve a proposal signed by Westpac to vest certain assets and liabilities of Westpac into Westpac New Zealand. The Order in Council can be made only on the advice of the Minister of Finance, after he has received a recommendation from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. So there are cross-checks the entire way through in order to ensure that our people in New Zealand who deposit with Westpac New Zealand are as safe as anybody else with their deposits. I just wanted to clarify that.

I also want to give my thanks to members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for meeting the deadlines to enable Westpac to meet its 1 November date. The legislation was an essential way of doing this clearly, so that we could do it securely, without having a whole lot of other work that would entail cost for Westpac. My thanks also go to the officials who appeared before the select committee to offer clear advice on the issue.

The member for Wellington Central often gets these jobs from head office. This member was a school principal and a teacher, not a financial person. On a number of occasions I have needed to have bank officials in my room giving me advice and taking me through this legislation. I am very grateful to them for doing that, and I have learnt a lot as we have gone through the process. I am very pleased that the Westpac New Zealand Bill has been given the support and the detailed attention of good members of this House.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I will just make one quick point to Marian Hobbs. I think New Zealand investors in the new Westpac bank will actually be in a better position than before. I do not think anyone in this House likes to line up behind Australians for anything whatsoever, and people from my good area of Hawke’s Bay, of course, are lining up and trying to get their apples into Australia—I had to get that point in. I acknowledge again the work of Marian Hobbs; I thank her very much. She is in good company as a former schoolteacher who puts sophisticated legislation like this through the House—the Minister of Finance, of course, was a university lecturer. In the spirit of this Westpac New Zealand Bill, and in the spirit of good financial management and prudential setting up for New Zealand—and of being on a level playing field with the Australians—the National Party is very pleased to support the third reading of the bill.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill

First Reading

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I move, That the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill be now read a first time. It gives me a lot of pleasure to bring before the House an issue that the local community in Southland is unanimous and excited about. I guess a good question is why we have to bring the bill before the House. The answer relates to attractive land that is protected by an endowment provision, as are most of the agricultural and pastoral grounds around New Zealand.

The Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association has been in existence for well over 100 years. It has one of the pre-eminent shows of the country, in that in every sixth year it earns the right to be a royal show. It is one of the agricultural and pastoral shows that continues to serve its community—both the people who are involved in primary production and those who service primary production. It also forms part of an expo to the wider community of Southland. It has a property situated in almost the centre of Invercargill—in Victoria Avenue—that it has held for some considerable time.

People might ask why we have to bring before the House the need to change things, when the Southland A and P showgrounds have been serving the community for so long. It is because several needs now arise that have to be met. The first thing to note is that the A and P showground is a valuable ground; it is situated reasonably centrally—in the city, as I have mentioned. It is asset-rich but not overused. There is an A and P show of 2 days’ duration each year, there are a number of stud fairs—three or four—there are a few equestrian events, and some of the buildings are used from time to time. But, essentially, the building is underutilised and is worth a considerable sum of money. It could also be put to better use—I will say more about that in a moment. I ask members to note that at the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be sent to the Primary Production Committee after it passes its first reading.

The reason the A and P association wants to move is that it has the sensible option of merging assets with the local Ascot Park Raceway. This will provide an outstanding facility. We have two facilities that are underutilised and overcapitalised in the way of grandstands and facilities, and the common-sense approach is to merge the endeavours of both organisations in order to end up with a first-class facility. It will not only serve these two organisations better but will also provide opportunities for others to be involved in a very much better developed site at Ascot Park.

Members may recall that some years ago an endowment bill was passed to assist the Canterbury A and P showgrounds by merging the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Association’s activities with the Addington saleyards on another site. In that legislation we saw a sensible solution that proposed multiple uses of the same land by different organisations.

This proposal is a similar concept, which needed to be considered. It has been considered, and the community is very enthusiastic about the options. There may be a question as to whether this option will work. The interesting thing about the Ascot Park Raceway is that it is unique in New Zealand. To my knowledge it is the only raceway that embraces all three codes on one site in front of one set of grandstands—gallops, trots, and greyhounds. People working in those codes have shown a willingness to work and make sensible solutions, and the A and P association’s presence will be a very, very important addition to what is already offered.

The A and P association’s plans for developing the site at the Ascot Park Raceway include an equestrian centre. I am told that it will be the best equestrian centre of its type in New Zealand. It is most likely that this will happen, because Invercargill is a city that has shown its ability to develop several first-class sites. It has one of only three covered velodromes in the Southern Hemisphere. It has a first-class swimming pool, a first-class theatre, a first-class stadium—both for rugby and netball—and some other interesting things are on the drawing board.

One of the first things to note is that Southland wants to develop an equestrian centre. That will add considerable value to what the A and P association is doing, not only on its show day but also for equestrian people and organisations around Southland. The centre can and will be used by the Riding for the Disabled Association. A number of related events for all equestrian-type activities will be able to take place at the newly developed centre. It is probably fair to say that the existing showgrounds have some limitations now in the area of parking. That problem will be overcome by the increased parking area available at the Ascot Park Raceway. We have a huge opportunity to develop a first-class facility, in every respect.

One other shortcoming that exists at the showgrounds is that the city itself is constricted by traffic flow. Subject to this bill’s passing—and I ask members to note that a level of urgency is being requested by the purchaser—a developer is to develop a bypass for heavy traffic from the north, down North Road. The traffic normally runs through Dee Street and cuts round in a rather complex roundabout through the city centre, but heavy trucks travel on the road right through to Victoria Avenue. So a bypass will be created a couple of kilometres away that will bypass the city and take traffic through from the north and west through to the Port of Bluff. The reconfiguration of the showgrounds will be an integral part in seeing that happen.

I have mentioned, also, that there are plans to create an industrial estate. Significant interest is now arising in and around businesses, in terms of redeveloping and reconfiguring what they have, in their seeking to re-establish themselves in a better situation in the area now occupied by the showgrounds, which will become an industrial estate.

The House should note that there is a degree of urgency and that this bill needs to be progressed in quite an expeditious manner. I have already mentioned that this bill is to go to the Primary Production Committee, but I ask the House to consider—and I will respond to this matter in my right of reply if there are any difficulties—getting a report back from the committee in 30 days. So at the appropriate time, as I said before, I intend to move the instruction to the Primary Production Committee that the bill will be reported back within 30 days of today’s date. I want the House to consider that request, and I will respond to that matter at the appropriate time.

Can I assure those members who may feel that this bill is being rushed that the consideration on this project has taken some years in Southland. If members would care to look at Appendix C of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, they will see that a very prescriptive process has had to be gone through. The community has been consulted and all the requirements have been met according to Appendix C. So we are presenting to the House today a private bill that has been advertised and considered, and the very prescriptive requirements of Appendix C have been fulfilled in every respect. There are no impediments. All sections of the community, including iwi, have been consulted, and there are no difficulties.

All that is required is for the House to sign off this bill concerning land that has been protected by endowment. This is a sensible solution, and it is what the local community wants. I look forward to the House expediting this bill at the earliest opportunity.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): I am very happy to rise and support the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill on behalf of the Government. It is a bill introduced by the member for Invercargill, Eric Roy. I am happy to support his initiative, which is clearly endorsed by all the people in Invercargill and the greater area of Southland.

I, too, am quite fond of agricultural and pastoral associations. They go a long way back and are at the heart and soul of rural New Zealand. There will be many people in this country who fondly remember attending shows up and down this country. Candyfloss and hotdogs perhaps were not as readily available back then, but they were found at those shows. There was a huge turnout of the rural sector. Most of the farmers and people brought their stock, and came to see the displays of implements, tractors, stock—you name it.

Those days have moved on, and we now have only a few very successful shows up and down the country. That is a bit of a sad reflection, I guess, on the perhaps more commercial approach that farmers have to life—that it is less community-focused, in reality—and on the lack of realisation, perhaps, by urban people of the importance of farming across the nation. I applaud those groups around the country who battle away and continue to run their shows. It is a wonderful way of promoting the interface between rural and urban New Zealand, and I am sure that Southlanders will continue to do that. Of course, they will now be able to do it, with the passage of this bill—and I am sure it will pass through as quickly as possible—at a single location in Invercargill.

Ascot Park is a wonderful venue. As spokesperson for racing, and as Minister, I visited it very briefly. It is well supported by the people of Invercargill and, as the member who spoke before me, Eric Roy, said, there are not too many places in this country where the three codes—greyhound, harness, and thoroughbred—race together. I would like to see that model replicated more often around the country, because the racing industry, like the agricultural and pastoral associations, forms a proud part of the rural heritage of New Zealand. We want to see those industries prosper, but they are in a new, very competitive world of entertainment options, and they have to make sure they can provide the very best in terms of facilities to attract people and to remain commercially viable. With the sale of this land and the shift to Ascot Park, I guess—but I have not seen the figures—there will be enough money to build first-class facilities. An indoor equestrian arena might be needed on occasions down in Invercargill; on the West Coast we probably occasionally need it, too For the most part, the wonderful climate allows us to enjoy the outdoors, but a roof over our heads at times is welcomed.

It is nice to acknowledge, as I say, not just the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association but the general rural sector, and to be able to pass legislation through this House expeditiously, because the rural sector remains the lifeblood and the core of our economy. It is very pleasing to see that the latest Rabobank survey for farmers and the rural sector—the people who have supported agricultural and pastoral associations up and down this country—shows that the sector has not been so optimistic for a long time. We know that particularly in Southland there has been huge growth in dairy farming, and that is turning back the clock in some ways. The dollar has come back, and one of the things that really encourages me is that the confidence for sheep farmers is the highest it has been since 2000. That, indeed, is very pleasing, because some people have been concerned at the conversion of sheep and beef farms—sheep, in particular—into dairying, and have been concerned that it might be happening too quickly. I think this new round of confidence shown by the survey will mean that farmers can remain in the sheep industry for both wool and meat, and that they will prosper and make good money.

They need to; this economy needs to have a diverse agricultural and horticultural base. We have seen huge growth in dairying but a shrinkage in sheep and beef farming. Perhaps we need to slow that down a little bit, with options for farmers on different land types in different regions, so they can be the most efficient international farmers in their sector of agriculture, using the best land and the best methods available. There are some areas—perhaps, for example, in the dry lands of Canterbury—where some conversions to dairying might have produced better financial benefits long term under a sheep-farming regime. But, anyway, over time I am sure we will probably see the truth, or otherwise, in that.

Once again, I emphasise that if the farming sector is the sector that will support the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association down there, then it will do so very well and with a huge amount of confidence. That will mean that this bill and the changes it allows will result in a wonderful and very beneficial facility, not just for farmers and the farming sector but for the whole of Invercargill and Southland. The Government is very happy to endorse this bill and support it going through the House, as I am sure are most parties in the House. Kia ora.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora tātou i tēnei pō. The Māori Party came to this bill with raised antennae. Would we find that the intention to empower the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Inc. to sell its interests in the Invercargill showgrounds, or in any other land it may acquire, was really just another metaphor for land confiscation or alienation of the 21st century kind? We were primed to detect the untold story. Would we find the same situation for Ascot Park as we found in the Manawatū with Manfeild Park or in Tairāwhiti with Alfred Cox Park? How well informed would mana whenua be of the discussions, the decisions, and the benefits for the A and P society of selling the land? Would we find a similar situation existed for the people of Murihiku as for Ngāti Kauwhata, Rongowhakaata and the peoples of Tūranga Nui?

This is not an academic exercise. The collective ownership of whenua and the exercise of customary rights are part of the rights and responsibilities of whānau or hapū membership, and are an integral part of the identity and mana of tangata whenua. It is our obligation—it is our honour—to come to this House to exercise the independent Māori voice, to defend Māori rights, and to advance Māori interests, for the benefit of Aotearoa. Yet regrettably, the significance of the Treaty relationship is, in the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill, as in many other bills, given little consideration. We stand here today to advise this House again that mana whenua did not know of this issue prior to our contacting them. Kāi Tahu had not been consulted or informed as part of the negotiations, or as part of the bill’s drafting. That is simply not on. It is an affront to tangata whenua in yet another piece of legislation.

But there are two very important distinctions that the Māori Party can make in the context of this bill. The first is to be able to publicly commend the initiatives of those key players in local government who do respect the ongoing relationship with the Treaty partner. Our research shows that the Southland local authorities entered into a charter of understanding with Kāi Tahu o Murihiku in 1997 to define the processes for Kāi Tahu o Murihiku involvement and consultation in matters of resource consent. Subsequent to that charter, the Southland District Council, jointly with the Gore District Council, Environment Southland, and Invercargill City Council, has funded Te Ao Marama Inc., a business unit established to provide liaison between applicants for resource consents and local rūnanga. Te Ao Marama has quickly become a one-stop shop for iwi liaison on resource management issues within the rohe.

The concept of Te Ao Marama is sourced in our kōrero tawhito; it refers to the process of emerging into light when the separation of Rangi and Papa occurred. Indeed, for local government in Southland, Te Ao Marama would seem to be part of the new world where tangata whenua interests in resource management—in participating in the four local authorities—are actually facilitated. Te Ao Marama represents four of the papatipu rūnaka—the tribal councils of Kāi Tahu—in the interests of tangata whenua in Southland, including matters covered by the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. However, where the issues have a wider Treaty or precedent-setting character, the required consultation is with the overall iwi authority, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.

The Māori Party is thrilled therefore to be able to say that on paper—and, it would appear, in practice—the Southland District Council recognises the vital importance of appropriate liaison and consultation with iwi on resource management issues within the district. We know that this liaison has been particularly important since the enactment of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. That Act created a number of statutory acknowledgment areas within Southland where Ngāi Tahu are recognised as having a special association. Those areas were subsequently identified in the district plan, and the council is legally required to consult with Ngāi Tahu when applications are received concerning matters in or directly adjacent to those areas. That all looks very good indeed. Members might say: “Ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama, tihei mauri ora.”

Given that local precedent of the establishment and experience of Te Ao Marama, the Māori Party cannot not understand why it was so hard to consult mana whenua when it came to the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill. Indeed, we have learnt that the sponsor of this bill—the local member—even fronted up to a rūnaka meeting a couple of weeks ago, but unfortunately did not mention this issue.

That is where we get to the second distinction between the provisions of this bill and the situations surrounding Manfeild Park in Manawatū and Alfred Cox Park in Gisborne. For when we, the Māori Party, contacted mana whenua, they confirmed that actually they are happy with the proposed developments outlined in this bill. In line with their long history as entrepreneurs, the people of Murihiku are quick to support any initiatives that they consider to be positive for Invercargill and the people. Ever since the first encounters with settlers, mana whenua in Murihiku have been active advocates of the local economy. They were instrumental in the flax trade, in the whaling industry, and in supplying ships with food. True to form, they suggested that the more that Ascot Park is used for important occasions, the more it helps all the players involved and the local community. So all I can say is this is National’s lucky day.

But it could easily have been different on many fronts. The Southland A and P showgrounds are endowment land protected by law. Endowment land is gifted for a specific purpose and if no longer required, it should be returned to the group that gifted it. Under the terms of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, iwi are to be given the right of first refusal on Crown land being sold, so they are able to purchase it at market rates. Following due process, we are able to advise the House that the opinion of mana whenua is that the selling of this land has no effect on the right of first refusal clause.

We know that with this legislation, three conditions must be satisfied. The first is that it appears advantageous to the society to sell the land. The second is that at least two-thirds of the members of the society present at a general meeting have agreed to sell it. The third is that there must have been not less than 14 days’ notice given of the general meeting, and the proposal to sell the land was given to members of the society.

The Māori Party asks the inevitable question: what would have been so hard about having as a key condition to any bill put forward that, firstly, the people of the land—the mana whenua—were consulted and empowered to participate? There are plenty of precedents for doing so in the rohe of Murihiku. In the health area, for example, there have been some commitments to a memorandum of understanding between the Southland District Health Board and mana whenua ki Murihiku, Te Rūnanga o Awarua in Bluff, Te Rūnanga o Ōraka Aparima in Riverton, Waihopai Rūnaka in Invercargill, and Hokonui Rūnanga in Gore. As part of the spirit of that relationship, consultation with mana whenua takes place through Kaitiaki Hauora, a committee that comprises Ngāi Tahu and local rūnanga representation along with Southland District Health Board members and management.

The Māori Party is always disappointed to read statements, such as those in the background to this bill, that all parties are in agreement that a sale of land should proceed, yet to know that “all parties” does not actually mean all. We also know that the faulty processes involved in the pursuit of justice have resulted in one of the Treaty partners having an understanding that “full and final” does not mean full and final, as justice is never done when the negotiations are carried out with one partner having to accept the conditions imposed by the other. “All parties” in the context of this bill means Invercargill City Council, the A and P association, Ascot Park, and the business and retail sectors of Invercargill. What about tangata whenua, who represent 11.6 percent of the region’s total population? Within that, Invercargill City has by far the largest Māori population of the district.

It is not too hard to follow proper processes. We know that with the show season fast approaching, all parties want this matter to be concluded so that the new development can take place. We in the Māori Party also know that another very significant party, mana whenua, will not stand in the way of the Southland A and P association selling its property and relocating to Ascot Park Raceway.

The Māori Party supports the passage of this bill in the House, and we mihi at the same time to the generosity of mana whenua in supporting such an initiative to take place. Kia ora tātou.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is my pleasure to rise in support of the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill, brought forward for us by Eric Roy. To reiterate Damien O’Connor’s words earlier, Labour supports this bill.

Ascot Park has to be one of the few places in New Zealand that I have not visited for the purposes of going to an active, live race meeting. I have, however, attended another type of meeting there. It is good to see that the codes are all working together on that facility, and it seems that the bill before us will, in fact, make sure that the facility has even better use in the future. I think that bodes very well.

The meeting that I recall there was probably back in the early 1990s when I held a meeting of local stable hands and stud workers to form the Equine Workers Union. If members in the House have never heard of the Equine Workers Union, there is a very good reason why. I am almost too depressed to talk about it, but, fortunately, that union did get off the ground. It went through all the processes of being formed, and even gained the first national award, ever. I was the principal negotiator for that national award for stable hands and stud workers. Unfortunately, the Employment Contracts Act was enacted by the National Government shortly thereafter and that national award was probably one of the shortest-lived in history. So that is a piece of history associated with Ascot Park and the one time I visited there.

This bill tells us the community is behind the project; that there is community enthusiasm for it. In my experience that means the project will work, because when a community is behind something and pushing for its development, then it stands a very good chance of success. It seems to me that this is a win-win situation. It is good to see there is wide support in the House for this bill to go through. But I have to question Eric Roy’s contemplating that the best equestrian centre in New Zealand will be in Southland. I do not want to seem too parochial about the matter, but living right next door to Cambridge I would mount a challenge that the Cambridge area would do very well in terms of equestrian centres. Of course, New Zealand – wide it is something that New Zealand is well-known for and that we do very well as a country. So it is good to see further developments in this area.

I look forward to hearing the report back from the select committee—the Primary Production Committee, if that is where it is headed. I wish the committee well in its deliberations and hope the bill has a quick passage through the House.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I would like to take a right of reply. I thank members for their charitable comments and I particularly appreciate the comments made by Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party. An explanation is probably necessary on my part. The member referred to my having visited the rūnanga of Waihopai. I had an order of the day for quarter of an hour to talk about issues and we spent 45 minutes on Doug Woolerton’s Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. The meeting got so carried away that all other matters were forgotten and my time expired by over half an hour. So the criticism he made is probably fair.

I confirm the member’s comments about Te Ao Marama. They are a very integral part of the local process of doing things, and nothing escapes them. The bill was advertised accordingly in the newspaper for 2 consecutive weeks. I can furnish a copy of the ad, if the member wishes to see it. As I say, all requirements of appendix C were met, and although there may not have been a specific time, I was set to go and do it but other matters overtook on that occasion. So I give my apologies and thank the member for the consideration given, and the diligent homework done, in regard to that.

When I moved the first reading earlier, I said there was some urgency in the matter. I have discussed this with the chairman, David Carter, and clerk of the Primary Production Committee, which has the time available to progress the bill. We have talked about ways in which the 30-day requirement might be met. Mr Carter has indicated that a subcommittee is prepared to be formed to hear the bill in the next adjournment of the House. Again, no issues have been identified, and I would say that pressure was put on me by the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association to pass this bill through all stages in one day. There has been a discussion at the Business Committee and there is, I think, some degree of unanimity and recognition that there is an element of urgency required, but caution will prevail.

The bill will go to the select committee, it will be advertised, and a subcommittee is prepared to travel to Invercargill, if required, to hear any of those people. We have set in place a mechanism so all of those things can be met in order to say that although this land is endowment land, it is that way for a special reason and we do not take lightly the provision of protection that endowment law provides. However, it is time to move on and do what the community wants, but let us do it in a way in which we know we have ticked off all of the boxes and everybody has an opportunity to express their opinion in favour of or against the proposal. At the moment, to my knowledge, there is 100 percent agreement by everybody for what is a common-sense approach.

Again, I thank the Māori Party for its consideration. I thank Damien O’Connor and Sue Moroney from the Labour Party for their comments, and interestingly they both have an intrinsic and deep interest in the racing industry. It is good that we can see not only the codes of racing working together in Southland but also in the wider community spreading out to equestrian and other events. A very, very logical proposal has been put in place. Sue Moroney referred to the equestrian centres in and around Cambridge, and I agree that that is a recognised breeding stronghold, certainly of the thoroughbred industry, and other horse interests as well. But in terms of what is going to happen with an equestrian centre in Southland, I say: “Watch this space.” The next time the member is in Invercargill she should look not only at Ascot Park, but also at some of the other stunning facilities we have. As I mentioned earlier, we are particularly very proud of the covered velodrome. I thank members for their support.

Bill read a first time.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I move, That the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, and that the committee finally report the bill on or before 7 October 2006.

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill stands in my name, and it has been the recommendation of the Education and Science Committee that it be discharged. I want to take some time to go through the history of this and to give my views why that is, in my view, an inadequate recommendation from that committee.

The first point is that a bill like this does not come before the Parliament unless there is a reason for it. Back in the time slightly before the bill was introduced some 4 years ago, there was a situation where a person who had quite a considerable record of paedophilia-type crimes against children was elected to a North Island primary school’s board of trustees. The board of trustees in that particular community was unable to remove that person from the board because he had been duly elected and, according to law, was entitled to be there. I think it rather strange that people who have that kind of predilection are able to get themselves elected into a position where the very people they prey on become part of their charge, as far as public office is concerned. So this bill was introduced.

A bill was brought in by the current Government shortly after, and there were some changes to section 103 of the Education Act 1989 that made it more difficult for people in that circumstance to make their way into this sort of elected office. In particular, new section 103(1)(de) was inserted into the Act, which made it impossible, or unacceptable, for someone who is convicted of a sex crime against a child to be either appointed, elected, or co-opted as a trustee for a school if that person has been convicted of a crime with a possible sentence exceeding 2 years—unless, of course, that person had served the sentence. The problem with that in this case is that, generally, if someone does have that kind of predilection, a prison term is not the cure.

So I am disappointed the select committee has gone through the exercise of considering the bill and has decided that section 103(1)(de) does not need to be strengthened, because I think, quite clearly, it does. I know that the people on the select committee did their very best. They did look at it from all angles, but I cannot help feeling that they might have been rolled by the very PC bureaucracy that operates in the Ministry of Education. The officials took the view that of course people who are paedophiles have rights, and if one of those rights is that they should be able to stand as trustees for school boards, then the law should allow it. I do not think anybody in the wider community would agree with that position.

I hope those who served on that select committee, rather than just standing up and saying that the bill should be discharged, actually take the time to show how they have ensured that children in our schools are protected from people who choose to use those schools to groom their next victims. I am pleased that the member over there, Moana Mackey, is nodding her head. It will be interesting to hear what she has to say, because there is nothing in legislation that would give people comfort. Essentially, if someone is convicted of that sort of crime, goes off to prison, serves the sentence, comes out, puts his or her name forward, and gets elected, that person can serve as a trustee on that particular school board. Is that the case?

Moana Mackey: Yes, if they’ve finished their sentence.

GERRY BROWNLEE: The member says yes! So how on earth can this bill be discharged, given that there is no protection for those children?

Moana Mackey: They can also run a sports team, be a parent helper—

GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, OK. So now the member will tell me that the principal of a school, knowing that someone had a record like that, would be dopey enough to say, “Come along and run our dance team, come along and run our rugby team, come along and organise our production, come along on the school camp.”—for goodness’ sake! Principals are not as silly as that, I tell Miss Mackey. Until there is something in the legislation that requires these people to disclose their backgrounds, children will be exposed. Labour, of course, will be happy, because it wants paedophiles’ rights to be protected. That is what Labour members have said by discharging a bill like this. I ask the member what the harm would be in passing the bill.

Moana Mackey: Why didn’t you come to the select committee and tell us how strongly you felt about it?

GERRY BROWNLEE: The member has just asked the question across the House—somewhat inappropriately, I might add—as to why I did not turn up to the select committee. Well, I did. I went to the first committee meeting held on this bill in this new Parliament. I heard the various Labour members giving their views on where it should all go. I had numerous discussions with the hapless chair of the select committee, the New Zealand First poodle Brian Donnelly, and it became abundantly clear to me that they had a political agenda that was all about the rights of people who had offended against children being able to have further access to children for more offending against them. There was absolutely no point in wasting time with people who had that mindset.

Hon Steve Maharey: You’ve lost the plot.

GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I hope the member stands up and is still prepared to give an assurance that no one with this sort of predilection will end up being elected, appointed, or co-opted to one of these boards. I tell the member not to run this nonsense that those people can be involved in the sports team, or cultural groups, or anything else, because I do not believe that there is a principal in this country stupid enough to put someone of that sort of persuasion into those positions.

It is very disappointing that members put forward bills because they see them being of use to the community, but then, for sake of political expediency, minor parties, like New Zealand First, completely roll over on their principles and allow a bill like this to be discharged.

Moana Mackey: Your members voted against it.

GERRY BROWNLEE: The member over there says New Zealand First voted against it. Let me tell Ms Mackey that New Zealand First is propping up the current Government. New Zealand First is directly responsible for propping up a Government that shows no respect for the law of this country and little regard for the needs of children in this country. I look forward to the speech of the Minister of Education, knowing well his liberal views.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I thank Gerry Brownlee—the member in charge of the bill, who has just sat down—for his kind introduction. I thought that Mr Brownlee, being a schoolteacher, would probably want us to go to our references first of all. He would say, as he has probably done with his classes: “Before you take the test, please read the question.” So I thought it might be important for us to go back to what the Education and Science Committee said, in the light of his comments at the end of his speech, where he said that the New Zealand First people were a species of dog and that his own people had somehow supported it.

Gerry Brownlee: That’s not true.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: He said they were poodles. What is a poodle? The member does not know species of dogs now?

Gerry Brownlee: No, no. The member would understand the analogious—

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I think the member meant to say analogous. “Analogious” is not a word. As a university lecturer I know “analogous” is a word and “analogious” is not.

I go back to the select committee report: “We are unanimous in our recommendation that this bill not proceed.” My understanding is that the word “unanimous” means everyone—everyone who was at the committee, everyone who went along—which includes National Party members. They also voted against the bill. I will not spend my time being hard on the member, because I know he wanted to do something productive for schools; I know that. He is a former schoolteacher, and he is probably worried about the issue and thought it was a good idea. But the problem is that everyone came to the conclusion that it was a great idea in theory but it was a bad idea in practice. That is what I think it boils down to.

There is no need for this. There is no need to introduce something that would not actually do anything. Aspiration, fine—top marks for that! As for actual practicality, it is not so good. So having this discussion here, where everyone is labelled as a poodle, or people are PC because they did not agree with the member, means that his own members came to the same conclusion that everybody else did; it is OK as an aspiration but not a great idea for putting into our schools. So those are the comments that, I think, get to the heart of the matter.

At the time of the first reading of the bill, it was agreed by people across the House that it was a narrow bill, and probably flawed. The member should not take too much umbrage at that. We all know that writing our own member’s bill is hard. I can imagine the member toiling away there, at 12 o’clock at night, hunched over his laptop, saying to himself, “Let me tap out the next part.” The task of writing this bill is analogous to quite hard work. We have to excuse it, first of all, in that it is a member’s bill. The member was doing his best—he had to tap it out on his laptop by himself, late at night. That is hard work, and it probably led to this bill being a bit narrow and a bit flawed.

The bill seeks to “ensure that persons convicted of sex offences”—as listed in the bill—“against children or young persons are not eligible to stand for school boards of trustees.” The heart of the matter is that the Education and Science Committee concluded that it did not think that the bill, as drafted, would make anybody safer. The reason, of course, is that there are already a large number of rules in place in the Act that control people who have been convicted of offences, with regard to getting on to school boards of trustees. As the current incumbent Minister of Education, I have the right to remove people, if I do not like them being on a board; if it is brought to my attention that they are the wrong kinds of people. The member needs to understand that his own National Party compatriots said that he had not added anything to what already goes on.

Let me go back to the select committee report itself—because, as I say, Mr Brownlee as a former teacher knows that it is always important to go back to the text and look at what is in there. The report states that the School Trustees Association—made up of the tens of thousands of people across the country who are on the boards of our schools—was not satisfied that it would “contribute to the safety of students.” I think that is an important point.

Gerry Brownlee: Read the submissions.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Well, they are summarised here. The report states: “The School Trustees Association told us that the bill did not contribute to the safety of students.” I know it is hard for the member to take, when this bill is his own baby. He has put it together, tapping on the old laptop late at night; he has been wanting to do something. But it is the view of the people who actually run the schools that this bill will not do the job. It will not make children safer than they already are.

We also know that the bill could place on potential school trustees tighter restrictions than apply to applicants for employment as teachers, even though, in many schools, trustees have little or no contact with students. Trustees of the board usually meet at a school at night-time, when no one is there except other adults like them. Under this bill, trustees would be more constrained than someone who is in the classroom with the children every day—day after day, hour after hour. As a former teacher, the member was in a classroom with kids, so he will know what the vetting procedures are for teachers. They do have to be quite tight. This bill was going to introduce even tighter restrictions for people who were going to be on a board of trustees.

The select committee report goes on to state, in respect of qualifying offences: “The bill lists a number of sex offences, conviction for which would lead to permanent ineligibility to be a trustee. We considered amending the bill so that the offences leading to permanent ineligibility to be a trustee would be either those listed as ‘relevant offences’ ”—under the relevant section of the Act—“or those listed as ‘specified offences’ … While the list of ‘relevant offences’ is more comprehensive, some of those offences could be ‘clean-slated’, which would (at least to some extent) defeat the purpose of the bill. The list of ‘specified offences’ does not include some serious offences, …”.

So, once again, it is the lack of practicality that I think people were getting at. They were saying that they know it is hard—the member was up there, typing, late at night. He had spent the whole day trying to defend his party against corruption charges of policy for money, and all those kinds of things. He took the brunt because the leader was not able to do that for himself, so the member was up on his feet. It was hard work. It was tiring. Then he had to go home, sit in his flat, and tap out the bill himself, so it is no wonder he forgot that there are not the right references in his bill to the kinds of things he was actually trying to prevent in the first place.

Listed under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act is a whole lot of material that cannot be watched by a person—an individual could be prosecuted for that—but because that offence is not listed in this bill, that person could get on to a board.

Gerry Brownlee: Put it in there, then.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Well, let us come to that in a second. The report goes on to state: “The use of either list would require complicated cross-referencing by returning officers to determine the eligibility …”, and that might lead to the kind of anomalous—the word “anomalous” is in there—results, “particularly in relation to offences which could be ‘clean-slated’. To achieve its intention the bill would have to provide for the relevant provisions of the principal Act to override Section 21 of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004, which requires that provisions of other enactments that refer to a person’s criminal record must be interpreted in a way that is consistent with this Act. We are advised that this would be unprecedented.” The member was not thinking small. He was determined to override section 21 of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004. That has never been done before, so I give him top marks for aspiration.

Once again, people were saying that they had traversed all legislative possibilities with serious intent but were unable to find provisions more satisfactory than those that exist. The provisions are already there, so what are we doing passing this law? In relation to police vetting, the Education and Science Committee stated in its report: “Candidates for election as trustees are not required to undergo police vetting. We considered adding such a requirement to the bill, but were advised that this would place a strain on the vetting system. We believe that, because each school is responsible for conducting its own election, the information produced by such a requirement could be used inconsistently.” In other words, there would, once again, be a practical problem.

I think everybody in the House admires the member as someone who is a committed teacher and who works extremely hard on behalf of his party. He is one of the few who is able to give National a kind of warm, caring, concerned face against the harshness that is being projected by his party these days. I have to say that he is a kind of beacon of hope—a beacon of civilisation—who sits across on the Opposition benches. He is a kind of warm glow in the National Party against the cold backdrop of the other members, who are so driven by the kinds of things that have come out today. Bob Clarkson would be another warm, human individual, and that is probably why he has popped down to support the member.

Excepting all of that, we have to say, in the end, that the committee was unanimous—to a person, every single one of them—in its recommendation. The word “unanimous” is analogous to the word “universal”, for example. Virtually everybody was agreed—the police, the School Trustees Association, the National Party, and New Zealand First. Probably even the Exclusive Brethren would agree with the select committee, I would imagine. They would say: “Good try.” In the end, this bill is not workable, so we will vote it down.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to take a call on the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill as the deputy chair of the Education and Science Committee, which in this term of Parliament looked at this bill again. I tell Mr Brownlee, straight up, that all National members of the committee were present on the day we decided unanimously that this bill should not proceed.

I have to say that I was a bit disappointed at Mr Brownlee’s speech, because the Education and Science Committee tried extremely hard to make this bill work. When the bill was first referred to us, we looked at the submission we had received from the School Trustees Association, and we thought that the bill had obviously been introduced because of a specific situation in Christchurch; we thought that people had been very, very upset, so Mr Brownlee had introduced a bill to recognise a problem.

Gerry Brownlee: It was Palmerston North.

MOANA MACKEY: Oh—Palmerston North. We recognised that, but the bill was difficult and unworkable. Submitters said that boards of trustees had far less contact with children than many other people did, and that unless we addressed that, we would create inconsistencies.

Then Brian Donnelly, the chair of the committee, about whom Mr Brownlee has been very uncharitable tonight, said that he thought we should go ahead with the bill. He said we should see whether we could make it work, because he made the very good point that in rural schools, boards of trustees have a lot of contact with children. They do a lot of the hiring. They take on a lot of the roles that, in other schools, teacher aides and other teachers take on. We said that that was a very good point, and that we should go ahead and see whether we could make the bill work. We tried very, very hard to make this bill work.

Judith Collins: Not hard enough.

MOANA MACKEY: Judith Collins was not on the committee and does not know. I am sure she thinks that no committee works nearly as hard as any committee she is on. I would hope she knows, from the various committees we have been on together, that I work very hard to try to make things work that I think are practical, and this bill was one of them.

The committee tried very, very hard to make this bill work but, in the end, every road we went down tended to be quite circular. We came back to the fact that the list of offences in the original bill is not very comprehensive, and that if we were going to outlaw the things listed in the bill—which, indeed, we should—then we should outlaw sexual grooming and many other sexual offences. Once we started to add more and more offences, it became difficult to say where we should draw that line. A lot of us went out and talked to schools about the matter and they said: “Well, we would quite like people with fraud convictions not to be allowed to stand for boards of trustees.” So we ended up with a ballooning group of offences that related only to people standing for boards of trustees.

We looked at police vetting and we thought, maybe, that if we said people had to be police-vetted and then parents had to make up their own minds about it when they voted, that could make a difference. But, of course, if only a certain number of people stand for a board—the same number as there are places—those people will be appointed automatically and there is not an election, which makes it difficult. The problem with police vetting was also that we did not think the police would have the capacity to cope with the thousands and thousands of applications there would be, every time board of trustee elections came around.

We also looked at tying this bill to the Parole Act, in relation to extended supervision orders. I think it is important to note here that the sex offenders that parents are truly worried about are now able to be sentenced to preventive detention on their first offence. But it was certainly a concern that under the law prior to the 2002 changes under the Sentencing Act, the very worst sex offenders could often not be given preventive detention, because it was their first offence. As members of this House well know, it probably was not their first offence; it was just the first one they were caught doing. But in any case they were given a limited sentence, at which point they would be paroled and then released into the community. Now we know that the most serious sex offenders will get preventive detention on their first offence. Preventive detention is a lifelong sentence, so those offenders are automatically ineligible ever to be elected to a board of trustees.

That does not change the fact that currently we are still dealing with those people who are being released from prison now and who did not get preventive detention, even though when we read sentencing notes we can see that judges have said that if preventive detention had been available for those offenders’ sentences, they would have got it. That is why the Hon Phil Goff introduced the amendment to the Parole Act to provide an extended supervision order. Of course, any sex offender under an extended supervision order will not be eligible to stand for a board of trustees.

It was suggested to us that we might want to link this bill to that list, so that if that list were ever enlarged to include more offences, this bill would also include those offences. But we felt that the list, under the amendment to the Parole Act—the extended supervision orders—was not comprehensive enough for what Mr Brownlee was looking to achieve there. Again, even though the list involved the worst offences, it did not involve, for example, some of the offences already in the bill, and many of the others we have mentioned, including sexual grooming, accessing child pornography, and things like that.

So a lot of work went into trying to make this bill work. Some members of the select committee went out and consulted schools in their communities that were concerned about this matter, that had heard about this bill, and that thought it was a great idea. But those members said that when they had gone through the issue and talked about it, they had realised that probably the best route was not to introduce more and more legislation, and more and more restrictions and bureaucracy, if the bill could be made to work without doing that.

One of the things the committee asked for advice on was the kinds of powers boards of trustees themselves had, to make decisions in regard to how they conducted their elections, but we have not received that advice yet. Another thing we looked at was the role the Minister plays in removing people who have been elected. Even under Mr Brownlee’s bill, offenders who have never been caught could be put on to boards of trustees. Currently, if people know there are problems, they can go to the Minister and say they have serious concerns about someone, and that person can be removed.

At the end of the day, I understand that Mr Brownlee is very disappointed that this bill will not proceed, but he can rest assured that we tried very, very hard to make it work. I think it stands to reason that people who are in contact day to day with children, and with young children in particular, should not carry those offences. I know that Mr Brownlee probably does not believe me, but we tried very, very hard to make the bill work. However, it was a unanimous decision of the committee that it should not proceed, but that is not to say that that would be the case if some other member were to introduce a bill that was workable, and that would not just create a massive bureaucracy that would be very difficult to administer—a bill that would not mean that the registrar of electors for boards of trustees would have to go through every single person of the thousands of people who stand for boards of trustees, all at the same time, cross-referencing to find out what offences they had; and that the police, within a very short period of time, would not have to come up with a huge number of police vets, which they simply would not be able to do. If we were able to have a bill in the House that addressed the issue, then I, for one, would be very interested in seeing it, but I am afraid that Mr Brownlee’s bill is not it.

I am sorry that Mr Brownlee felt that Brian Donnelly did such a terrible job. He was the member who, beyond the meeting that Mr Brownlee was able to attend, said initially that we should go ahead with the bill, because of the issue that rural schools had with it. The committee thought that that was a very good point. And Mr Donnelly’s committee members did carry on and bring Mr Brownlee’s wishes to the committee as to how he wished the bill to proceed. The committee looked at all the options it felt were available to it under current law.

But we felt that if we had gone ahead with this bill, despite the fact we thought its intentions were honourable, we would have created bad law and made a lot of problems in the future. We would hate Mr Brownlee to look bad at any point in the future when boards of trustee elections come around, because of the very difficult administrative efforts that would have to be made if his bill were passed.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to speak to the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill. We support the sentiment behind this bill. The bottom line is that if the bill did make it safer for children in our schools, then it would have to be passed. I know that the Hon Brian Donnelly has stated that many times. Children are at the centre of his world, and he would definitely be behind anything to make children safer in the classroom and at school.

But at the end of the day, we must go with the Education and Science Committee’s recommendations, particularly when the select committee states in its report back on the bill: “We are unanimous in our recommendation that this bill not proceed.” As the Minister has said and as the previous speaker said, the select committee worked very hard on this bill. It worked through all of the legislative possibilities, but it was unable to find provisions more satisfactory than those currently in place. The select committee also said that it was not satisfied that the bill as drafted would make schoolchildren here in New Zealand any safer.

We heard from previous speakers that they have sought ways to amend the bill in order to achieve Gerry Brownlee’s intention, but that they were unable to do so without creating inconsistencies in the current law. We also know that at this point in time the principal Act provides the Minister of Education with the power to intervene when it is believed that the welfare of students is at risk. We believe that those powers, as they currently are in the law, are sufficient to address the inappropriate election, appointment, or co-optation of a trustee.

We will support the select committee’s recommendations at this point in time.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa,i tēnei pō. This Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill cuts to the heart of many fundamental principles in our society. Right up there is the right of every child to be free from sexual exploitation and abuse. The fact of even having this bill on the Order Paper highlights the shame of our nation that our babies, our children, are being raped and abused. It demonstrates the unthinkable that sexual offending with children is acceptable.

We in the Māori Party are disappointed today that another bill has been withdrawn—a proposal that looked to follow the lead of the United Kingdom and Canada and introduce a Sex Offenders Registry Bill. Although we are aware of the dangers inherent in establishing such a registry—the risk of provoking vigilante activism and the possible obstacles that may impede rehabilitation—the principle is one still worthy of discussion. In addressing that principle we would do no better than to refer to the comments of Jane Foster, National Director of End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, who said: “Our children deserve the best protection possible from child sex offenders. … The New Zealand public needs to know what concrete steps are taken to manage the risk offenders pose to children’s safety.”

These issues are deadly serious issues. They threaten the values that are at the core of our national identity. They disturb the myth of safety formerly associated with Aotearoa. Child sexual offending destroys the innocence of our tamariki, it fragments families, and it places communities at risk. The attainment of stability and well-being disintegrates through the actions of offenders who prey on our most vulnerable, and it has lasting consequences for all of those concerned.

For glaring evidence of that, I refer the House to a paper written by Dr Miriam Saphira and Tainui/Maniapoto/Ngāti Paretekawa woman, Averil Herbert. The paper, called Victimisation Among Those Involved in Underage Commercial Sexual Activity, reports on a study of the incidence of violence and childhood sexual abuse amongst those who go on to become involved in underage commercial sexual activity. Although it was a restricted report, surveying only Northland, Auckland, and Waikato, the results were profoundly disturbing. Fifty-nine percent of respondents disclosed child sexual abuse, and for Māori the percentage was even higher. Seventy-four percent of Māori respondents disclosed child sexual abuse, as opposed to 40 percent of Europeans and 60 percent of Pasifika.

These are tragic statistics, and although, as always, there are a whole range of factors in the analysis that one could wrap around this study—such as the results possibly indicating more about the willingness of Māori and Pacific respondents to disclose sensitive information at disproportionate rates—the fact remains that even one child offended against is a tragedy. It is a tragedy of lifelong proportions. The impact of sexual offending scars the soul, wounds self-confidence, and has lasting consequences on the well-being of individuals and their whānau. So the Māori Party comes to this Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill with much hope of addressing and reducing this appalling state of child exploitation and oppression.

It is essential that the law protects children, but other key principles are at play here that also bear discussion. There is the principle of natural justice. As I understand it, in the case of this bill the Ministry of Education was not keen to pursue any amendment to the law. The ministry tended to favour the notion that communities would sort out offenders. I have read through the debate in the first reading of this bill, and I do not share the same optimism that Lynne Pillay has, in her belief that the nature of school elections makes it highly likely that sex offenders are identified by the community, and the issue then resolved through community pressure. Do sex offenders look different from you or me? How would we know whether a sex offender was present in this House today? Could the membership of the Christian Heritage Party identify an offender in their midst? Clearly not! So I am not so convinced that the merits of natural justice should be considered in this debate.

Other themes in the debate around natural justice have implied that as members of boards of trustees are not actually in a teaching role, the issues are not so relevant. But, as the School Trustees Association told the Education and Science Committee, in some communities trustees are also coaches, parent helpers, or involved in school life in other ways. We also know that in small rural schools, members of boards of trustees are more likely to have contact with students than is the case in larger schools. So the risk is still there and this bill does little to reduce that risk. Individuals disbarred by the legislation from becoming trustees would not be prevented from performing other roles associated with children.

Yet another important debate to be had is that around the rehabilitation and restoration of offenders into the community. How do we care for our alienated and our ostracised? How do we reintegrate offenders into caring communities? These again are big issues that this bill does not address.

So what does the bill do? The bill amends the Education Act 1989 to ensure that convicted child sex offenders may not be school trustees. As a member of the Education and Science Committee, I agree with my fellow members of that committee that section 103 of the principal Act already imposes limits on who may become a school trustee. The Education Act 1989 ensures that persons convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more, or who have been sentenced to imprisonment for any other offence, are unable to be appointed as trustees. So the Māori Party endorses the advice in the select committee report that there are existing legislative measures to prevent convicted child sex offenders from becoming trustees.

For the purpose of this debate the Māori Party will vote against this bill, supporting the recommendation from the select committee that the bill not proceed. But we must not avoid the responsibility of tackling the crisis that the bill was intended to address. I am told that John F Kennedy would often make reference to the fact that when written in Chinese, the word crisis is composed of two characters—one representing danger and the other representing opportunity. I believe that this nation is well aware of the dangers inherent in the crisis of sexual offending against children, but have we truly exhausted all of the options in trying to respond?

This bill presents us with another opportunity to speak out about the safety of children. The select committee has concluded that existing legislation includes sufficient powers to address the inappropriate election, appointment, or co-option of a trustee, and we are led to believe that the Education Act 1989 also provides the Ministry of Education with powers to intervene when the Minister believes the welfare of students to be at risk. These are all good reasons to justify doing nothing in relation to this bill, but we must not do nothing about the children who are harmed by the crisis of sexual abuse.

Tangata whenua too, like the Chinese, are always mindful of opportunities. One of our whakatauāki reminds us: “Ka whati te tai, ka pao te tōrea.”, which means, literally: “When the tide ebbs, the oystercatcher strikes.” So we must not sit by, vote down this bill, and waste an opportunity for this Parliament to pool its collective wisdom in addressing the crisis of sexual offending. If we are truly committed to preserving our tamariki as a natural treasure of this land, we must do all we can to protect them from harm, to promote safety, and to aspire towards well-being. Let us take that opportunity to act. Kia ora tātou.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to support the recommendation of the Education and Science Committee on the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill. However, I want to state that we support the original intention of the bill. The motive behind it was extremely worthy, but I suspect that what happened was that a good idea failed to step up to the next notch, to be not just a good idea but a workable one. But the intention was worthwhile.

When I was thinking about this speech, it made me hark back to the issue we faced earlier in this parliamentary term, in relation to taxi drivers. This House had thought through very poorly some provisions in law, and we needed to move very quickly to exclude a group of people who had been unwittingly caught up in those provisions. So it is really important that when we look at legislating in this regard, we think it through very, very carefully, and aim to get it right so that we do not have those situations happening again.

The ongoing issue of safety for New Zealand children while at school should, however, not be allowed to be discharged with this bill. Teachers, parents, and boards of trustees—and, of course, this House—must remain alert to new possibilities to strengthen our protection around children. I like what the previous speaker, Mr Flavell, said—that we must be always alert to new opportunities to do better in that regard. We have a track record that is nothing to be proud of, and United Future will certainly be supportive of any workable initiatives that will strengthen safety around children in our schools. But we support the discharge of this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 71

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill

First Reading

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I move, That the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

I am proud to bring this bill before the House. New Zealand has an impressive record of advocacy and recognition of women. Indeed, New Zealand was the first country where women achieved the right to vote. I will add that this did not happen by chance. I want to acknowledge all those visionary women who campaigned tirelessly and passionately to make it happen. They were true leaders. It seems appropriate that this legislation is introduced in 2006, the Year of the Veteran. I know that my Labour colleagues, like me, have found it both an honour and a privilege to join with our local RSAs in commemorating the sacrifices made by our veterans and their families in the service of our country.

This bill falls under the three ministerial portfolios of women’s affairs, justice, and defence. I want to thank Ministers Dalziel, Burton, and Goff for their support and assistance in preparing this bill.

The Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Human Rights Act in order to remove an exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters that applies in the armed forces. At present, section 33 of the Human Rights Act states: “Nothing in section 22 of this Act shall prevent preferential treatment based on sex being given within the Armed Forces to any member of those forces who has the duty of serving in an active combat role in those forces.” In effect, the exemption allows the New Zealand Defence Force to discriminate against women regarding their employment in active combat roles.

At the time the Human Rights Act was enacted, the New Zealand Defence Force had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles. However, that policy was formally rescinded by the defence force in the year 2000. Accordingly, section 33 of the Act no longer reflects current policy or practice in the New Zealand Defence Force. New Zealand maintains a reservation to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women with regard to the services of women in the armed forces. This is New Zealand’s only remaining reservation to that convention. New Zealand has been urged to expedite the steps necessary to comply with the convention. This amendment to the Act will enable New Zealand to fully ratify its international obligation.

The bill will build on and validate the career options for women who have progressed significantly since the integration of women into the New Zealand armed forces in 1977. Before that time, women’s opportunities within the New Zealand Defence Force were extremely limited. They were paid less for equal work, and officers had a separate rank structure. In practice, women were paid at only 80 percent of the pay scales of men for performing the same job. A 1961 exercise to align women’s trades across the three services was prompted by the 1960 Government Service Equal Pay Act. But although the trades were aligned, women were still paid 80 percent of the pay scales of men on the basis that they were not as effective as men.

On their integration into the three services, women received pay rises of up to $1,800 per year. Joint recruitment courses started immediately, but few women chose to enter the traditionally male-dominated trades. Integration was not simply about pay scales and opportunities; it was also about inequitable conditions of service. Before integration, women could be discharged for getting married. A further significant law passed in 1979, the Maternity Leave and Employment Protection Act, protected women from being discharged simply because they were pregnant.

From that period, legislation and policy changes have continued to improve conditions, career opportunities, and the status of women serving in the New Zealand Defence Force. These changes include the statement by Government employing authorities on equal employment opportunities in 1984; the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987; the State Sector Act 1988, which embedded the Government’s commitment to equal employment opportunities; the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; the Human Rights Act 1993; the Privacy Act 1993; and the report of the review of good working relationships in the defence force in 1995.

In 1997 the New Zealand Defence Force published both an equal employment opportunities policy and a harassment and discrimination prevention policy that were applicable to both military personnel and civil staff. In 1998 the Human Rights Commission was contracted to carry out a gender integration audit of the defence force, which resulted in real progress in the recruitment and retention of women. A repeat survey of good working relationships in 2001 measured progress towards eliminating harassment and discrimination, and a more robust employment equity programme policy was adapted. Paid parental leave was introduced in 2002—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Who by?

LYNNE PILLAY: By the Labour-led Government. It has had a profound effect on the working life of women in the defence force. Those women can now, like all New Zealand women, enjoy 14 weeks caring for their newborn babies, with the security of financial assistance.

These changes have led to women’s participation in New Zealand’s armed forces increasing, from 977 in 1977 to 1,668 in 2002. On current trends, the percentage of women in both commissioned and non-commissioned ranks may reach as high as 20 percent in the next 10 years.

Over the last 28 years women have endured and enjoyed deployment to some of the harshest operational environments, alongside their male colleagues. They have proven themselves to be equal to any challenge placed before them. Some have been recognised for specific achievements but many have simply got on and done the job in a thoroughly professional manner, thus bringing credit upon themselves and the New Zealand Defence Force. Today’s women are close to achieving full integration into all trades and occupations, including the combat trade. Women serving in the New Zealand Defence Force in 2005 can expect to have opportunities to progress their careers to heights that the women serving in 1977 could only have dreamt of, but never hoped to achieve.

This Labour-led Government has a commitment to upholding and advancing human rights. These women enjoy working in a demanding and rewarding environment that offers exclusive opportunities for training, development, and experience that few other employers in New Zealand can provide. Their contribution is invaluable. With a commitment to upholding and advancing human rights, we pride ourselves on our belief in a society where discrimination on the basis of gender is a thing of the past, as is racial discrimination and age discrimination. We uphold the right to religious belief and expression, and we recognise that with right comes the responsibility to treat others with fairness, respect, and honesty. It is my strong recommendation that all parties support this legislation to enable New Zealand to continue its proud tradition and ratify its obligations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I rise on behalf of the National Party to support this bill. It has been a long time coming. Tonight I will talk about a few things, one of them being women in combat. I am not sure that we have any women in combat at the moment—other than possibly in this House. I am not sure whether we have many women in the combat trades even though, as I was assured by the previous speaker, discrimination against women joining those trades has been removed. But I certainly remember a time when I heard the Government making a lot of noise about how we had our first woman pilot in the Air Force and how she would be one of our strike force people. And what happened? We lost the strike force. So I think, at the end of the day, this all becomes a bit of a moot point, frankly.

I have met our SAS troops, and not one of them was a woman, although they assured me that they were not discriminating against women. I said to them that I just wanted them to have really good troops, and I am really glad those guys are there. If they happen to have some women who can do the job, good on them, but I asked them not to change standards based on race, gender, religious belief, or anything else. They should just have the right people to do the job.

Of course, it is good to hear, yet again, that this is the Year of the Veteran. It really does open up the opportunity for us to talk about a woman who was one of the very few New Zealand women who have been combat soldiers. She was, and is, a war hero—Nancy Wake. Nancy Wake is a 94-year-old New Zealand woman who is the most honoured of the Allied servicewomen of World War II. She has been honoured by France, the UK, the United States, and just about everywhere else—except New Zealand. Even the Australians honoured her, and it took them a long time to do it because they said she was a New Zealander. What did our Government say? It said that she was an Australian. Well, she is not; she is a New Zealander. Yes, she lives in London. Yes, she carries a New Zealand passport. Yes, she is Māori. And, no, she has not been honoured by her own country.

I find it really just a little too much to take to hear about this, the Year of the Veteran, and women in combat roles, because we have one and we do not wish to honour her. The Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association has given Nancy Wake the Gold Badge. She is the first woman it has ever given that honour to. The RSA gave it to Nancy Wake this year and said that it was so it could try to do something about the fact that, for some reason, this country will not honour her. I know she left as a child. I understand all of that, and none of it makes a scrap of difference. She never lived in the United States; she was never a US citizen. She never became a British citizen and she was not an Australian citizen, yet we cannot honour our own.

So we hear about women in combat. Where? Where will they be in combat? I see that Mr Mark is laughing and giggling, and he would tell me that he knows exactly what I am talking about, does he not? Well, it is all pie in the sky, because, unfortunately, it takes a little more than to say that we have equal pay and paid parental leave in the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy. That is all just great, but, at the end of the day, we have to have a credible defence force. We have to have a commitment to that and to understand that we do not live in a benign, strategic environment—and we never did. That was just pie-in-the-sky nonsense. That was all about deciding that we could not have a strike force. That was all about turning our soldiers, our Navy personnel, and our Air Force into adjuncts of other countries, and that is not good enough.

We heard today about how women do those great jobs in the services—and they do, and they always have—it is just that the jobs have changed. I absolutely understand there are some people still in the services, and some who have left, who do not like the idea of women being in combat. Well, frankly, women die just the same as men. They have blood; if someone shoots them, some bad things happen. That is what happens. Women die in war now, whether or not they are part of a combat force. I understand that there are men who ask—and I have heard this from men and women—but what if our women soldiers were captured by nasty, horrible, terrorist types who raped and murdered them? I say to those people that I am sorry, but they do that to men. That is the way it is.

Ron Mark: They just don’t care.

JUDITH COLLINS: Well, they should care, I say to Mr Mark. And we do—of course, we do. The fact is that that is what happens, but we must not turn our armed forces into some sort of organisation that says we will have so many women, so many men, so many of that, and that sort of nonsense. Those people are in a serious business. They are not there to deal with quotas; they are there to deal with very serious situations—just as our New Zealand Police are.

I do not believe for a moment that women who go into the armed forces go in without understanding that their lives may well be at risk, because that is the nature of the job. They do not go in there because they are wussies. They go in there because they want to do a job and they want to serve their country. They also want to believe that their country appreciates them doing it. They want to believe that they will be looked after if they are veterans or if they are hurt, and that their country will appreciate them, and will not ridicule them or condemn them for doing the job their country asked them to do. That is what they will expect, so we must honour that.

In terms of some of the other jobs that women do in the services, obviously many of them previously were nurses, or they worked as clerks and in all sorts of roles. When those services were amalgamated and those women were able to move across into the—I will use that term—mainstream of the services, some women probably felt that it was not what they had ever signed up to do. But I am sure that today’s new women in the services, and many of those who have been there for quite some time, feel very proud to be fully fledged members of our armed services.

The first and foremost job of any Government is to protect its people, and the first and foremost job of this Parliament is to make sure the Government takes adequate steps in order to do that. I do not think this Parliament necessarily does that job very well, and I do not necessarily believe that this Government has a real commitment to our defence forces, other than to be able to say: “Look at us, we are going to call this the Year of the Veteran. Look at us, we are going to bring this legislation in.”

I congratulate Lynne Pillay as a back-bench member of the Government on bringing this Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill forward, and I say good on her. But I also say to her that we have had 7 years of this Government and not one Minister has put his or her name to this bill. The Government has left it to a back-bench MP to do it. So where is the commitment? I think it is because Government members are ashamed of their commitment to our armed forces. They are ashamed to stand up here and say what happened to our one woman pilot in the Air Force. Well, I can tell this House that she became the aide-de-camp to the Governor-General. That is what became of her—a fighting woman had to run around after the Governor-General, holding open the door. That is what we did to our one fighting Air Force woman. Mr Mark laughs about it, but I understand that he shares exactly my frustration. I mean, how are we, as women, supposed to go out there and say that girls can do anything—and they do; we can hold open the doors. That is, unfortunately, what we do see when we do not have a real commitment to our defence forces and to our veterans.

I will make a final plea to this Government and this Parliament to do the right thing by Nancy Wake. If we do not do the right thing and honour this woman, we will never have the chance to do it again while she is alive. I do not want to be here saying: “Is it not great that we are honouring her?” when it is too late. It will be too late then, she wants it now, and the Government should do it. I say to the Government not to be so pigheaded in this Parliament as to say that it will not do it because I asked it to, and because people like Ron Mark and Tariana Turia asked it to—the Government should just do it.

RON MARK (NZ First): I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and say we will be supporting the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. We will support the bill going through to the select committee, and we look forward to any further discussion taking place there.

It is wonderful really, because moments are full of irony on some days. Irony oozes out of legislation such as this. I was a little bit pipped when Judith Collins took the line of debate that she did, because I have already done a little bit of work. I have been refreshing my memory over one particular issue, and that is the issue of Nancy Wake. I know it is not often that MPs tell the House what they are doing in terms of Queen’s honours, but if I recall correctly, my office has recommended Nancy Wake for a Queen’s honour at least three times—probably four times now—going back over some years. Each time that we have done that and seen no result we have been severely disappointed.

This bill just begs some comment. How ironic it is that a bill should come into the House espousing the views and beliefs that women should be treated equally and have equal opportunities in the workplace and, in particular, in the armed forces. Such a bill speaks so highly of the desire of women to be involved in combat and at the sharp end of warfare. Yet the Government fails to recognise the one woman of this country who did exactly that. One would say, on reading the newspapers, that this is a case of hypocrisy.

Anne Tolley: That’s right.

RON MARK: I say to Anne Tolley that Labour has not been the only Government not to recognise Nancy Wake. Other Governments have refused to do so, as well. But it is interesting; we could say the policy is consistent in that the Government refused to recognise Sergeant Mānahi, the Māori Battalion soldier who won the day at Takrouna—we all know that. It was a feat of arms that astonished Erwin Rommel himself and inspired the commander of the entire African theatre of the war to recommend him for a Victoria Cross. But he was not recognised.

One would have thought that a Government led by a female Prime Minister—and in the time of a female Governor-General, a female Attorney-General, and a female Chief Justice—would give some consideration to this matter. This is particularly the case right now, when a Government MP is saying women in the armed forces should be given equal rights and equal opportunities, and that the Human Rights Act in its current form prevents women from having that privilege and that right.

So where is Nancy Wake in this discussion today? Let us remind ourselves. The following words are not mine but come directly from an article called “Warriors: Nancy Wake—The White Mouse” on the website nzedge.com: “Nancy Wake was the Allies’ most decorated servicewoman of WWII,”. She was not New Zealand’s most decorated servicewoman, not Australia’s, which often wants to claim her as its own, not even the United States’, who would claim her as quick as a flash if it could get away with it; she was the Allies’ greatest servicewoman—we are talking Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, South Africa, India, New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, Samoa, and France. The most highly decorated woman in the entire allied force is a New Zealand woman. We cannot recognise that, but we will stand up here and make wonderful speeches about the right of contemporary women to join the Army, to become a tank commander, an infantry soldier, or an SAS soldier—to fix bayonets and charge the enemy.

The track record is not good, is it? Of course, as Judith Collins says, we did the one female Air Force pilot we had out of a job—it costs a few million dollars to train these people—by taking the aircraft off her. I have to say that New Zealand First has no opposition to this legislative change, at all. But we would like people to put their money where their mouths are. If we truly want to give women the opportunity to take up combat roles, then for crikey’s sake we should recognise them when they do so. In particular, we should recognise those women who reach such heights as Nancy Wake, who ended up being a saboteur, an organiser, and a resistance fighter, and who led an army of 7,000 Maquis troops in guerrilla warfare in order to sabotage the Nazis. She was a woman who played a huge role in bringing freedom to France. She suffered the loss of a husband, who was tortured and put to death by the SS after being captured by the Germans. Nancy Wake is a woman who still lives today and is still able to hear her country say: “We are sorry for overlooking you. We do recognise the part you played. You are an inspiration to women in the armed forces today.” We should do something about it.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēna tātou katoa. I could not help but agree with Judith Collins and Ron Mark on the issues they have raised in terms of Nancy Wake. It kind of makes the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill look hypocritical, in that here we are talking about women being at the front line, yet we are not prepared to honour the woman who stood at the front line and who is somebody of Māori and New Zealand descent. I feel quite ashamed about that, actually.

When it comes to discussion of the armed services, this is one area where Māori people can be proud of their statistics. The numbers of Māori who serve in the area of combat are huge, and I am really proud of them. In the excellent publication of 1984, The Māori Battalion Remembers, Sister Pare Kopou-Saxby describes her experiences as part of the New Zealand Army, which included sailing up the Suez Canal to Port Said, arriving in Tripoli, and eventually transferring to 3G.H in Bari.

Memories of very heavy air raids, bombed buildings, and dust storms are casually described alongside stories of leave in London, and sightseeing. Indeed, the ordinariness of women taking up leadership in defence and peacekeeping roles is well known in Te Ao Māori. In a 1994 paper, Ani Mikaere described Māori women from all iwi performing leadership roles in all spheres. She described Waitohi, the sister of Te Rauparaha, as a leader and an accomplished military strategist. She referred to Hēni Pore of Te Arawa, who fought against the British troops in support of the Kīngitanga in the 1860s, and who also fought in the battle of Gate Pā at Tauranga, in 1864. Other tribal accounts honour the voice of women who would make the call to lead the warriors, who recognised the clarity of their karanga.

This glorious background of strength, valour, and leadership provides a useful context for understanding the attraction of the armed forces for many Māori women. It also provides the context that makes it easy for the Māori Party to support a bill that removes all impediments from women being able to serve at the front line if they so choose. However, the Māori Party supports the bill with some reservations, for our preference is that armed forces would be deployed only under the auspices of supporting a peacekeeping role in the world.

We see this bill as a formality. It allows legislation to be updated to fit with the changes in practice, as well as being consistent with international conventions, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The bill also gives us an opportunity to promote the fact that the New Zealand Defence Force has made significant progress in improving the representation and distribution of women throughout the services.

Although the intent of the bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993, to remove the exemption allowing discrimination against women, it is possible only because the armed forces have made changes to the culture, to accept and value women alongside men. Importantly, a recent review has concluded that the armed forces have made much-needed improvements in the way in which harassment issues are dealt with, as well.

The review in progress of what is called gender integration came in response to a report instigated by the Human Rights Commission, the Burton report. That report in turn responded to complaints about the way in which the Defence Force was managing allegations of harassment and mistreatment. Flight Sergeant Viti Flanagan, the first female engine runner in the Air Force, talked about the challenge of facing sexist attitudes. Of Māori, Fijian, and European whakapapa, Viti was from a highly matriarchal family, where women were expected to achieve along with the best of the men.

She reflected on some of her experiences: “Anyone in a position of power could make it difficult. You could either fight every battle and lose the war, or choose your battles and ignore the rest. That’s what I did. But it was quite a lonely existence.” Laura Gillan, the Human Resources Manager for the New Zealand Defence Force, described the enormity of the change: “We are talking about cultural, systemic, and attitudinal change. … It is up to Defence Force leaders to consider these, and decide whether some of the systems within the services reflect modern arrangement and the expectations of society as a whole.” I say that as we progress this bill we should honour all our women, and particularly Nancy Wake, one of our most honourable women in combat. Nā reira, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Speaking in support of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill on behalf of United Future, I think it is somewhat sobering to recall that as recently as 13 years ago in this House, we made an amendment to the Human Rights Bill to exempt women from being put into a combat role in a front-line sense. I recall the debates at that time, which were the sorts of debates that dripped with concern about the frailty of women and the dangers of exposing them to dangerous fire, etc. I think that most people today would be somewhat amazed to think we are actually debating, in 2006, a bill to give women the right to be in the front line if they so choose. Most people would assume that that has been the case for a long time.

When we look at our armed forces overseas at the moment—those in the Navy patrolling difficult areas of the Persian Gulf—and others that have been in peacekeeping situations where they have been exposed to danger, we see that women have played an active and prominent role for many years. We now take it for granted, and properly so, that our armed forces are fully integrated in that sense. So this bill, which I welcome, is long overdue. I suspect that for many New Zealanders it recognises what they assume has been the reality for a long time. The arguments against the bill are not sustainable in any sense; the arguments in favour of the bill are compelling, and I congratulate the member Lynne Pillay on bringing it forward at this juncture.

I want to comment on some of the other speeches with regard to Nancy Wake. She is a famous New Zealander, even though she left here at the age of 12. She grew up in this city. It was an era where gallantry, bravery, bravado, and dash accompanied all of those women, and they were women, who were part of the Special Operations Executive, which did so much extraordinary—today we would probably call it terrorist—activity in parts of France and elsewhere. Those women carried out sabotage, behind-the-lines activity, and the sorts of things we admire as courageous. I recall reading Peter FitzSimons’ biography of Nancy Wake, and reading about her work with the Maquis and the dangers she was routinely exposed to. I think that there is a strong case for this country honouring her—not, perhaps, as one of its own, but because of the contribution she has made. As time marches by, I think the case becomes more compelling.

It is a sadness—and we have done it a couple of times in this country—that where we have felt disconnected from someone or from an event, we tend not to give formal recognition to that person or event. For example, it was only on the 50th anniversary of the cessation of hostilities in Korea that this Parliament, at my instigation, finally moved a motion commemorating those New Zealand forces that served in what had become known as the forgotten war. Nancy Wake, I suspect because she has lived so much of her life out of New Zealand, has become the forgotten Kiwi. It is the pattern repeating itself.

We do not have too many heroes in this country. We do not have enough people we can look up to as inspirational that we can afford to ignore the achievements of those who truly have been inspirational. So I think a strong case exists for Nancy Wake’s recognition. I think the irony that some members attach to this bill is, perhaps, drawing a bit of a long bow, but the case is strong for her recognition, nonetheless.

This bill will be welcomed by those who serve in the armed forces, although part of me asks why women would want to give up the exemption they have at the moment so that they can be killed alongside everyone else. But I respect that that is a somewhat flippant viewpoint—perhaps Mr Clarkson might be more likely to express it. Simply, this is a bill that we will support and that we are pleased to see the member introduce.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs): I will begin with a quote: “Inequality justifies its existence because it is those who benefit from inequality who set the standards. The system says to women, of course you are equal. You can do whatever you want. You can be a judge or a permanent head or a Cabinet Minister. What that actually means is that women are free to be exactly like men. Because women are not exactly like men, because their circumstances always will be different from those of men, it is unusual for women to succeed by the standard the system sets for them. So the system, having set the standard, can declare that women have failed to meet it, and so justifies their continuing inequality.

“It is exactly the same as a Pakeha system which says to Maori people, of course you can be equal. You can be just like a Pakeha if you want to be. It sets Pakeha standards for Maori people and when they fail to meet them, as inevitably they fail, the system has justified their continuing inequality.

“The standards the system sets are powerful. It is a sad irony that many women have been suspicious of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs because they thought that a ministry that wanted equality for women must necessarily want women and men to be the same. The Ministry does not want that at all. It wants a society in which women of all cultures can set their own standards and live by them as they choose. That is genuine equality of opportunity. If it is to happen the system must change, and changing the system is a task of awesome difficulty. There is much active discrimination still to be removed.

“It is offensive for instance that women cannot join the air force to train as pilots. That has two results. It keeps women off the very lucrative gravy train which pilots get on to in civilian life. It perpetuates the myth that the defence of our country is something which belongs exclusively to men. In a society which daily subjects women to violence and the threat of violence that is self-serving hypocrisy. If the Minister of Women’s Affairs wants to have a crack at that one we can make it a joint effort.”

That quote was from a speech at the opening of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, delivered by the Rt Hon David Lange in May 20 years ago. He also said: “It is not beyond women to change the system. The system had already changed in one way simply because this Ministry is now in it. It would not be here if women had not fought for it. I saw it fought for at party conferences and I saw it fought for in Cabinet. If its existence is a reproach to me and others like me that is exactly what it should be.” In opening the ministry’s offices, David Lange wished everyone well who worked there. He knew that many women were already looking to the ministry, and he was expecting to hear from them.

Twenty years later we are delivering on what David Lange promised women could do, with the removal, in my capacity as the Minister, of the last remaining reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. New Zealand has filed five reports since it ratified the convention in 1985. New Zealand’s first report was considered by the UN committee in February 1988. The fifth report, covering the period from March 1998-2002 was considered by the committee, after having been admirably presented to it by the Hon Ruth Dyson, who was then the Minister of Women’s Affairs, on 14 July 2003.

In that reporting period, New Zealand had two reservations to the convention: one relating to paid maternity leave, and the other to women serving in armed combat. New Zealand noted that the paid parental leave legislation had been enacted, and that removing the relevant reservation was being considered. That reservation—as, of course, we now know—has been lifted. If this legislation is passed through the House—and I certainly hope it will be—then New Zealand will be able to remove the last remaining reservation to the convention, which is something that I will be able to report to the committee later next year.

I congratulate Lynne Pillay on bringing this important measure before the House. I am proud that, 20 years down the track, David Lange’s dreams are to be realised.

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave to table the New Zealand Defence Force personnel branch’s policy on equal employment opportunities for Defence Force personnel. It shows that the military has had an equal opportunities employment policy in place for women—for all people—since 1997, the time when it signed up to the agreement. In 1990 the Defence Act was amended. Further to that, on the same page are figures that show the number of women in the defence forces has decreased from 1,352 in 1990 to 1,318 in 2001.

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

PAULA BENNETT (National): I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party for the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill that the member Lynne Pillay has put forward today. I cannot help but start by stating that girls can do anything. On my own behalf I would like to add that we do not all want to do everything. But for those who do, and who want to be in a combat situation, and want to be in the armed forces, I certainly think: “Good on them, and why shouldn’t they?”. If this bill will take away that little bit of legalese from the principal Act, then National will stand up for it. The bill certainly has my support.

I have done a bit of research into the legislation over the last few days—particularly yesterday and today—as I knew it was coming up. One of the things that struck me, after talking to many in the armed forces, was that women do have opportunities to be in those roles. In fact, someone very close to me, who is in the armed forces, made it very clear that there is no discrimination against women. He said: “Boy, by crikey, help you and you will not have a job within the armed forces if you are seen to be promoting on the basis of gender and not on the basis of the best person for the job.” That is something we should recognise because we are so quick to go out there and condemn people for separating the genders, for putting women down, and for saying they are not good enough to be given equal opportunity. If there is no discrimination in our armed forces, despite the Human Rights Act at the moment, then they deserve some recognition for that and for the opportunities they are giving.

I agree with previous speakers that it is a disappointment that our own Government does not do this and does not recognise the one woman, Nancy Wake, who has done so much in that regard. I hope that perhaps that message has come through tonight even more strongly, as well as the fact that so many people believe that she deserves recognition.

As has been stated, the legislation is just changing the descriptions that are there to stop discrimination and prevent it from happening. The speech made by Minister Lianne Dalziel was beautifully read. I think she read it really well. It is a shame that as Minister she has not put this legislation through herself; she could have done it relatively easily. It is a shame that it has needed to go through everything, and that it has taken so long. We could have done it more simply if we had needed to, instead of proposing it as a member’s bill and hoping it would get pulled from the ballot. From my obviously very new recognition, that is the difference. We had to hope that this bill would be pulled from the ballot, instead of the Government putting it through in the last few years.

With regard to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and this bill being a step towards it, I proudly stand up as a New Zealander and on behalf of National in recognition that society has moved so far along. I agree that we can look back 20 years, and then look at where women are today. But it is these sorts of battles that we still need to be fighting.

Let us look at combat, and women in the armed forces. There has been much discussion in the House today on women in those sorts of roles, what could happen to them in combat situations, and the reasons. One of the interesting things for me, in talking about women in the armed forces, was that the many people I spoke to said that in some cases there would be reasons—and quite good reasons—why women should not go into certain situations. Then those people stated there would be cases when people with brown skin, or of a certain height, could not go into certain situations. In fact, everything is taken into consideration in certain combat situations. Such considerations are not necessarily based on gender but on suitability for certain situations at certain times. We put faith in our armed forces that they recognise the safety of people with particular religious beliefs, a particular sexuality, and that sort of thing as they relate to the extreme cases and situations that unfortunately the world finds itself in at this time.

I am happy to be standing here and defending women’s rights to have equal opportunities out there. If this is one more small step towards them, then National can certainly commend this bill.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): As a feminist and as someone who has fought for women’s equality, I find it slightly galling that we are celebrating here the idea that it is somehow a great step forward for women to have the right to kill and be killed in combat on the front line. However, if there are women who want to go to the front line and into combat positions, far be it from me or the Green Party to try to stop them from doing so. We will therefore be supporting the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill.

However, I want to make one point, which is that once we start to have women participating in combat zones and fighting on the front line, we need to have greater protection or greater assurance of their safety and, in particular, of the safety of their unborn children. We learnt through the Agent Orange select committee inquiry how much future generations can be affected by a chemical like that. We sent our troops into Viet Nam, and our Government—certainly—was oblivious to the fact that our troops were being exposed to Agent Orange and that the dioxin would continue to affect future generations, resulting in deformities in the second and third generations. As someone said recemtly, when people go to war it is not just the generation that actually goes to war that is affected but also future generations.

Now we have a similar situation today with regard to depleted uranium. What would happen if we sent women into the combat zones where depleted uranium is being used? Depleted uranium is a radioactive product of uranium enrichment. It is used to coat ammunition such as tank shells and bunker-busting missiles. But the problem is that even a tiny particle of depleted uranium, if ingested, can cause a range of horrendous health effects, including birth deformities. Tonnes of depleted uranium have already been dropped on Iraq, on Afghanistan during the Gulf War, and even in Yugoslavia. Some studies have been done on exposed populations. For example, in Basra there has been a 242 percent increase in malignancies. In Afghanistan, some children born in areas where depleted uranium has been used have been born with no eyes, with no limbs, with tumours protruding from their mouths and eyes, and so forth. That is the reality of the effects of the weapons of war that we are continuing to use today.

Obviously, we should be concerned about men’s exposure to depleted uranium and not merely women’s. However, we need to be particularly concerned about our women troops, even though it is true that our male troops who were exposed to Agent Orange ended up with a range of health effects that have been passed down to future generations. We need to be especially careful about protecting our women troops because in Viet Nam one sees the truly horrendous effect on generations of children born to women who were exposed to Agent Orange. Hundreds of thousands of children in Viet Nam, in village after village, have the most incredible birth deformities because their mothers were exposed to Agent Orange.

So if our women troops are on the front line, with the freedom to kill and be killed—this new wondrous freedom for women, which Ron Mark has said is not newly acquired—we do need to be very careful that we protect not just those women from depleted uranium and other horrendous weapons that are being used, and have been used in the past, but, in particular, that we protect future generations. Women may be pregnant and not realise it. Exposure to one particle of depleted uranium, if ingested, could cause a whole range of effects and birth deformities. It is entirely possible that women fighting on the front line could come back home and give birth to children with deformities, as a result of that exposure. If we are to send our women to the front line, I believe we have to have some guarantee that future generations of New Zealanders born to those women will not have birth deformities as a result of the wondrous new freedom to kill and be killed—or to have that opportunity—on the front line.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I am delighted that my first substantive speech in the House, apart from my maiden speech, supports the broadening of human rights in New Zealand. I rise to support the repeal of section 33 of the Human Rights Act.

I worked closely with the Hon Katherine O’Regan and others in the early 1990s to ensure that the new Human Rights Act would be a satisfactory law. At the time that Act was passed, the New Zealand Defence Force had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles. That policy was formally rescinded in 2000 but section 33 of the Act remained as part of the law of New Zealand. Section 33 no longer reflects the reality of New Zealand’s modern defence force. Women already take a full part in the operations of our armed forces, in New Zealand and around the world. Their contribution is invaluable, and repealing this now-redundant provision will help to acknowledge that contribution. I am proud of this Government’s commitment to upholding and advancing human rights, in New Zealand and internationally. It has made an excellent contribution to the goal of creating and sustaining a world-leading human rights environment, where people are able to reach their individual and collective potential. This is the latest in a series of Acts that have attempted to put in place a progressive and comprehensive human rights framework in New Zealand. The 2001 amendment to the Human Rights Act, the Care of Children Act 2004, the Civil Union Act 2004, the Relationship (Statutory References) Act 2005, and the New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006 can be seen, in common with this legislation, as part of that effort.

At present, New Zealand maintains reservations to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Against Women, reserving the right not to apply the provisions of the convention to the service of women in situations involving armed combat. This is New Zealand’s only remaining reservation for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Against Women, after the Government was able to withdraw two reservations relating to paid parental leave in 2003. The reservation was originally entered due to practical difficulties accommodating women on military vessels and aircraft, and beliefs at the time about women’s physical ability to serve in combat roles. If these reasons ever had any validity, they certainly do not apply to the New Zealand Defence Force today. Overall, New Zealand maintains just 10 reservations to five international human rights treaties. That small number indicates this country’s strong commitment to human rights and to our international obligations. It is good practice, periodically, to reconsider the need for such reservations, and in my view the time has come for this reservation to be withdrawn.

In 2003, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women urged New Zealand to expedite the steps necessary for the withdrawal of this reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Against Women. There no longer appears to be any policy or operational reason for maintaining that reservation, but the ongoing presence on the statute book of section 33 precludes full compliance with the convention. The repeal of section 33 should allow the Government to consider whether the remaining reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Against Women should then be withdrawn.

The reservation also applies to the recruitment and service of women in the police, to the extent that they are required to serve in situations involving violence or the threat of violence. Before the reservation can be withdrawn, the Government would need to consider, obviously, whether it is necessary to allow different standards to be applied by the police for recruitment and fitness maintenance, although this is not directly relevant to the repeal of section 33. Obviously, the Government would also need to consult the Governments of the Cook Islands and Niue before withdrawing the reservation.

As I have already said, this Government seeks to continue to promote a fair and inclusive society, and to demonstrate leadership in the area of human rights. This amendment, and the future withdrawal of reservations to international human rights treaties, where possible, demonstrate our commitment to the international human rights framework. The bill is timely, and I want to take this opportunity to commend Lynne Pillay for its introduction.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Just before I call the member, there has been a power surge. The lights will come on in about 10 minutes.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I just think there is enough warmth in this Chamber tonight to keep us all comfortable. I thank all parties for their eloquent speeches and their support for the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. It is rare, indeed, that we have a bill come to this House on which we have unanimous support, and I very much appreciate that. This bill is about acknowledging women who are willing to put their safety on the line to represent their country. They are women who take a full part in the operation of New Zealand’s armed forces, in the same way that Kiwis have done for generations.

I also draw attention to this booklet, 25 Years of Women in the New Zealand Armed Forces, because, like Paula Bennett, I did some looking up and finding out about the armed forces when I was preparing this bill. This little book was prepared in 2002 and it commemorated 25 years of women in the New Zealand armed forces—from integration in 1977. When I spoke to the bill initially, I talked about the changes we have seen over two and a half decades. I really would recommend to people to read this book. It is a good, concise little snapshot of how New Zealand has changed in attitudes over that time.

I would like to quote from a couple of women who are serving. A young woman in the naval area said: “Two years ago Te Kaha included a work-up and peacekeeping duties in the Solomons. I currently serve in naval staff as Assistant Director, Weapon Engineering, involved in procurement, project management, and weapon policy.” That position would not have been available, or even a dream, for a woman a decade ago.

A young woman who has been in the army said: “Some people said to me, before I graduated, I would never last in a male-dominated environment such as the Royal New Zealand Army Corps. Despite some prejudices and old-fashioned attitudes towards females in combat corps, I have found that the majority of males will treat you no differently to any other officer, if you are competent in your job and maintain a professional work ethic and high standards.” How different from a time when women were deemed to be worth only 80 percent of what men doing the same work were worth.

Another young woman said: “Being a professional soldier in the New Zealand Army has meant many things to me. Above all else it has meant retaining one’s femininity as best as you can, which is not easy in a military environment. Throughout my service I have witnessed a number of changes in our army, not the least being the implementation of badly needed EEO policies. From the army I have learnt the importance of sound leadership. Most things in life hinge on that.” We in Labour certainly would agree with that.

A young woman who is an air security guard said: “I enjoy the diverse nature of my job, such as range shoots, investigations, and instruction work. I really enjoy the social and sporting aspects of Air Force life, and my time has been rewarding and a life-changing experience.” It is certainly time to reflect on how far we have come in a relatively short time—since 1977.

Many of us in this Chamber—many of us women members—can remember the limited career choices there were when we were young. The choice was nurses, teachers, or secretaries—or, if one went to a Catholic school, there was the nun option, as well. We certainly have moved on, and the young women quoted in this book have acknowledged that attitudes have changed. But attitudes have not changed without the assistance of legislation leading people through. We can stand today and celebrate that we are in an environment of a much more enlightened society of women and of men—perhaps with the exception of Bob Clarkson—who, generally speaking, do recognise that women have much to contribute.

I am really proud to bring this bill to the House, but also to enjoy the support of other parties on this bill. Long may it last.

Bill read a first time.

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

Bills

Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I move, That the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Health Committee. I acknowledge my colleague Jo Goodhew, MP for Aoraki, who was instrumental in getting this bill into the ballot. The bill is very simple and straightforward, as members will have appreciated when reading through it. Its purpose is to amend the Official Information Act 1982 so that any entity representing one or more district health boards, such as District Health Boards New Zealand, will be subject to the Official Information Act.

As a background to this bill, District Health Boards New Zealand was formed in 2000 as an incorporated society, and as such is not subject to the Official Information Act. When the 21 district health boards were established, District Health Boards New Zealand was subsequently formed to provide a sector group through which district health boards could coordinate their activities at a national level on selected issues. The overall purpose of District Health Boards New Zealand is to assist district health boards in meeting their objectives and accountabilities to the Crown.

It is clear that the Government and Parliament have accepted District Health Boards New Zealand as the official representative of district health boards. Its staff meet with the Minister and are asked to appear at select committees. From its website it is apparent that District Health Boards New Zealand is involved in high-level negotiations on behalf of the district health boards, such as negotiations on the roll-out of primary care funding for 45 to 64-year-olds and on the resident medical officers’ multi-employer collective agreement.

This organisation is making decisions that impact on all New Zealanders, but the public are not able to find out what the group does or how it functions. Just what other activities District Health Boards New Zealand has been, or is currently, involved with is hard to know, as it is not subject to the Official Information Act. District Health Boards New Zealand is funded by taxpayers’ money through contributions from the 21 district health boards, and it is an anomaly that this organisation is exempt from the Official Information Act when other organisations that are funded by taxpayers’ money are subject to it. This bill will bring accountability and transparency to the organisation. District Health Boards New Zealand is functioning outside our constitutional situation, and that needs to be rectified.

There has been wide support from the medical sector for this bill. It is clear that many, many people have been frustrated by District Health Boards New Zealand’s lack of accountability. The New Zealand Medical Association supports this bill. It goes further and suggests that the organisation should be disbanded. The New Zealand Medical Association has been concerned for some years about the role of District Health Boards New Zealand, which it feels is increasingly taking on coordination and operational policy functions that should more appropriately be carried out by the Ministry of Health. The chairman of the New Zealand Medical Association has called District Health Boards New Zealand a “private club” for the district health boards, and has said it is time that the organisation was absorbed back into the Ministry of Health.

The bill also has the support of HealthCare Providers New Zealand. That organisation says that the existing situation is an anomaly that chips away our constitutional framework, and asks whether it was intentional that District Health Boards New Zealand was made an incorporated society—not subject to the Official Information Act—or whether it was an oversight. The precursor to District Health Boards New Zealand was the Crown Health Association Inc., which was also not subject to the Official Information Act, and when District Health Boards New Zealand took over from the Crown Health Association it may well have been an oversight that had unintended consequences. Either way, it is high time to bring back consistency and maintain Official Information Act principles, which are based around the belief that information should be made available unless there is a good reason to withhold it.

Researchers have been frustrated by the results of Official Information Act requests for information from district health boards, and have often drawn the response that the information is collected nationally by District Health Boards New Zealand. But because District Health Boards New Zealand is not subject to the Official Information Act, in order for our researchers to get a complete picture of the health sector, they often have to make 21 separate Official Information Act requests. Official Information Act requests can take up to a year, particularly if the Ombudsman is involved. It is slow and frustrating for all concerned, and even then there is no guarantee that the information is forthcoming. The district health boards often protest that by having to answer the requests themselves, their staff are being taken away from their core business and roles. It would seem, therefore, quite logical that by bringing District Health Boards New Zealand under the Official Information Act, information could be obtained directly and expediently, and district health board staff would not need to be sidetracked from their own work.

There is very little information about this organisation. It was therefore quite revealing when Sean Plunket recently interviewed, on Morning Report, Dr Ross Boswell of the New Zealand Medical Association and Michael Ludbrook, chair of District Health Boards New Zealand. In the interview Mr Ludbrook confirmed that District Health Boards New Zealand develops national strategies, such as workforce development, and that it currently employs 21 people and has a budget of $2.5 million. In the interview there were disturbing comments that District Health Boards New Zealand may have been involved in discussions regarding the current nationwide laboratory reviews that have unsettled the sector. Although the issue was not satisfactorily resolved in the radio interview, by making District Health Boards New Zealand accountable and subject to the Official Information Act, the truth will be revealed in due course.

I was very interested to find out, in the course of working on the bill, that the service support agencies that support the district health boards regionally are also not subject to the Official Information Act. These agencies include the Northern DHB Support Agency, which supports the northern part of the North Island; HealthShare Ltd, in the midland region; the Technical Advisory Services, in the central region; and the South Island Shared Service Agency, in the South Island. These agencies are all owned by their respective district health boards and are accountable to their district health boards. Their common purpose is to support the activities of the owner district health boards. All are companies, and they are not subject to the Official Information Act. This bill will also bring these agencies under the Official Information Act.

I urge members to support this bill going to the select committee. That is an appropriate place to examine the rationale of whether the status quo should exist. That is the appropriate forum to hear from District Health Boards New Zealand and its stakeholders as to whether the organisation should remain outside the Official Information Act—or, indeed, whether it should be disbanded.

Last month the Auckland District Health Board withdrew from District Health Boards New Zealand over concerns about how tertiary services are charged out to other district health boards. Clearly, all is not well with District Health Boards New Zealand. It is very timely indeed that we have this bill in front of us. I urge all members to support the bill.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I thank the member Dr Jackie Blue for bringing the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill to Parliament. The Government will be supporting her legislation going to a select committee, but quite possibly not beyond that—we will see what happens. [Interruption] I listened in silence to the member. The reason we think it should go to a select committee is that we think the problem, the prospective problem, or the idea there might be a problem, ought to be explored. If there is a view in society that there is some secret club operating in our health system, when our health system is itself subject to the Official Information Act, then that itself is worth a bit of exploration. We are very happy to support this bill, and I hope the select committee enjoys the subsequent exploration of what District Health Boards New Zealand is or is not.

I will make a couple of points. I suppose there will be some debate at the select committee about the wording of the bill—let us not worry too much about that now. There will also be debate at the select committee about whether other like agencies should be similarly treated. For example, Local Government New Zealand, which, of course, is not subject to the Official Information Act, is comprised of local governments that are individually subject to the Official Information Act, so that is quite a similar situation.

The point worth making in the few minutes in which I intend to address this bill is that District Health Boards New Zealand exists with the permission of the district health boards. If the district health boards decided to get rid of it, it would go. District Health Boards New Zealand is beholden, if you will, to the district health boards and there is actually a bit of tension there. The district health boards, on the one hand, want District Health Boards New Zealand to do things, to save them being done 21 times, but, on the other hand, the district health boards are always watching District Health Boards New Zealand to make sure it does not run away with too much authority. In essence, District Health Boards New Zealand’s greatest weakness, in many respects, is that it is beholden to 21 separate points of view.

In respect of the resident medical officer negotiations that the member mentioned, those negotiations have been led by three chief executives of district health boards. To the extent that District Health Boards New Zealand or any of its 21 staff were involved—and it would have been to a very slight extent—they would have been involved under the instruction of the three district health boards. Similarly, for the 45 to 64-year-old primary-care roll-out, which was negotiated between the district health boards and the primary health organisations, there was a representative chief executive from the district health boards—in this case, the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—and various numbers of folk representing the primary health organisations. They got together and did the negotiating. It is quite possible that District Health Boards New Zealand supported them; it certainly did not lead or decide the negotiation and has no authority to do so.

In respect of a person having to make 21 requests under the Official Information Act to seek material, I think the member has a point to make—that there are some transaction costs to be reduced there. But the member ought to be clear that even if information is collected nationally and held by District Health Boards New Zealand, it is the property of the district health boards, and it is not for District Health Boards New Zealand to give it out without individual authority from the 21 district health boards. District Health Boards New Zealand is not a creature of statute. It is a figment of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908; that is its status.

I myself did not hear the interview that the member mentioned between Ross Boswell, Michael Ludbrook, and a Radio New Zealand interviewer. Michael Ludbrook is the chair of District Health Boards New Zealand only because he also chairs a district health board—in this case, the Waikato District Health Board. This is another piece of evidence that District Health Boards New Zealand exists at the permission of the district health boards. Let us have further discussion in the select committee by all means.

It seems to me that the member’s comments about the service support agencies may not, in law, be accurate. She may not have the right end of the stick there. I myself am not sure, but if those service support agencies are themselves wholly owned subsidiary companies of district health boards, then they will be subject to the Official Information Act. Actually, they will not hold any of the information, because it will all be owned by the principal companies that comprise their ownership.

As to the Auckland District Health Board’s withdrawal from District Health Boards New Zealand, yes, it is true that the board did spit the dummy a few months ago. It had some good reasons to—it will be back soon, it is OK—but they were nothing to do with tertiary services. Those prices are determined by the ministry, not by District Health Boards New Zealand. There are some things that are decided amongst district health boards, and sometimes an outfit like the Auckland District Health Board might think it is on the losing side of a majority vote. That sort of situation can arise when the chief executives get together, as they do every couple of months.

I hope I am adding a bit of useful information to the debate. Labour supports the legislation going to a select committee. I think the idea of making District Health Boards New Zealand a creature of statute through this bill is a bad idea. I myself had thought about making it a creature of statute and empowering it somewhat more than it is empowered—it is a relatively disempowered organisation, contrary to the member’s viewpoint. But my personal view is that we have the health structure of the country about right as far as the district health boards are concerned, and that the structural reform in the era that began in the late 1980s and finished early this decade should probably be left unmolested any further by me.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): New Zealand First will support the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill going to a select committee, so that there can be some further input into this whole issue and some further clarification around that agency. As Dr Blue said earlier, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Official Information Act so that the entity representing district health boards in New Zealand can be subject to the Official Information Act in the same way that district health boards currently are.

The bottom line is that agencies using public money should be accountable, and should be open to scrutiny in the same way that other public entities are. I looked through my filing cabinet at my Health Committee papers from the previous 3 years to try to find some papers on District Health Boards New Zealand but, really, they are noticeable by their absence. We have received no financial review papers or anything to indicate that the entity is scrutinised by Parliament in any way whatsoever. It is very interesting that District Health Boards New Zealand was set up as an incorporated society, which ensures that it falls outside the Official Information Act. The reasons for that need to be explored fully, and during the select committee process we will, no doubt, be made aware of the reasons for that. On the surface, it is a very interesting anomaly.

We know that District Health Boards New Zealand carries out the business of the 21 district health boards, and that its decisions impact on every New Zealander. I had to go to its website to find some information, and I read that District Health Boards New Zealand was set up in 2000 “to provide a sector group through which DHBs could coordinate their activities at a national level on selected issues.” It is not a lobby group, but it does support district health boards through collective activity and collaboration. I could not deduce a lot from those particular words, even though they were on its website.

I was interested to read a recent press release from the New Zealand Medical Association that definitely expressed support for this particular bill. I looked back, too, over past issues of New Zealand Doctor. Back in September 2001, an issue stated: “The name DHBNZ crops up frequently in the media but what exactly is this organisation and who works for it? The mystery surrounding DHBNZ is compounded by the fact that its employees say they do not usually comment in the media, although the organisation is involved in many health sector policy discussions.”

From our point of view, the role of District Health Boards New Zealand is interesting. Initially it appears to have some functions that could perhaps be appropriately carried out by the Ministry of Health. We see, too, from its website that it coordinates report-writing projects, and provides conferences and workshops, health workforce information and development projects, and leadership and management programmes—a whole range of activities that hopefully add value to district health boards. That would lead one to believe that this organisation should be open to public scrutiny, just as district health boards are.

We all know here in this House that health policy is becoming an increasingly important issue in New Zealand. We know that the need for health services is increasing at a very rapid rate, but as Dr Boswell from the New Zealand Medical Association has said: “We don’t need precious health dollars wasted on a private club for Government agencies.” We will be very interested to follow up further on this issue, so New Zealand First definitely supports the passage of this bill to the select committee.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party is very pleased to support the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. We have been concerned that various aspects of the health system have been essentially beyond scrutiny and transparency. We welcome this bill as taking us one step further towards greater openness, scrutiny, and transparency within the health system.

It seems odd to the Green Party that a body that effectively is the monitoring board for all of the 21 district health boards in New Zealand should be beyond the Official Information Act. It has no statutory basis and, therefore, is not open to any public scrutiny. This seems odd to us, but it is not only odd; it is also deeply frustrating for those of us who want to obtain information about what is happening within the health system. It is frustrating to be told: “Sorry, this is beyond the Official Information Act. We can’t provide you with any of that information.” It will be interesting to learn why it was set up as an incorporated society and therefore not subject to the Official Information Act.

It is not only District Health Boards New Zealand that is beyond the Official Information Act. The bill does not cover only District Health Boards New Zealand; it covers any entity representing district health boards. We would like a number of other organisations to be investigated to see whether they too should be subject to the provisions of the Official Information Act. It seems to us there are various anomalies in the health system. For example, a blood bank up in Auckland somewhere—I do not know where—holds all of the bloods samples used for the Guthrie test. So it holds literally millions and millions of samples of blood DNA. These are all held indefinitely; they are not disposed of as in other places. So there is a huge collection. Yet that body is not statutory and is beyond the Official Information Act. It is something that we would like to look at in the context of this bill.

The reason that District Health Boards New Zealand is beyond the Official Information Act is because it is an incorporated society. Another proposed, and very significant, entity that the Government is hoping to set up in the near future—we hope it will never have the political support to do so, but I know that it is attempting to do so—is the Trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency. That too is being set up as an incorporated society, so I imagine we would have the same problems in trying to obtain official information about it. I have been trying for 4 years to get official information from the interim ministerial council that has been set up to develop the legislation and set up this complex Trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency. All of my Official Information Act requests have been withheld. Even the Health Committee has been told that we cannot get various pieces of information because the Official Information Act does not apply. It is a very frustrating experience to be constantly denied information because something is beyond the Official Information Act.

So we strongly support the principle of openness, transparency, and accountability within the health system. We think this bill is a very positive step forward. We strongly support it, and look forward to examining it in the select committee and considering whether other entities within the health system that at the moment are not subject to the Official Information Act should be, and should have more openness and transparency.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. The Māori Party is happy to take a call on the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. We support the purpose of this bill, which we understand as amending the Official Information Act to bring District Health Boards New Zealand—known as DHBNZ—under the Act.

District Health Boards New Zealand was set up to carry out the business of the 21 health boards and to coordinate selective activities. As such, it is an entity that is funded by public money through financial contributions from the 21 district health boards, which should, in a way, be focusing their money on waiting-list reduction. The Māori Party has always considered that transparency and accountability of the State to the public is critical, and this bill applies these values to District Health Boards New Zealand, and we commend that.

District Health Boards New Zealand as a body undertakes negotiations, develops strategies, generates guidelines, and issues advice on behalf of all the 21 district health boards. As such one would think that District Health Boards New Zealand, as an agent for the district health boards, would welcome public accountability. As the central engine room of our health industry, it makes decisions that impact on all New Zealanders, yet it is somewhat bizarre that the information it holds is not accessible because it was set up as an incorporated society and it falls outside the Official Information Act. In essence, it means that public resources are used by District Health Boards New Zealand, yet it is not accountable in terms of releasing public information. It is also frustrating, if anyone wants to aggregate data from all 21 district health boards, that the 21 boards have to be gone to individually for the same information.

The current situation is clearly an anomaly. Agencies that use public money should be accountable and open to scrutiny. An amendment to the Act, which is the focus of this bill, will mean that any person will now be able to have proper access to official information held by district health boards and their representatives. The amendment will also enable information requests of aggregated data to be sought and obtained from District Health Boards New Zealand without people having to make individual requests. The amendment provides certainty and clarity to the public, and to Māori, that they can in fact request official information from district health boards. Currently, in the corridors of the health bureaucracy, isolated Official Information Act requests from members of the public for information get pushed out to the ministry, which then passes them back to the district health boards.

The Māori Party is concerned that District Health Boards New Zealand creates a further layer of unnecessary bureaucracy, the work of which could be carried out by the Ministry of Health. These layers of bureaucracy deny providers of health services and consumers the opportunity to have their issues addressed appropriately, because they cannot get access to information. The Māori Party is well aware of the concerns of Māori providers and services about the difficulties in communication that currently exist in trying to get access to information from district health boards, let alone District Health Boards New Zealand, to assist in the application of policies. It is precisely this issue—this crisis of confidence—that has prompted the claim by Taitimu Maipi, Tūreiti Moxon, Elaine Tapsell, and Hākopa Paul in respect of the objectives, funding, and administration of primary health organisations.

The Wai 1315 claim contends that an urgent hearing is required, regarding the impact of the establishment of the primary-care strategy. In particular, the claim advises that the implementation of the framework has been unfair, that Māori health providers have been inadequately resourced, and that the objectives, funding, and administration of Māori primary health organisations have been therefore placed at risk.

The Māori Party wishes to say today in the House that we support this bill going to the Health Committee. We look forward to promoting the opportunity it provides for Māori, and all other organisations, to use the Official Information Act to access information that affects them. Kia ora.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of this first reading of the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill. We are concerned, as are others who have spoken tonight, about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny—of any kind—of this organisation.

As I have been sitting here tonight, I have been thinking of all the questions I have. I agree with the New Zealand First speaker, Barbara Stewart, that it is very difficult to get answers to these questions from any reliable source. What does District Health Boards New Zealand do? What policy initiatives are attributable to it? Who does it negotiate with, and on what matters does it negotiate? Does it purchase products or services? Why was it set up? Has its purpose changed over time? What is the yearly budget? How is that budget spent? Does District Health Boards New Zealand have a work programme, and what is it? When the Auckland District Health Board pulled away, what did that mean? When the Minister reported this evening that it would soon be returning to the fold, what did that mean? He clarified that, contrary to popular belief, its departure was not due to a disagreement over tertiary services, so what was the problem? The fact is that there are many questions, and these questions highlight the need to support this bill to go to the select committee. United Future is pleased to do so.

MARYAN STREET (Labour): I am pleased to contribute to this debate this evening, and as my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson has said, Labour will be supporting the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill going to the Health Committee. I am particularly pleased to contribute to this debate, because I am the only person in this House who can actually add some inside information, having been, for the last 2½ years prior to entering Parliament, an employee of District Health Boards New Zealand. In that capacity, I was the employee relations portfolio manager for 2½ years, or thereabouts. I have listened with interest to the comments that members have made, and with some amusement to the kinds of things they have in fact imputed to District Health Boards New Zealand. However, I support this bill going to the select committee in the first instance, because I think it raises some important points—points that others have mentioned—about openness and access to information.

But can I first of all say that District Health Boards New Zealand was set up as an incorporated society for all the reasons that other members have read off the briefing sheet. But, in practice, it was set up as an incorporated society that was accountable, as the Hon Pete Hodgson said, to all of the 21 district health board chief executives, in order to provide some economies of scale, in order to provide some leverage in arriving at contracts across the country, and in order to arrive—particularly in my own area—at some consistency of remuneration and employment conditions for people employed in the district health board sector.

On one occasion, I was served with an Official Information Act notice in my area of industrial relations for District Health Boards New Zealand. I was not obliged to answer it, but I asked the organisation why it had “OIA-ed” me and why it had not just rung me up and asked me. In the event, District Health Boards New Zealand decided to contest the legality of our position that we were not bound by the Official Information Act. I think that is one of the events that has probably given rise to this bill. However, the organisation did have the grace to say to me that in fact all it needed to do was to ask one district health board for the information and it could get it, and that is exactly what it did. Because the district health boards were under the Official Information Act they had to provide the information, and they did. There was no problem about that.

I am interested to know what kind of information has not been accessible. I hope the Health Committee will be able to probe this. What kind of information has not been accessible? If it was information about the nurses’ negotiations, for example, I would have been very happy to tell anybody who asked, that we arrived at a very good agreement. We came in on budget, and we came in without any industrial action. It has meant a huge improvement in the conditions of nurses in the district health boards—not only in their salaries but in the actual conditions of work—and it has resulted in some consistency across the country.

The second point I would like to make is one that concerns me: what does this mean for other incorporated societies? It was an issue that Pete Hodgson touched on, with reference to Local Government New Zealand. But there are further implications that the select committee should consider. For example, if this could be applied to other incorporated societies, what does that do to the ethic that underpins, and the integrity that surrounds, our voluntary sector in New Zealand, which is made up of non-governmental organisations that are largely incorporated societies? If this does not apply, or is not meant to apply, to incorporated societies in general, then why is District Health Boards New Zealand being singled out? The select committee should consider this as a possible unintended consequence of this bill.

Thirdly, what else could or should be added to this bill and to schedule 1 of the Official Information Act? This point was made by the honourable member Sue Kedgley earlier. There may be a number of other organisations that, although not in receipt of Government moneys particularly, may impact on public policy and should be covered. I suggest that the New Zealand Medical Association could be amongst those.

NICKY WAGNER (National): I rise to support Dr Jackie Blue’s Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill 2006. National is adamant that we need this bill because sunshine is the best disinfectant, and most New Zealanders expect the sun to shine on and to keep clean and healthy all those dark and murky places where their money—that is, taxpayers’ money—is being funnelled by this Government.

As members know, District Health Boards New Zealand is an organisation that coordinates the work of 21 district health boards in New Zealand. The district health boards will spend over $10.6 billion of taxpayers’ money this year. If people have been listening to Parliament or reading the newspapers, or even talking to their neighbour over the fence, they will know that not every dollar is spent wisely. How do we know? Well, the district health boards themselves are subject to the Official Information Act, so that anyone who is concerned about any issue can seek information about those organisations. Through the Official Information Act we can keep an eye on the proceedings and make sure that everything is above board. So we can have confidence in the district health boards, because they are accountable. Their workings are transparent. If the taxpayers’ money is not going as far as we would like, it is likely to be because of poor financial management, rather than blatant corruption.

In fact, until now New Zealand has been well known as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. In 2005 the Berlin-based organisation Transparency International rated New Zealand as the third least corrupt country, after Iceland and Finland, out of a total of 158 countries. The scores range from 10, which is squeaky clean, to zero, which is highly corrupt, and a score of five is the number that Transparency International considers a borderline figure. New Zealand was scored at 9.6, and Kiwis have the right to be proud of that. It is nice to know that we can trust each other and that we have a real commitment to running an honest country. That is a great attraction in the global economy, when businesses want to trade with us. It is at our peril that we risk this hard-earned reputation.

Kiwis, as individuals and as a Government, have always been known as people of integrity. They are known as people who are prepared to be accountable, who will face up to their responsibilities, and who will pay back their debts—and that is why this bill is so important. Most New Zealand organisations are subject to the Official Information Act, and that is the way we like it. It is the way we can have confidence in an organisation’s honesty and transparency. But District Health Boards New Zealand is not open to public scrutiny. That does not necessarily mean that what it is doing is dishonest or wrong, but it is an anomaly, and that tends to make us honest Kiwis a little uncomfortable. National believes it is important that this bill is passed, so that we can let the sun shine on a possibly dark and murky District Health Boards New Zealand and let it do its great disinfectant work. Finally, I thank Dr Jackie Blue for bringing this bill to the House and for reinforcing New Zealand’s reputation as a country of honesty and integrity.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I thank my colleague Nicky Wagner for her kind comments. In fact, I thank all the parties for their supportive comments tonight, and I am very gratified that the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill will be going to the select committee.

Comments have been made that District Health Boards New Zealand is secretive and perhaps a private club. It is reassuring that the Minister feels very confident that when we examine the workings of District Health Boards New Zealand in the Health Committee, we will be reassured that there are no deep, dark secrets. I am also reassured to hear from Maryan Street, who has been an employee of District Health Boards New Zealand, about her insights into how the organisation works. This is all very, very reassuring. I thank Tariana Turia for her party’s support, and I thank Sue Kedgley for her comments about other organisations that could come under this bill.

All parties, of course, will now have the opportunity to examine the bill in the select committee. The select committee is the appropriate forum to debate whether District Health Boards New Zealand should stay out of the Official Information Act or come within that Act and be subject to its requirements. So I say thank you very much to all the parties and the members for their comments today, and I look forward to debating this bill at the select committee. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.