Wednesday, 6 December 2006

Wednesday, 6 December 2006

Wednesday, 6 December 2006

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

United Kingdom—Work and Pensions Select Committee, House of Commons

Madam SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that the members of the Work and Pensions Select Committee of the House of Commons, led by Mr Terry Rooney, chair of the committee, are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.

Speaker’s Rulings

Absence of Members from the House—Rules

Madam SPEAKER: A point of order was raised in the House yesterday concerning the absence of members. I remind members of the convention that the absence of members is not referred to during the course of debate. However, I have considered the rules surrounding the attendance of members. No record of members’ attendance in the House is now maintained and the Standing Orders no longer require members to attend the House. The attendance of members is a matter for their own party whips. The Speaker does not intervene unless statutorily required to do so, or as provided in Standing Order 156(4)(d) in relation to the casting of proxy votes for Independent members or a party consisting of one member.

The Electoral Act 1993 provides that a member who fails to attend throughout an entire session, without being granted leave by the House, loses his or her seat. In such a circumstance, the Speaker would be required to act to start the process of filling the vacancy. However, as a session is now expected to last the full term of Parliament—that is, the 3 years—this provision is somewhat redundant.

Section 20 of the Civil List Act 1979 provides for a deduction of $10 from a member’s salary for each sitting day, exceeding 14, on which a member is absent during a session of Parliament. It does not apply where the absence is as a result of attending conferences, ceremonies, meetings, or travelling on any mission or business as a representative of Parliament or with the authority of the House. In addition, deductions are not made where the Speaker certifies that the absence is caused by illness or other unavoidable cause. No such certification has been issued in the current Parliament.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I first thank you very much for giving us that ruling so very quickly, but can I point out that your ruling centres on leave provisions and the circumstances in which members may find themselves absent from this House, quite legitimately. Those issues are mentioned in David McGee’s book, Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, at around page 38, I understand. Further on, there is quite a discussion about the way in which votes can be cast and the entitlement of members to have their votes cast by whips under proxy. In that case, I refer you to about page 205, which I think is slightly contradictory to the position taken in your ruling today. I wonder whether you might look at that in order to satisfy us that all the aspects of parliamentary practice in New Zealand are being followed in the case of this particular absence.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. Yes, I did refer to that when making my ruling.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday, I seek leave for Government notices of motion Nos 3 and 4 relating to the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the Police Complaints Authority respectively, to be taken as a single debate of 10-minute speeches with the two questions to be put separately at the conclusion of the debate.

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Biometric Information—Collection and Use

1. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Immigration: Why is the Government proceeding with the decision to “collect and use limited biometric information”, namely fingerprints, iris scans and facial recognition, from migrants and Kiwis returning home, when there has been no policy development to justify the need?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): There is no, I repeat no, proposal to fingerprint or take iris scans from New Zealand passport holders.

Gordon Copeland: Has the Government not, in fact, got the cart before the horse when it comes to the use of biometrics, and why does it even court that possibility, when it has caused uproar in other parts of the world, no present need has been identified, and it is just not the Kiwi way?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Due to the time frames required with legislative change we need to future-proof the proposed legislation now so that we can respond rapidly to pressing future needs. The reality is that the technology exists now to do this, as does the attempt to circumvent it. The United States, the UK, Canada, and Australia, I am advised, all have provision to use biometric collections.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister not risk, in rushing ahead with biometrics, creating the impression that the Government is intent on taking New Zealand into some sort of Aldous Huxley Brave New World, when instinctively, and in my view correctly, New Zealanders do not want a bar of that?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I remind the member that this whole issue is subject to further policy work and Cabinet decisions. A safeguard mechanism has also already been agreed to, requiring an Order in Council process to activate any such provision. This is, in a sense, the same process as now, where New Zealand citizens are checked against their passport photo at the border. The most that is contemplated is that that checking may be done by a machine rather than a person.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm that New Zealand First made a substantial submission to the review of the Immigration Act and has been supportive of efforts to make our borders more secure, such as making it easier to remove people whose applications to stay are rejected and to stop suspect applicants at the border?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Indeed it did, and I am further advised that around 80 percent of the individual submissions on this matter supported the proposed potential use of biometric information.

Keith Locke: Can the Minister explain how this biometric proposal and related heavy-handed measures announced yesterday, like kicking out permanent residents at any time during their first 5 years here on spurious or nebulous grounds, such as character, can help New Zealand to attract skilled labour in the global market?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The member may wish to check his facts first. There is absolutely no proposal to kick anybody out of New Zealand on spurious grounds. A number of changes have been made since the original discussion document in April that put in additional safeguards. I note that there was a clean New Zealand Bill of Rights Act check on the bill before it went through Cabinet.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article from this morning’s Dominion Post that indicates quite clearly that it is proposed in the legislation to fingerprint or iris scan New Zealanders, although this could be removed from the bill at the select committee.

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

Gordon Copeland: I seek leave to table the chapter on biometrics from the Government’s papers released yesterday, which says that the Government will use limited biometric information from New Zealand citizens at the border.

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

Stadium—Funding Commitments

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What commitments, if any, did he make to funding the waterfront stadium option prior to the Government’s announcement that it was considering such an option?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): No specific commitments were made.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that he therefore agreed to allow Trevor Mallard to push the waterfront option with no financial parameters at all, and why is he so unwilling to commit any further funding to Eden Park when he offered a blank cheque to an uncosted option on the waterfront?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As we are learning, there were no properly costed options for Eden Park, either. As I told the House many times before the decision was taken, the National Party backed Eden Park with a blank cheque.

Hon Bill English: Why were no financial parameters set for the Government’s favoured option of the waterfront stadium?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There were no financial parameters set for either option. The Eden Park Trust Board is yet to come back with a coherent funding proposal that will say how much the Government is expected to contribute. I have seen figures appearing in the media; they do not necessarily indicate certain funding from any source for Eden Park.

Hon Bill English: Why did the Government abandon the Minister’s preferred option of the waterfront stadium?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We said that we would listen to the consensus from Auckland. Auckland, perhaps to our great surprise, managed to disagree with itself.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that he has made a number of statements that are critical of the Eden Park option, and can he confirm to the House that the reason he will not give it a blank cheque is because Labour wants to punish the Eden Park Trust Board for arguing its case and inconveniencing the Prime Minister?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member is going to stay on as the seventh deputy leader of the National Party that I have faced, he will have to not let his paranoia run away with him. We will come to an agreement with the Eden Park Trust Board, but it will have to be based on something firmer than what the board has come up with throughout this process. It is National that committed itself to the Eden Park option with no proper design, no design drawings, no budget, and no funding plan.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it possible for any member of Parliament to make a decision that is accountable to the New Zealand taxpayer when the Eden Park Trust Board—members of which some of us know very well—began with a proposition of $60 million, then, realising there was possibly an open-ended cheque, came up with a further two propositions, now reaching $350 million?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed, the first figure is correct, but I think the latter figure is now more like $385 million, plus, of course, additional expenditure in terms of public transport needs and related access matters, etc.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that he committed the Government to the waterfront option with no budget, no plans, no builder, no governance, and a blank cheque?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. I can confirm that I did not commit the Government to either of two options—neither of which had final plans, neither of which had proper budgets, neither of which had funding sources, neither of which had resource consents, and one of which had a blank cheque from the National Party.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s financial statements include an unquantified, uncapped contingent liability for the Rugby World Cup, and when will he act consistently with his supposed reputation for fiscal credibility and put some kind of qualification or cap on the Rugby World Cup—or will he let Trevor Mallard wander around for the next few years with a blank cheque?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. And when, first of all, of course, the Eden Park Trust Board has a final completed proposal, has consents for that, has a budget, has agreed with the Government on future governance for the future Eden Park and, hopefully, some of the member’s mates in Auckland will cough up with some of the money.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a briefing paper from the Eden Park Trust Board last July that was presented at a briefing here in Parliament and supported by Labour Party members who attended that briefing, with the listed cost of $320 million.

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

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister understand that Parliament and the public may be concerned that he seems to have taken such a strong dog in the manger attitude towards the Eden Park proposal, and does this put the timing of that project at risk, just because Labour does not like it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said before, the member must not let his paranoia run away with him. The Government is working with the Eden Park Trust Board. Auckland has spoken, and has said it does not want a gift of a brand new stadium from the rest of the nation. Instead it wants an upgrade of the existing Eden Park stadium. We now have to work through the processes to ensure that that stadium will be ready on time. I am quite sure—as I have said many, many times in this House—that Eden Park will be looking for a large sum of money from the Government. The National Party signed up to that blank cheque in a letter to Mr Mallard some time ago.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What reports has the Minister received that suggest that the good people of Gore, or, for that matter, Dipton, want to pay, as ratepayers or taxpayers, for a city stadium—or regional stadium at best—that is not a national stadium, which is the type of undertaking that the National Party clearly gave to the Eden Park Trust Board?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have a strong suspicion that if we were running a great whip-round in Southland for the upgrade of Eden Park, we would raise a lot less than the Labour Party has raised for its great whip-round.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table the letter mentioned by Michael Cullen, which will make it very clear that no such undertaking was made.

Document not tabled.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a copy of an article from the Dominion Post that reports on Helen Clark’s speech at Dublin a year ago, where she apparently committed the Government to the Rugby World Cup without any financial costing.

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

Schools—Assessment Information

3. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to ensure that schools have access to good assessment information on their students?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Yesterday the Government announced a new resource that helps schools to identify the learning needs of every student and then fix them. The resource is part of asTTle, a world-leading tool that gives parents and teachers an accurate picture of how well their child is doing at school. It is used by over 94 percent of schools and it plots individual achievement, helps teachers adapt their teaching, and provides comparable data from similar schools. This is an essential tool to the Government’s strategy to deliver high standards that meet the needs of every student, in every school.

Moana Mackey: Is the Minister aware of any alternative policies for the use of assessment information?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am aware of a bill that would set national standards for literacy and numeracy. The approach of that bill would be to lock children into centrally imposed standards determined by their age, not by their ability. It would lead to a formula approach to teaching and put pressure on schools to teach to the test rather than to the individual needs of students. The New Zealand Educational Institute has described this policy as “School Certificate for 5-year-olds”. It will leave students frustrated and powerless, with no idea of what they need to do to improve. This is the narrow, centralised policy championed by the former education spokesperson for the National Party. I doubt whether someone as wise as Katherine Rich will take the same approach.

Hon Brian Donnelly: How many schools are at present undertaking assessment for better learning projects or contracts; and at the current rate, how long will it be before all schools in New Zealand are provided with such valuable professional support?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I do not have the precise figures with me at the present time, but the figure is around half. I hope that if we carry on improving at the current rate, with the resources we want to put in, all schools will have access to such support within the next 5 or 6 years.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Fossil Fuel Usage

4. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree with Victoria University economics senior lecturer Dr Geoff Bertram that “New Zealand’s clean and green image is largely an illusion and our growing usage of fossil fuels is becoming problematic” and that “We’re going to be way, way up in our carbon dioxide emissions and our methane emissions relative to 1990—we’re miles in breach of our Kyoto undertakings.”, as reported on National Radio this morning?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): No. Our environment is cleaner and greener than that of most overseas countries. Seventy percent of our electricity already comes from renewable sources.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Minister tell the House that 70 percent of our power is produced from renewable sources, when official statistics released yesterday by the department state that the figure was 57 percent, the figure was 66 percent when he came to Government and has declined in every single year since then, and next year’s new generation is scheduled to be 80 percent thermal energy, so the figures will only get worse; and how can those figures possibly meet Labour’s commitment when it came into Government in 1990 to lift New Zealand’s use of renewable energy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The exact proportion year to year varies according to how much rain we have in our hydro catchments. In terms of new renewables, it is abundantly clear that the Government’s projects to reduce emissions have brought forward wind power development by 5 to 10 years.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister received any recent reports about coal-fired power emissions and climate change policy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yesterday I had a question in the House asserting that the Government had been promoting thermal generation, and implying that National had opposed it. I cannot reconcile that position with an earlier report from National’s former energy spokesperson that stated that National “welcomes the new … coal-fired Marsden B”, and that “The development of such generation … is exactly what New Zealand needs …”. Indeed, he even went so far as to say: “The Government must ensure that it doesn’t let the RMA sink this desperately needed piece of generation.”—another National Party flip-flop.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Prime Minister say yesterday, in response to questions from John Key on electricity—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please proceed.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I will start again, seeing that Labour is very excited about it, because I think we deserve an answer on this. Why did the Prime Minister say yesterday, in response to questions from John Key on electricity: “all the major projects coming on stream are renewable projects.”, when the Minister’s own ministry identifies 570 megawatts of new generation coming on stream next year, of which 410 megawatts, or 80 percent, will be non-renewable—notably Genesis Energy’s ep3 at Huntly, and Mighty River Power’s Southdown gas extension? Who is telling the truth: his ministry or the Prime Minister?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am sure that the Prime Minister shares my confidence that following the release of the draft New Zealand Energy Strategy, the vast majority of new generation capacity will be renewable.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that our high and growing use of fossil fuels is largely because carbon pollution is free, and would it not be fairer to those who will pay for this—taxpayers picking up the bill in 2012; families who have invested in insulation, solar water heating, and more efficient cars; and firms using wood waste to replace coal—to put an economy-wide price on carbon pollution now?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I think the price of carbon is one of the relevant determinants of its usage. It has been difficult to pass legislation in this Parliament to impose a price on carbon. Indeed, the same previous spokesperson from National, in a speech in August 2004, said that he was completely opposed to any form of carbon pricing on coal introduced by this Government, and would reverse it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister yesterday blame the drop in the proportion of electricity generation from renewable sources on economic growth and the weather, when it was his Government’s decision to build a new, oil-fired power station at Whirinaki, to underwrite the massive ep3 thermal station at Huntly, and to support the application by State-owned enterprise Mighty River Power for a 320-megawatt coal station, and at the same time to block and delay renewable energy projects like Project Aqua and the Dobson scheme; and does the Minister accept that the downward trend in renewables is a direct consequence of his Government’s decision to build more thermal energy stations and block new renewables?

Hon DAVID PARKER: For a start, I did not say that electricity proportions have decreased because of economic growth. I said that electricity usage—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, you did.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I said that electricity usage has increased because of economic growth, which is a slightly different statement. In terms of the Dobson scheme, as the Hon Chris Carter referred to yesterday, we did let Resource Management Act processes and Conservation Act processes take their course there. The outcome is that there is likely to be a proposal for the Arnold River, as a replacement for the Dobson scheme. It will produce not dissimilar amounts of power, with far less environmental effect.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister put the issue in perspective and advise how our electricity generated from coal, as a percentage of total generation, compares with that of Australia, the USA, and China; and does he share New Zealand First’s opinion that the National Party appears to be advocating, albeit slowly, the closure of the Huntly coal-fired power station?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can advise that the proportion of New Zealand’s electricity generation that comes from coal is far lower than is the case for Australia or the United States. That is a very good thing that we ought to be proud of.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence that his Government will put in place a programme to ensure New Zealand meets its Kyoto targets in the year we have left before the agreement comes into effect, when, after 7 years of this Government being in office, experts conclude that we are miles in breach and do not have a bolter’s show of achieving the undertakings?

Hon DAVID PARKER: New Zealand’s commitment under the Kyoto Protocol is to have sufficient Kyoto-compliant emission units, and we will achieve that. Emission units can be obtained through the removal of carbon dioxide via forest sinks, or through investments via the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms. The member has to get up to date as to what the mechanisms under Kyoto are, if he is to participate in a meaningful way in these discussions.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm to the—[Interruption] Oh, get a life, Clayton!

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please continue with the question. And order, please!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister please confirm that Treasury has advised that there is no way that New Zealand can meet its Kyoto undertakings, except by having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ money on buying credits off countries like Russia; and given his last answer, is he confirming that that is exactly the Government’s intention, and that New Zealand taxpayers will have to pay for Pete Hodgson’s bungle over Kyoto?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm that.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave of the House to table a very interesting press release last Saturday from Mr Bob Field, the head of Toyota New Zealand, in which he calls for a price on carbon across the economy as quickly as possible.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a press release dated 18 August 2004 in which a former National Party energy spokesman welcomed the proposed Mighty River Power Marsden B coal station.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table a speech of 30 August 2004 in which the same former energy spokesman pointed out that if the Government did introduce a price on carbon in respect of thermal energy, the National Party would oppose and, indeed, reverse it.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the official advice from the Ministry of Economic Development that 80 percent of the new generation to come on stream next year will actually be—contrary to the Prime Minister’s assertion that all of it will be renewable—unrenewable.

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

Youth—Training and Work Opportunities

5. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps has the Government taken to further improve training and work opportunities for young people?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am pleased to advise the House that yesterday the Government signed a new memorandum of understanding with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs, which represents 71 mayors, reaffirming a shared goal for all 15 to 19-year-olds to be in appropriate education, training, or work. At the same time we launched the task force’s campaign Our Youth, Our Future, with its particular focus on Māori youth, enterprise, and employment, on investing in youth locally, and on young people with disabilities. This is one of a number of Government and wider community initiatives that are contributing to the long-term economic independence and well-being of New Zealand’s young people. I am sure all members of the House will join me in congratulating the mayors on their efforts in this area.

Georgina Beyer: What reports has he seen on changes in the number of youth who receive benefits?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: In the 4 years following the signing of the first Mayors Task Force for Jobs memorandum of understanding in September 2002, unemployment benefit numbers for under-25-year-olds fell from 30,000 to 9,000. Unemployment benefit numbers among young Māori fell from 12,000 to 4,000, and the numbers among young Pacific people fell from 2,900 to just 800. Each of those reductions has been at a rate greater than the general drop in unemployment numbers. Since 1999 there have been 30,000 more young people now employed in the workforce.

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority—Annual Report

6. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Energy: Is he satisfied with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority’s annual report; if so, why?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): Yes; the report is the work of a conscientious agency, currently working hard on the updated Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, due to be released the week after next.

Gerry Brownlee: How can the Minister accept the annual report from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority that begins with its chief executive stating in the foreword: “I am particularly proud of ECCA’s operational achievements this year.”, when the recent Government report found that the percentage of energy from renewable resources is falling, and concluded that a minuscule 0.4 percent had been gained under Labour’s energy efficiency strategy—which is far less than when Labour had no strategy at all?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Far from that being the correct position, I am advised that International Energy Agency statistics show that for the period 1990-98, the annual energy efficiency gains in countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, the UK, and Germany were all lower than New Zealand’s.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How can you let that answer stand, when the Minister was asked a question about an organisation’s annual report that he signed off but has immediately told the House now is wrong?

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, the member cannot require a specific answer to the question. The Minister did address the question.

Charles Chauvel: What recent Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority initiatives are performing above expectation?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Quite a number of them. This year, for example, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority received a Budget vote for retrofitting insulation to 6,500 pre-1977 homes. It has overachieved that target, out of that same Budget allowance, by retrofitting over 8,800 houses. That is 25 percent more than was achieved in the previous year, and is a record the previous National Government came nowhere near to achieving.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister have confidence that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority can improve its performance by the 500 percent it needs to achieve, just to meet its current energy efficiency goals?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am confident that the average annual energy efficiency gains in New Zealand in recent years have been higher than in most European countries. But they are also less than have been achieved in the USA and Italy, for example, and for that reason we will be more ambitious about what is achieved in years to come than we have been in recent years.

Gerry Brownlee: Why does the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority claim that four staff motivation seminars were held in the past year, with 150 participants attending, when the authority employs only about 70 people; or was that number achieved because of the staggering 17 percent staff turnover in the authority—and, noting, that, is the Minister certain that the authority is not running staff demotivation seminars?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I presume that is because some staff members went to more than one seminar.

Gerry Brownlee: Why did the Minister say that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is not reliant on securing funding from a partner in order to undertake research projects on energy efficiency in buildings, when the annual report states that no research projects on energy efficiency in buildings were undertaken because funding from other partners could not be secured?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am not sure whether I have caught the import of that question correctly; perhaps the member could repeat the question.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, would the member please repeat it.

Gerry Brownlee: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, we are in a bit of a difficulty here. We are working off a report the Minister has signed off, and in his first answer today he said that it is wrong. I am simply asking him—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. The member—

Gerry Brownlee: I am explaining the question—

Madam SPEAKER: No. Would you please just ask the question. The Minister asked you to repeat the question; would you please just repeat it.

Gerry Brownlee: Why did the Minister say that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is not reliant on securing funding from other partners in order to undertake research into energy efficiency in buildings, when the annual report states that no such research took place because the authority was unable to secure funding from other partners?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Much of the research into energy efficiency in buildings is actually conducted by the Department of Building and Housing, under the auspices of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

Gerry Brownlee: Is the fact that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has failed so miserably on this goal—that is, the goal to do research into energy efficiency in buildings—the reason that it has now set such a low goal for home rating systems: namely, that only 1 percent of middle to high income earners are voluntarily improving energy efficiency in their homes under the Minister’s current energy efficiency strategy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I have already outlined to the House, the rate of energy efficiency improvements in New Zealand has actually been higher than in many European countries—

Gerry Brownlee: 1 percent!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, at 1 percent. One percent per annum is the rate that is achieved by the United States. New Zealand has done less than that, and we do hope to do more.

Computer Systems, Ministers’—Security Concerns

7. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she have any concerns about the security of Ministers’ computer systems; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): on behalf of the Prime Minister: I have no specific concerns. I am advised that the security systems employed by the contractor responsible for the system are kept up to the appropriate industry standards, and there is no evidence of serious security breaches.

Rodney Hide: How can she have any confidence in the computer systems when clearly a secret espionage operation has been successfully directed for some years against the leader of the National Party, National MPs, and their parliamentary staff?

Madam SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has no responsibility for the Parliamentary Service, only for Ministerial Services.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed; to add to that point, the Ministerial Services’ system is a separate system from the Parliamentary Service’s system.

Hon Bill English: Have Ministers sought assurances from him about the security of the ministerial email system, and is he satisfied that its standards are matched by those of the parliamentary email system?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I cannot comment about the parliamentary email system. The ministerial system is managed by Unysis New Zealand Ltd and has a variety of security measures. I do not know who runs the parliamentary system or how that would compare with the ministerial system.

Rodney Hide: What assurance can the Prime Minister give to the people of New Zealand that Government offices and computers are safe and secure from secret and malevolent spying by anonymous forces, whose motives remain hidden—as, indeed, has happened to the National Party through the Parliamentary Service system?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member is making an assertion in his last comment, and I have no idea whether there is any truth in it. Many other rumours have run around this place—

Hon Bill English: The Prime Minister seems to know.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Well, I think one was that I have managed to hack, but anybody who knows my manner of success—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Thank you colleagues! I think they are commenting on my capacity to engage in that kind of activity. Clearly, one cannot give a 100 percent assurance in these matters, at all, but security systems on the ministerial system are kept up to date on a daily basis. There have certainly been incidents of people trying to hack into the system. These have been identified and specific blocks put in place.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the search for hackers, snoopers, conspirators, and agents provocateurs, has she read the quote from Dr Brash that states: “I have no doubt whatsoever that this information has been obtained by criminal activity by half a dozen or so of National Party people very close to my office”; and does this not prove that the suggestion that hackers from outside the complex have unlawfully gained access to emails inside the complex—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’ve got them! You know.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, yeah—your mates. I’ll tell the member who it is—right amongst his mates—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please just ask his question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I start again, Madam Speaker, because I have lost the plot here?

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think we got the gist of the first bit. Just complete it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: Has the member finished asking his question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I have not.

Madam SPEAKER: OK, please continue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Dr Brash said—and I quote him: “I have no doubt whatsoever that this information has been obtained by criminal activity by half a dozen or so”—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why don’t you tell the police what you know?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —and we are hearing from one of them over there now—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why don’t you tell the police what you know?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, why would the police be looking for something that Don Brash knows about?

Hon Member: No, no.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —oh yes, you do—“very close to my office”, and does this not prove that the suggestion that hackers from outside the complex have unlawfully gained access to emails inside the complex is at least a tad far-fetched?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You cannot possibly accept that question, because the question asked by Mr Hide relates to the Prime Minister and the Ministerial Services. Mr Peters is relying heavily on the absolute tripe written in The Hollow Men, a copy of which is being waved around by Judith Tizard.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no.

Gerry Brownlee: Oh yes, it is. I think, Madam Speaker, that to try to say that this question allows Mr Peters to run off and take some misquote from Dr Brash, and go down this road, is wrong. The onus is on Mr Peters, actually, as someone who knows where the emails came from, to go to the police and to tell them. But he will not, because he is frightened.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Surely, the intent of this question is to ensure that MPs, parliamentary leaders, and Ministers—and, indeed, the Prime Minister—have security of communication. Surely, that was the intent of the original question. That being the case, I am quoting from the leader of the National Party last week, and this is his statement. I will table the document if the MP from Auckland who is making a lot of noise, but who has been demoted in the space of 12 months in a career, wants to keep on arguing it. All I am saying is that if Dr Brash knows, then perhaps he can help the Prime Minister in the answer.

Madam SPEAKER: The question was in order, but in replying, the Minister has to be careful about ministerial responsibility—it did ask for reports.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have indeed seen the report that Dr Brash made that statement. I have to say from a Labour Party perspective, one certainly would not find six senior members of the Labour Party who would open their hearts up to Mr Hager, and I am surprised that there are six National Party MPs who did so.

Rodney Hide: What action, if any, has she taken to ensure the security of email systems in ministerial offices and, indeed, in Parliament, or is spying OK as long as it is directed at the National Party?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not sure what the last bit is meant to imply because, as I said, the ministerial system is quite separate from the parliamentary system. Certainly in respect of the ministerial system, there are firewalls designed to detect any unusual activity, and these are monitored regularly so that any unusual activity should be noticed. But, as in the case of any such system, there cannot be 100 percent certainty. I do not know whether the parliamentary system has similar kinds of firewalls in place.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Does this not raise the interesting question of how parties like New Zealand First or United Future get on, because they have—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Very well.

Madam SPEAKER: If there are any more interruptions, the members will be out.

Gerry Brownlee: I have no doubt that they get on well with each other, but the voters—hmm, it is not good at the moment. I would just point out that those parties have Ministers who are part of Cabinet, so they must be part of the ministerial system. Yet, those parties’ own members are, I presume, still part of the parliamentary system. So where are the points of integration, and how secure is that?

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I am not sure what the member’s point is, but there are two systems and they—

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is exactly the same as any party in Government. For instance, Labour Party back-benchers are on the parliamentary system and Labour Party Ministers are on the ministerial system. That member will always be on the parliamentary system.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you again, please, as a member from one of the alternative parties. That was another gross example—and it was obvious once the member had got into the first sentence—of Mr Brownlee abusing the point of order process and the Standing Orders. I understand that I cannot interject when a point of order is being made, but when it is so clearly, obviously, and patently not a point of order, but simply the member taking an opportunity to slag, bag, and take political point-scoring opportunities, what protection do we have? We either interject and make the point, and get thrown out of the House, or we sit here and rely on you, as the Speaker, to deal with Mr Brownlee.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I dealt with Mr Brownlee, but sometimes it is always important, as you well know, to wait until the member has completed his thought. Sometimes members take longer than others to complete a thought.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a Sunday News 26 November article headlined “Brash blames party over leaked emails”.

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

Primary Health Care Strategy—Cost

8. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What is the total amount of public money spent on implementing the Primary Health Care Strategy since it began?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Over the years about an additional $1.2 billion, the majority of which lowers the cost to New Zealanders of seeing their family doctor and the cost of prescriptions—both moves opposed by the National Party.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can it be that he has admitted to Cabinet in this report that the Government has failed to make any progress whatsoever in most of the objectives it set itself to improve the quality of primary health care in New Zealand under the Primary Health Care Strategy, despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member chooses again to mis-characterise and selectively quote. The long and short of it is that a Primary Health Care Strategy will take years to be fully embedded, because it does take a lifetime of good health-care to give someone a good experience in his or her later years. We are very proud in respect of this change to the primary health care system, and I say that there are already some health gain changes to hand.

Maryan Street: What reports has the Minister received about the costs of general practitioner visits recently?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The cost of going to a general practitioner for an ordinary practice has dropped from about $52 to about $26. In some areas, and the six practices in Taupō, Tūrangi, and Mangakino will do for an example, practices have agreed from 1 January next year that they will charge patients $10 if they are 6 to 17 years of age, and $15 if they are 18 years and older. That is the sort of thing one can do to improve access to doctors if one does not have reckless tax cuts on one’s mind.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister confirm that the Primary Health Care Strategy foresaw the primary health care team expanding to a wider range of health professionals beyond doctors and nurses, yet the latest Commonwealth Fund survey of primary-care physicians across seven countries finds New Zealand general practice second to bottom for the use of multi-disciplinary teams, and how can it be that, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars and a huge ministry bureaucracy, he has told his Cabinet colleagues that progress in this area is limited to a small handful of primary health organisations?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member refuses to get the point, or if he is not refusing then he does not understand fundamental health policy. Let me remind him that not only does that Commonwealth Fund survey put New Zealand primary health care up near the top but the very areas where New Zealand does not do well, including the one that he gave us an example of, are precisely the reason why the Primary Health Care Strategy was designed. The member will also notice that general practitioners’ preparedness to work with others in the health sector in the primary-care setting in that survey is the highest in the world. We can expect that position, therefore, to significantly improve—which is precisely what the strategy is designed to do.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister confirm that he told Cabinet in this document that the Primary Health Care Strategy envisaged a wider range of services provided in the primary-care settings in doctors’ clinics, such as maternity, hospital follow-ups, and well child, and why, after hundreds of millions of dollars and years of promises, was he forced to admit that, in his own words, “co-ordination between the primary care and ‘hospital’ environment is still weak.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because that is the truth of it. The truth of it is that we still—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. I am having a great deal of difficulty hearing. We have heard the questioner. He was given the courtesy of being heard in silence. Please do not interrupt the Minister beyond the normal level of interjection.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will be able to lower my voice a little. The member is correct. The linkages between primary and secondary health care in this country are still not good enough, but this Government never lacks ambition and is very happy to see continued improvement between primary and secondary health care. In fact, we think it is an area where there are very considerable gains to be made and we will continue to seek them year after year, for as long as we are in office—which will be a while yet.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister confirm that he has warned Cabinet of the rising risk of a further fragmented health system, with so many areas doing their own thing on information technology, and despite hundreds of millions of dollars and a huge Ministry of Health bureaucracy, the development of common information technology systems across the health sector is poor, even if some of the people developing them are not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Further improvements to our information technology are needed but, be very clear, the member has a habit of putting down a question then talking through an answer. I will just say to the member that if he does not want to listen to an answer, some of his colleagues might. Why does he not put a sock in it? The member is correct in—

Madam SPEAKER: Members will be leaving the Chamber if this continues.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The member is correct in suggesting that there is still further improvement to be made in our information systems, which is why I have trebled the capital investment since 1 July—the sort of thing we can do when we do not have reckless tax cuts on our mind. I say again to the member that the reason our system needs further improvement is that during the 1990s, when his Government decided that the health system should compete against itself, we ended up with a Tower of Babel in our information systems, which this Government is proudly fixing.

Jo Goodhew: Can the Minister confirm that now that he has confessed his Primary Health Care Strategy report card to Cabinet, describing his progress as “limited … still weak … poor” and lagging behind policy development, that the summary of his report card reads: “Lots of money, no progress, should consider a new job.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I do not. Instead, I assert that the New Zealand Primary Health Care Strategy is one of the more significant changes in our health system. It is one that I am very proud of and this Government is very proud of. Members like to quote selectively what is an honest appraisal of a strategy that is still in the implementation phase. I will say again—that member comes from a party that wishes to double the fees for going to doctors and increase prescription charges by 500 percent. I do not think it will ever get there.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table the Cabinet paper that the Minister of Health personally signed, describing his abysmal performance with the hundreds of millions of dollars he has had—

Document not tabled.

Biometric Information—Collection and Use

9. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: What security risk to New Zealand justifies the proposal in the immigration review document released yesterday to subject New Zealand citizens returning from overseas to intrusive fingerprinting and iris scanning?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): To reiterate the answer I gave to oral question No. 1, there is no—I repeat, no—proposal to fingerprint or take iris scans from New Zealand passport holders.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister in his answer referred back to question No. 1, and in his answer to question No. 1, as I understood it, he admitted that legislation had been proposed that would allow such a proposal to be implemented. There is a contradiction between the two answers.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The Minister did address the question.

Keith Locke: Why, under another proposed change, should migrant workers be excluded from whole industries simply because employers in those industries misuse the visa information they are required to get from the Immigration Service, and, in the words of the Minister when speaking on the radio this morning, “would no longer be able to employ migrant labour”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Employers already, in current law, have a legal obligation to employ only people who are in this country legally. One of the ways they seek to satisfy themselves about that is to look for an Inland Revenue Department number. The problem is that workers can get such a number without a valid visa or permit. Therefore, we are ensuring that there is an ability for employers to do a valid check. That is not too hard to understand.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is with regard to the validation of material that one needs to provide the Clerk’s Office with to ask a question. I presume that Keith Locke would be subject to the same stringent requirements that National Party members are, and that the Clerk’s Office would not have allowed the primary question through without some material validating that the immigration review document released yesterday subjects New Zealand citizens returning from overseas to intrusive fingerprinting and iris scans. If the document did not do that, Mr Locke would not have been able to get the original question on to the Order Paper. Mr Locke got the question on to the Order Paper, and the Minister referred to his answer to question No. 1, which was that there was no proposal actually to use fingerprinting and iris scans.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. On the question of authentication, the requirement for authentication does not mean that a Minister will necessarily reply to the question in terms of the authentication provided. Members cannot specifically require an answer that is directly related.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a similar point but from a slightly different angle. I sought the leave of the House to table the Government document that was distributed yesterday, which does, in fact, include, as Maurice Williamson just said, subjecting returning New Zealand citizens to biometric testing.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There is a very simple explanation, and that is that reading against a photograph is considered a biometric, which does not include either an iris scan or a fingerprint.

Madam SPEAKER: Does that clarify it for members? Right.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister concede that in this volatile world, in order to maximise our security it might well become necessary to sacrifice some freedoms?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: This Government, like all Governments, has a constitutional duty to protect the security of our borders and our citizens. We need to recognise that a New Zealand passport is a very valuable document. It is under attack every day in many countries of the world by people who have been shown to use it for dishonest and nefarious purposes.

Keith Locke: How will the Minister stop employers from abusing, blackmailing, or paying minimal wages to migrant workers as a consequence of employers having added responsibilities and wider access to information on the immigration status of prospective migrant labour?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I previously explained, in the first instance, employers already have the same legal obligation, and, in the second instance, only an employer who is registered to hire a migrant labourer would be allowed to access that information under this proposal. If employers abuse the confidentiality requirements that are part and parcel of that, they stand to lose that accreditation, to the detriment of their business. That is a strong incentive.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is it not a fact that both here and in many other developed countries people who are illegally in a country are far more at risk of blackmail and underpayment by their employers than are people who are legally in a country?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can certainly confirm that. I can further confirm that the presence of significant numbers of illegal workers is an age-old trick for driving down wage rates, to the detriment of all workers. I am sure the member would not support that, either.

Ingram Inquiry—Confidence

10. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Ingram inquiry into matters relating to Taito Phillip Field?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her statement made to the House on 30 August this year that Dr Ingram did not raise with officials a request to provide legal advice for a key witness, with the statement made by the head of her department that Dr Ingram had made such an approach to see whether the Crown would pay legal costs for Mr Keith Williams, the original whistleblower, on matters covered in the Ingram inquiry?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have the information in front of me. The member would need to put down a separate question for me to be able to answer it.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Prime Minister confirm that officials at Immigration New Zealand who asked for legal advice were provided with it, yet, after an approach from Dr Ingram, her office refused to provide that same legal advice to the key witness whom her department knew would not provide evidence to the inquiry without legal advice?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot confirm that. I do not have the information in front of me relating to that matter.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why, when Mr Keith Williams was the only person, other than Maxine Field, who knew of the secret deal between Taito Phillip Field and failed refugee overstayer Sunan Siriwan, was the Prime Minister prepared to spend $486,000 on the Ingram inquiry but not $2,000 or $3,000 to ensure that such a key witness with crucial inside information could give evidence?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In the report Mr Ingram states that Mr Williams declined to give evidence to his inquiry.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why, given that on 21 June of this year the Prime Minister gave an undertaking in this House that anyone who had evidence of wrongdoing by Taito Phillip Field would receive immunity and protection, did her office refuse to provide legal protection to Keith Williams?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I assume that the statement made on 21 June refers to anybody referring matters to the police, and that is where matters should now go. The police are undertaking an inquiry.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How does it help disprove allegations that the Prime Minister set up a narrow inquiry doomed to failure when she herself told the House that Dr Ingram had not requested provision of legal advice for a key witness, when her own office has revealed Dr Ingram did just that, and when she told this House that people possessing evidence would be protected, yet her office refused to protect Keith Williams?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Now we come to a much more important point of principle. The inquiry asked whether there was any conflict of interest in Mr Field’s actions as a Minister. That is an appropriate matter for an inquiry ordered by the Prime Minister. If the member is indicating now that he favours the Prime Minister’s ordering inquiries into the affairs of members of Parliament, then I am sure we could launch one into the relations between the Exclusive Brethren and National Party members opposite—notably, Mr Key.

Maternity Services—Rural Midwifery Workforce

11. JILL PETTIS (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to support the rural midwifery workforce?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health): Much is being done in this area. There are two new funding streams that are available for rural midwives. The first, a fund of $200,000 per annum for the next 2 years, will provide financial support of $2,500 for every lead maternity carer who has provided postnatal support to women living in remote areas. In addition, a new fund of $2 million per annum will be used to support rural midwives. This fund will be available from next year, and will be allocated according to the rural ranking scale.

Jill Pettis: What further initiatives is the Government implementing to improve access to health services for people who live in rural communities?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Again, this is an area where a lot is being done by the Labour-led Government. We have rolled out a number of initiatives. This latest announcement is one in a series of improvements, the first being $80 million as a rural adjuster for district health boards to compensate for the higher cost of delivering health in rural communities, the second being $4.2 million to pay for rural bonuses for the 461 rural general practitioners under the rural ranking scale, and the third being $8.4 million in rural workforce retention funding to help those people get locum supports, as well. There is much being done to help rural professionals in the health sector.

Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister aware of other maternity issues such as the overcrowding at Christchurch Women’s Hospital, described by the College of Midwives Canterbury West Coast chairwoman as being “so full the care of high-risk women was being compromised.”; if so, what is his ministry doing to ensure the safety of expectant mothers in Christchurch?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have every confidence in the Canterbury District Health Board working with midwives to look after all those pregnant women down there. As I announced, much is being done in respect of midwifery services and maternity care by this Government, not only in the rural areas but, in fact, in the urban areas as well.

Jo Goodhew: Can the Minister explain why he has not taken this opportunity to strengthen the multidisciplinary team approach to primary care, as required in the Primary Health Care Strategy, by bringing the midwives into the team with doctors and practice nurses and enhancing the choices for New Zealanders?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Although I understand that at this point the midwives are not part of that official arrangement, this new move, which will allocate funding under the rural ranking scale, will bring them into line with the general practitioners in the way that they are funded. I have every confidence that through the primary health organisation model we will see total cooperation between all providers of health services in the rural areas: midwives, general practitioners, physiotherapists, pharmacists, and everyone else.

Problem-gambling Service Providers—Review Recommendations

12. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Associate Minister of Health: What were the recommendations of the report into 12 problem-gambling providers under review by the Ministry of Health?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health): The report identified a number of problems, including missed service delivery targets, incomplete reporting, a decrease in client numbers, and a shortage of skilled staff. The Ministry of Health is reviewing the contracts of 12 problem-gambling providers. On 3 November the ministry provided me with a progress report, and work continues in this area.

Sandra Goudie: Will the Minister ever make the report public, or will he just wait until Christmas Eve in an attempt to hide evidence of an appalling abuse of money and a complete lack of financial oversight by his ministry?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I believe that it may be into the new year before we get a final report. I am not pushing the officials; it is important that they go through those contracts thoroughly with the providers. There are natural justice issues, and I understand the challenges they face. We can be assured that a thorough report will be put before myself and, no doubt, eventually the House.

Sue Moroney: How many requests have National Party members lodged in the area of problem gambling?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We take note of the great interest shown by the National Party in this area. Ninety-five written questions and three parliamentary oral questions have been asked, and 14 Official Information Act requests have been lodged, by the member. If she does not know all the answers by now, I guess she will never know them.

Madam SPEAKER: That last comment was not necessary.

Sandra Goudie: What recommendations does the report make about contracting and monitoring by the Ministry of Health, and does the Minister have confidence that he has been told the full story, given that the people who wrote the report are the very people who negotiated wasteful contracts that pay thousands of dollars in order for people to have a 16-minute telephone conversation?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have every confidence that we are going through a very robust process. We have had some healthy discussions in this area. It is a new area of responsibility for Ministry of Health officials, and it is a very difficult area. We are trying to identify people who have serious problems arising from gambling. We have a responsibility to reduce the harm caused by gambling. We also have a responsibility to make sure that the money is being spent wisely, and we will make sure that occurs.

Sandra Goudie: Does the Minister believe that the Ministry of Health has been adequately monitoring the performance of the problem-gambling providers in accordance with the recommendations of the Controller and Auditor-General, or was the ministry simply paying out on the basis of the quarterly reports sent by the providers until that sham was raised in the House almost 2 months ago?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: No, I do not think that the monitoring has been adequate. It is a new area of responsibility for the ministry—they are new contracts. We have to improve the performance of both the providers and the ministry in this area.

Sandra Goudie: What responsibility will the Minister accept for his ministry’s failure to operate in accordance with the statement of good practice on procurement issued by the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, when a provider is paid $143,000 for counselling eight people?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We will work with ministry officials to make sure that we spend the money wisely in this very difficult area of social responsibility. I am confident that there is a new level of awareness by both providers and the ministry as to the need to improve our performance.

Sandra Goudie: I seek leave to table a document from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Procurement: A Statement of Good Practice.

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

General Debate

General Debate

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I begin with the Government’s congratulations to the new leadership team in the National Party. Mr John Key is a man who one day, hopefully, will live in his own electorate as well as occupy the Opposition benches in the House. We see Mr Bill English, who has returned to a leadership position. The overall configuration of people has changed. Mrs Goudie has made it through to the very, very back benches. A kind of dizzying kaleidoscope of change has gone on. We on this side of the House just wait for the next lot of changes in the National Party, because it is most entertaining to be able to see them every week.

Of course, Mr John Key has said to us that he wants to make a fresh start. Unfortunately for Mr John Key I have this book here; I want to read out the title of the book. It is called The Hollow Men: A study in the politics of deception. That is the problem for Mr John Key. While that book is around, there will be all sorts of problems.

I have to say, first of all, that the book is highly entertaining. For example, Bill English thinks Judith Collins is incompetent. We have known that for a long time, but it is very good to know that National knows it, as well. We also know that Bill English thinks most people in National—Katherine Rich, for example—were promoted far too fast, and that is why they are unable to accomplish anything in the party. We learn that Mr Murray McCully has lost three elections in a row and still has the job of being the strategic person in the National Party. Frankly, we will have to stop paying the National Party to have Murray in that job, because it is getting embarrassing—one election after another.

But as entertaining as the book is, there is a serious point that the National Party has to deal with. What this book actually shows is not all the entertainment, not all the gaffes, not all the pratfalls, and not all the disunity; it shows that the National Party is run by people who are not elected and who are not even members of the National Party. Those people are a group of extraordinarily well-off New Zealanders who have extreme policies that they want introduced, and over a period of two decades they have made and broken leader after leader. That is why this book is important. It tells us that for two decades the National Party has been run by a shadowy group of people who do not bother to get elected or join the National Party, but who ask the party to deliver for them.

That is what Dr Brash was doing. He was delivering for those people. He was on their side. He was doing their bidding. He was in their camp. He was part of a very small group of rich people who wanted to run this country for their own interest. And Mr Key can say what he likes, he can change policies, he can flip-flop, he can adopt every Labour policy in sight—it is all too easy to watch these changes—but he will have to tell New Zealanders that he knows that two-decade period of being controlled by a shadowy, small group of people is over.

Any textbook we read on politics will tell us that when a Government serves the interests of a small group of rich business people, it is called fascism. They may not wear jackboots any more—they may wear suits—and they may like to think they are better than the rest of the country, but it is still fascism when a small group of people is allowed to take over the party the National Party likes to believe it is, and then put that group’s policies into place.

The next election will be fought on one word: trust. Until John Key brings those people out of the shadows and dispenses them into the dustbin of history, he will not be trusted. The comparison will be between the National Party, with its hidden backers, and the Labour Party, which has said what it will do, and has done it, for three elections—soon to be four.

Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The entire tenor of this speech has been contrary to the Standing Orders. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 48/5: “A member may suggest that a party was given advice from outside, but not instructions or directions.”, and to Speaker’s ruling 49/1: “It is ‘contrary to our practice to say that a political party in this House is, or members of it are, under the direction, instruction … or domination of an outside body.’ ” I suggest that the member needs to be brought into line fast.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank Mr Finlayson for raising that. Mr Maharey may continue. I did not take it that he was talking about direction from outside, but influence—yes, that is fine.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I will just reinforce the point to Mr Finlayson that at the next election the one word that will matter is trust. The National Party, as long as this book is here, and as long as the National Party does not deal with it, cannot be trusted.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Once again on a Wednesday afternoon Labour members have not been talking about their policies; they have been resorting to the age-old argument that my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Today suddenly Mr Hager, according to Labour members, is a writer of biblical belief. He is the man who just a short while ago was described by them as a complete idiot for writing a book called the Seeds of Distrust. It is a book that the Prime Minister said was absolute fiction, a complete mistruth, and she said that Mr Hager was not to be believed. But today Labour members have come in here and talked about “St Nicky Hager” and his tome on which anyone could swear as if it were a bible, and presented it as though there were even a skerrick of fact in it, when there is not.

When did the Labour Party decide to take $300,000 worth of anonymous donations? When did the Labour Party decide that it was OK to take $500,000 from a Sydney-based businessman who has no discernible assets at all, but has enough to be able to give the Labour Party $500,000? When did Labour members decide that it was OK to put their hands deep into the pockets of taxpayers and rip out $850,000 to fund their election campaign? Well, they did it progressively over a period of time while they have deluded themselves that they are the great party of the people. They will see a great party between themselves and the people in not too long. John Key and the new National Party leadership team—deputy Bill English and the rest of the troops—will knock Labour over in the 2008 election, because that crowd is completely bereft of any vision whatsoever.

I want to demonstrate that by saying that the sort of delusion Labour members have presented around their own pure state as far as election spending is concerned, and the reference to the fictional book by Mr Hager, is seen also in the way in which they have dealt with climate change in this country over a period of years. Government members might say that the National Party has changed its position, but, no, the National Party has been taking time to see where this thing goes. It is abundantly clear that Labour members do not believe one iota of their rhetoric. If they did, why would we have seen such a huge expansion of thermal electricity generation in this country? Why would we have seen such a massive expansion of carbon dioxide emission in this country? And why would we have seen a constant change in their position on how these matters might be dealt with?

I was fascinated, a few months ago, to get an invitation from Minister of Energy Parker and Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues Tizard to the New Zealand premiere of the film by Al Gore. They said that it was an absolutely magnificent film, a documentary of monumental proportion, and a statement of truth and fact, and that we have to do something about the situation.

But have Labour members done anything in response to what they claim to believe? No, they have actually said: “Well, sorry Al. We are going to talk about it, but in the next short while we are going to commission more coal-fired generation. We have told one of our State-owned enterprises: ‘Go ahead, import a couple of million tonnes of coal in the next 12 months, and burn it.’ We do not want any hydroelectricity because we would rather see the atmosphere polluted, as long as the snails have a nice place to live.” That is the sort of strange logic that we see applied from the Labour Party.

But I think that most fascinating today was the fact that Labour members did not find any basis on which to make any attack on the new arrangements the National Party has put in place in the last couple of weeks.

Hon Phil Goff: Ha, ha!

GERRY BROWNLEE: There is my friend Mr Goff over there—and I say that sincerely. He is a nice chap. He does not have quite enough oomph behind him to do the job on Helen Clark. Back in 1989 this man was running little soirees at his lifestyle block some 100 miles distant from his electorate, inviting various members of the Labour caucus to come and share a sausage over the barbecue. Mind, true to his socialist roots, it was a “bring your own sausage” barbecue.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): That speech was from Gerry Brownlee, who has just been dumped as deputy leader. He resents it and he will get his own back. Bill English, who was sitting opposite a moment ago, was the man who said about his fellow front-bench colleague Judith Collins that she had an unfortunately high estimation of her own ability. They will get on well, will they not? Then there is Maurice Williamson on the front bench. What did Maurice say about Bill? He said that Bill did not have anywhere near the excitement, the charisma, the humour, the personality, or the talent to be leader. But now Bill English is deputy leader and Mr Williamson is his loyal front-bench colleague! What a gift to the Government for National to put on its front bench seven people who hate each other with bitter intensity. We will see them fall apart.

There is one old lesson in politics: the person who wants to be leader should never be appointed as deputy. National has put in Bill English as deputy. Bill English said that he supports John Key to the hilt, and John Key flinched because he remembered that Bill English had said the same about Jenny Shipley and then the same about Don Brash. So there we have a deputy leader who has already been disloyal and treacherous to two previous leaders. He will do the same to John Key, because there is one truth about Bill English: Bill English thinks he should be leader.

I will take a moment to pay tribute to Don Brash, the retiring leader. Don Brash, I have to say, is a rather sad and solitary figure on the Opposition benches today. The very National member who 2 weeks ago had a cheer group that applauded every word he said now looks at a National Party that is absolutely dismissive of him and his achievements. That is loyalty for you! It is another example of loyalty in the National Party.

What the National caucus is showing, of course, in its new line-up of policies and its support for its new leader, is its consistency. It has made an absolute flip-flop on just about every policy it went to the last election with. National is trying to be closer to Labour, but why would the electorate buy National as a plastic replica when it has the real thing on the Government benches now?

Let us take nuclear policy, for example. John Key said he is in favour of New Zealand staying nuclear-free. That is the latest in a whole series of flip-flops made by this pathetic National Opposition on the nuclear policy. But that caucus, by a large majority, does not believe in a nuclear-free policy. Labour has the policy as a matter of conviction. National is trying to adopt it because it has been watching the polls, so it is about political expediency. This is the same National Party caucus—and it is the same Lockwood Smith over there—that in January last year was begging American congressmen for money to persuade the electorate that it does not really want the country to be nuclear-free. Has Lockwood Smith really changed his opinions? Is he so shallow that he has absolutely reversed his policy? Or does he now have the double standard of pretending he is in favour? National members certainly cannot get away with that.

Imitation is the highest form of flattery, and what the National Party is trying to do now is cuddle up to Labour. National sees Labour as being at the centre of the New Zealand electorate, consistently supported by the largest group of people and back after three elections, while that party—the once great National Party—has lost three elections running. We are now into the fourth leader of the National Party and the seventh deputy leader since this Labour Government came to power. There have been four leaders and seven deputy leaders in just 6 years. There is Nick Smith. He was the deputy leader once. He lasted a week and then he had to go off and take some leave, and we all felt terribly sorry for him about that.

It was not just Don Brash who was in favour of dumping the nuclear-free policy, and it was not just Don Brash who was in favour of getting involved in the war in Iraq. It was the National caucus, and it was Nick Smith, who was sitting on the front bench then and is sitting on the front bench now. National members blame it on Don Brash but they are all not only “hollow men” but guilty men.

I have a couple of questions for John Key. He is a nice guy. He made a killing on the money market, and I wish him good luck. But where is his experience? Jim Bolger had 14 years before becoming leader and Keith Holyoake had 25.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The amusing thing about Phil Goff is the way in which he praises so heavily former National leaders, then has the audacity to attack the existing one. The big attack on John Key today was that he does not live in his electorate. That attack came from Phil Goff, who lives 100 kilometres away from his own Mt Roskill electorate.

What National wants to say today is that on the real policy issues this Government is rotten to the core. We started the year with Taito Phillip Field. Do members remember that man? This is the guy whom Labour and Helen Clark rely on to cling to the Treasury benches. Taito Phillip Field, a man who abused Thai migrants, is still supported by members of the Labour Party. The middle part of the year was dominated by Helen Clark’s rort of the electoral laws that saw her break both the Electoral Act and the Public Finance Act as a result of that pledge card. Labour also passed retrospective law to make legal its illegal activities.

I point out this afternoon that a similar fraud has occurred in respect of the issue of climate change. I know that Government members do not want to talk about policy and real issues; well, we do. I am quite sure that Helen Clark’s spin doctors worked out that the Government was on the ropes in respect of Taito Phillip Field and in respect of the pledge card. So they asked for some big, bold vision that would get those issues off the headlines, and here it was—carbon neutrality. That was going to be Labour’s big answer. Well, did it get some advice beforehand about carbon neutrality? No, it did not. Has it been given advice since about how to achieve carbon neutrality? No, it has not. In this House Helen Clark has dodged and dived on the issue of when we might get carbon neutrality. As my colleague Maurice Williamson said, she was dateless and desperate on trying to provide that information.

Then we received the figures—the real numbers—from Statistics New Zealand. Since Labour has been in Government, far from it meeting its promise of increasing the amount of renewable energy, we are down to an all-time low of just 57 percent of our power being produced from renewable sources. The Government has since rolled out all the same strategies it used in respect of the pledge card. The first strategy was denial. The Minister of Energy said the figure was not 57 percent, as Statistics New Zealand said, but 70 percent. Whom are we to believe? Then the next strategy comes out, and that is to blame others. Labour members say it is not their fault; it is the damn weather—

Anne Tolley: It’s the rain!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So that is why the figures drop! Well, hang on a moment. In every year that Labour has been in Government the proportion of renewables has been coming down, so how can the weather be blamed? Now the economy is to blame for the appalling figures. Well, the economy has been growing, but the real reason we have an increase in the amount of thermal generation is quite simple. It is because Labour built it. Labour agreed to build a dirty great oil-fired power station in Whirinaki. If a new power station is built, surprise, surprise, emissions go up. Labour has approved the E3P, which is a huge new gas generating station that will start next year.

The Prime Minister misled the House yesterday. She said that all the power to come on stream in future will be renewable. I ask Mr Hughes whether the E3P is renewable. Of course it is not.

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member for Nelson got carried away with himself and made an unparliamentary comment about the Prime Minister. I ask him to withdraw and apologise before he continues his speech.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out that it is offensive to say that somebody deliberately misled the House. I was very careful in my choice of words. I said she misled the House, and I will produce the facts that very clearly show she did so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know. That is why I did not intervene. But I take on board what you said, Mr Hughes. Thank you for raising it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Prime Minister told the House that all new energy coming on stream would be renewable. But she sat in the Cabinet room that provided the Government guarantee for the 320 megawatt thermal power station that is due to come into effect next year so that those figures will continue to decline.

The reality is that this Government’s Kyoto policies are an absolute mess. We heard on the radio this morning that we do not have a bolter’s hope of achieving those goals. We have record low renewable energy, record high deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions growing at the fastest rate of any developed country in the world, and the Prime Minister said carbon neutrality is the answer. I say to members opposite that they have lost the moral courage to govern, they are on death row, and they should put themselves out of their misery and let us have a new Government.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour): A number of points have become very clear since Mr Key was elected the current leader of the National Party just a week and 2 days ago. The most obvious of those many points is the National Party’s disunity. Who could be surprised at the disunity in the National caucus when John Key has Bill English as his deputy, with Bill English pledging to John Key exactly the same loyalty he pledged to Jenny Shipley. I have a quote before me from the New Zealand Herald of 29 November 1999, in which Bill English said: “The caucus is solidly behind Mrs Shipley, as I am, and the party is solidly behind Mrs Shipley.” And he said—and this is almost word for word what he said in regard to Mr Key last week—that that would last through to the next election. Barely a year later Bill English rolled Jenny Shipley.

My colleague Phil Goff described the feeling of Bill English backing John Key to the hilt. It is no wonder John Key wanted Bill English sitting beside him. Would members want him sitting behind them, if they were leader of the National Party? Absolutely not! So National members’ first problem is that their deputy leader wants the job. He has as much loyalty to John Key as he had to Jenny Shipley—zilch, none—and as much loyalty as he had to Don Brash. Zilch, none!

John Key should have chosen a little more wisely. And National members still have their key strategy advice coming from Murray McCully. What did the deputy leader say about Murray McCully? He said: “You”—talking to Don Brash—“need to know now that the experienced people you will have will NOT work in a government run by McCully. I and others will not tolerate him exercising the same influence he does now.” But who worked with John Key and Bill English over the weekend, securing the leadership team and securing Gerry Brownlee’s sacking as deputy? It was none other than Murray McCully. Well, is it not interesting how people can change in a matter of just a few weeks, if it looks like a bit of a ladder-step on their own career paths?

What about National’s welfare spokesperson, Judith Collins? She got the job when Katherine Rich was sacked from that job. What does Bill English, the deputy leader, think of her? He said that Judith Collins had been “pushed beyond her capacity”, she had an “unfortunately high estimation of her own competence”, and she had “spent too much time cultivating the media herself and believing the resulting publicity. She will find it hard to recover her credibility in caucus where she has been a tough critic of her colleagues …”. Those comments from the deputy leader were about the welfare spokesperson. But what does John Key, the leader, think of her? According to the Listener in March of this year, John Key on his own, a single individual within the entire National caucus, thinks Judith Collins is “terrific”. Well, he is keeping that quiet, that is for sure.

The disunity is so obvious, in the House, in select committees, and in the Koru lounge at the airport, and I am sure that it will just increase over summer. Any party that goes into the Christmas adjournment with that sort of disunity so obvious is in for a barbecue-filled summer, which is what I predict will happen as members of the National Party leave this house and go their very, very separate ways into the summer break.

So can John Key carry on the farce of being the leader of a team with Bill English as his deputy? Can Bill English work—ever—with Maurice Williamson, with Judith Collins, or with John Carter? Can anyone in the National Party work with Lockwood Smith? I think that the answers to those questions will become more obvious over the coming weeks, and the answer to every one of those questions will be no.

Mr Key has a couple of very big challenges facing him. The first one is to instil genuine unity within his own caucus, and in my view that may well mean a smaller caucus, because it will be impossible to unite the caucus as it is. I am sure that the movement of more than one National member out of caucus, alongside Don Brash, is being considered as we speak—if not by Mr Key, by his No. 1 adviser, Murray McCully. And I bet he is not planning his own exit; it will be the exit of others who have not backed him up.

The second challenge, in my view, is harder than the first one. Despite how hard the challenge of uniting the National Party will be, the second challenge will be harder—that is, for John Key to become a substantial politician; substance rather than just style.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Last month has reminded the nation of the supreme importance of a game of football. In fact, it would seem so important that even a coup can be put on hold while rugby is played. The Government was so focused on the football of the future that it was prepared to reach up to $1 billion for a white elephant on the waterfront, but all the time disregarding the inevitable blowout that would be carried by city ratepayers, or taxpayers, for years to come; the potential for environmental damage; or the injurious damage endured by Ngāti Whātua through tokenistic consultation.

I am the first to be there at the kick-off, cheering our boys along, but no one can stand in this House without recognising the “game of two halves” being played out in this land today. For now, that hype and hoopla has subsided. The Government has indicated that most of the cost of the stadium infrastructure will be carried by Auckland ratepayers. As the member for Tamaki Makaurau, I know that the children of our poorest suburbs will be the ones faced with the bills for the upkeep and maintenance of facilities they will probably never go and visit, and that money going into rates, or into higher prices for goods and services as higher rates get absorbed, is money that is not available for schools, medical treatment, or improved public transport or housing.

Martin Luther King once said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” The Māori Party will never be silent about the grip of poverty that has seized our people. It is a poverty of material means; our poorest families are being left behind. The proportion of all children in severe and significant hardship in New Zealand has increased from 18 percent to 26 percent since 2000. But it is also a poverty of spirit, a poverty of relationships where opportunity and access to support is stifled by fear, shame, and social exclusion. It is a poverty where one’s mauri or toiora is out of kilter. Mauri is achieving that balance between the wairua, spiritual well-being; hinengaro, intellectual well-being; ngākau, emotional well-being; and tinana, physical well-being. That is demonstrated through the experience of te ihi, te wehi, te wana—the absolute joy of being; the delight of being alive.

When mauri is disrupted it creates dis-ease and imbalance, leading to a void of meaning, and purposeless lives that are stuck in a rut from which there is no way out. Understanding the crippling impacts of poverty of spirit is understanding that misery is about much more than money, poverty, unemployment, and social exclusion. They breed despair, and when one is sunk in despair it is nigh impossible to find opportunities for change.

But the politics of aspiration and the politics of poverty are two sides of the same coin, and we in the Māori Party know that there are strategies and solutions that can create genuine progress. Progress can be achieved in caring for our communities, caring for our environment, and caring for our world. We know that this nation can lead the world in facing up to its failures, and in drawing on the courage of our convictions to change those unjust structures that made possible the foreshore and seabed legislation. More than any other Act in Parliament, that Act divided the nation into two halves—not Māori and Pākehā as some commentators would like to believe, but a nation divided by myths and prejudice perpetuated by a political force that sought power at all costs.

The nation was misled into believing the propaganda of a party machinery that sought to paint tangata whenua as a negative life—party spin that implied that we Māori would put up fences and gates, and that we would greedily deny and deprive other New Zealanders of the right to go on the beach. It was the ultimate affront to crush the spirit of a people who live by a kaupapa in which generosity is expressed, the environment is protected and treasured, and where the call for kotahitanga—that is, unity—comes through diversity and is a lifelong commitment.

We know too well the risk of being consumed by gloom, and we also know the passion that comes when the fire is reignited—when the vital spark for life is invested with new energy. We believe that the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act will burn a flame of hope that we can use to bring this nation back to a foundation of justice, a climate of respect for each other, and an ever-brimming optimism for the possibilities that lie ahead. Let us bring it on! Thank you.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): For those people who are listening on the radio out there, this is the general debate—a debate that takes place each Wednesday afternoon with 12 members from around the House participating. I am amazed that we have in this debate the opportunity to sell policy and express a way forward, yet week after week members of the Labour Government have done nothing but look over their shoulders and criticise a fast-finishing National Party. They seek only to try to discredit members on this side of the House. This debate is the opportunity they have to sell their policy, but clearly there is no policy—

Jill Pettis: Didn’t you listen to Gerry Brownlee?

ERIC ROY: The member on the other side said there is policy. Now, there is a point, because at the Labour Party conference, the Prime Minister said: “We will be carbon neutral.” Well, that is a policy and I am happy to debate it today. If that is the policy the Labour Party is promoting, then I think it needs a great deal of scrutiny. We have a Labour Government that signed us up to the Kyoto Protocol. And, yes, I am a believer—I believe we must respond to climate change, and I have made that comment before in the House. So I am not coming from the point of view of a Luddite who does not believe that there should be a response. But being a signatory to Kyoto will not solve the problem.

Let us look at the Government’s record on this matter. There is an intention to get the levels of greenhouse gases back to 10 percent less than 1990 levels. That is the objective of signing the first section of the Kyoto agreement. Then the Government, blaming agriculture, announced a “fart tax”. It said that 49 percent of our greenhouse gases come from agriculture. I have asked again and again in this House for it to give us the science to support that. But then the Government said that it would not go into that debate, and backed away from the “fart tax”. Then it said that we needed to have a carbon tax. It announced it, then abandoned that idea. Then it calculated what the sale of our carbon credits would be—and that was a billion dollars out. The Government stopped the tendering of renewable energy projects. It negotiated greenhouse gas agreements that a whole lot of businesses in New Zealand spent a lot of money on getting involved in, and now that has been abandoned.

So we have never been given any vision or any ability to connect back to the commitment made when Kyoto was signed and we said that we would hit those 1990 levels. It is absolutely factual that we have no hope of doing that. At the climate change guidelines conference in Nairobi New Zealand was perhaps the worst performer, certainly out of countries of the First World that were attending that conference. So we do not have a hope of hitting those 1990 levels, and the Government comes out and says we are to become carbon neutral. Well, goodness me, we cannot see any possibility of our first commitment to Kyoto happening, yet the Government says that, no, we are going to do better: we are going to be carbon neutral. That is an impossibility.

For a start, we need to know what that means. Does that mean—and I ask the next Government speaker to explain—that we will offset in some form every tonne of fossil fuel consumed in New Zealand? That is what I take it to mean. If I have it wrong, I ask the Government to please explain. And how does the Government say it will do that? It says it will do it by planting trees. Under this Government forestry is declining. Does it mean that the Government will sequester carbon in some form in the ground? Will it do it by having scrubbers in chimneys, or by doing something that is not yet in operation anywhere in the country? Will it buy carbon credits somewhere around the world in order to be carbon neutral? Because under this Labour Government we have slipped back and we are nowhere near having carbon credits that we can use in our own right. Not only that, the industries that might produce them are moving away from it.

The Government has the fine ideal of New Zealand being carbon neutral but it has not explained what it means, how it will get there, or what the cost will be. We need leadership on this situation, not platitudes and rhetoric. It is absolutely critical that New Zealand pulls its weight in the international forums around the world, and we need to have a credible plan. If we do not do that, that is when the consumers will start to boycott our goods. We have heard the comments made about food miles. We need to act credibly in order to come up with an acceptable plan that will work.

SHANE JONES (Labour): The previous speaker identified that this debate is called the general debate and that it is a debate where policies are discussed. He bemoaned the fact that people were not following it, but anyone who had been has long since gone to sleep because of his performance and delivery.

I want to turn to Mr Bill English and Mr John Key, because future events will show that they have no ideas and that they are still influenced by the forces that brought down Don Brash. It was perhaps just 2 months ago when Don Brash stood up and described our Government as being the most corrupt Government in our history, and he lays today a wasted man. Boy, did those words—those stones he cast—come back upon his head! Of course, it was a little harsh for my relation Hone Harawira to wish him hasta la vista. No doubt he will issue his farewell to us, and although I personally wish him good fortune in his life, politically he spread poison and now he has disappeared in an air of toxicity.

I want to focus on the Māori Party. Members of that party had an opportunity yesterday in this House to uphold the democratic rights they enjoy every single day. They had the opportunity to stand for those democratic rights in such a way that they should be shared throughout the Pacific. But they were conspicuously silent. At a time when the people of Fiji are rent asunder, members of the Māori Party had an opportunity to stand and affirm the primacy of democratic rights. Why did they not do that? The first thing is that they are confused and at war with one another. They have the odd and unsustainable view that indigenous rights, or property rights, should eclipse constitutional and democratic rights. That is pathetic. It is the democratic franchise that our Māori people enjoy that has brought them to this House. What do we hear instead? We hear that Dr Pita Sharples, in an attempt to emulate Kissinger, wants to go to Fiji and make peace. He wants to be what we might regard as te kaihohou rongo, the person who brings peace and understanding. Well, he seeks to emulate, or replicate, Jesse Jackson—as I have said in other places, I do not know whether it is Jesse, Michael, or Peter Jackson—but he has no business going over to Fiji, especially when he is unwilling to stand in the face of his own people and affirm the legitimacy and the importance of democratic rights.

However, that bout of silliness was not actually matched by his co-leader, the Hon Tariana Turia; it was exceeded. In a fit of enthusiasm on National Radio, she said she has decided that the Māori roll that she has bitterly complained about being under threat should now be opened up so that people from Samoa and other Pacific Islands who are entitled to vote are able to join it. So at a time when the National Party—its brown wing, te kanohi Māori of the National Party—in order to coordinate better, is trying to suck in our relations from the Māori Party and befriend them, we have Tariana Turia wandering around terminating the Māori roll. I can tell members that our tribes will not forgive her for that. The Māori roll is a taonga with roots back to the Treaty of Waitangi and from colonial history. If she does not want to support the diminution of the roll and movement on to the mainstream roll, then it is certainly not good enough for her to define the roll as being available for other minorities. Rest assured, at the next election, and at hui up and down the country, the absurdity of that call of hers will be brought home to bed.

Do people know what the National Party pretends to stand for? We do not hear from these new leaders—well, actually one is not new. One of them is wearing a constant pout that any self-respecting female would be jealous of. The other is highly aspirational, but will be the first New Zealand politician who, with a flick of a finger, could fund an infinitely expensive campaign, and Kiwis will not like that. There is one thing that New Zealanders do not warm to. They do not warm to the constant chiming and reminding of how affluent a person is. In fact, people who really have power and financial resources do not wander around, showing it on their sleeve. My word to John Key is that the story he tells about having come from rags to riches has been told once or twice too many times, and, rest assured, we will use it to his peril. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, kia kaha, kia ora tātou katoa.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago): This has been a very, very long year for the Labour Government. Here we are, nearly at the end of our parliamentary term. It is almost time to pack our bags and go back to our electorates—for those of us who are lucky enough to have electorates—do our Christmas shopping, and spend time with our family. I know that Labour members of Parliament, both list, and there are many of those, and electorate, and that is a shrinking number, will be reflecting on what a long, sad, sorry year it has been for them. First of all, they had the enduring embarrassment of one of their members, Taito Phillip Field. The Prime Minister and Government members spent months and months defending the reputation of their fellow MP Taito Phillip Field, who is, electorally, a very useful MP. They commissioned an inquiry of sorts and then spent months trying to defend that. In the end, of course, they had to concede that perhaps they were losing that fight, so now that particular member is back in his electorate and taking his pay, yet doing no work. But the Labour Government thinks that that is OK, because it still has his vote.

Then, as another part of this long, long year for Labour members, they had the unfolding story of the corrupt practices surrounding their use of public money to fund their pledge card for the election campaign. So what did they do about that? Those members brought in some retrospective legislation to put right something they knew was wrong. Indeed, it has been a very long year. Then the Prime Minister thought: “I know what we will do. The press has been so bad for us all year. We are under pressure; we do not like it. Hang on a minute—it is the Labour Party conference. What will I do? I will have to pull out something big from the box. I know what I will do. We will call for carbon neutrality.” And I can just see the Labour Party conference and all the little unionists gathered there. I can just see them there saying: “Yes, Prime Minister, yes. Carbon neutrality—fantastic! We will buy that. The country will buy carbon neutrality. Gosh, you are a good Prime Minister, Prime Minister.” And for a brief moment it pushed the little problems that this Government has been grappling with all year, Taito Phillip Field and the pledge card, off the front page.

However, the unfortunate thing about carbon neutrality is that it is almost impossible to obtain. In fact, when we asked the Prime Minister’s Minister of Energy about it, he replied that the Government had not yet picked a date by which New Zealand would be carbon neutral. Has Mr Parker not yet picked a date for when New Zealand will be carbon neutral? He went on to say that we would find that it would become more clear over the next 6 months. Well, I say to Mr Parker that I have a good memory. Christmas or not, early in the next year I will be asking him when he plans for New Zealand to become carbon neutral, because I do not believe that he has a clue as to when that will happen.

What we need to do now is to back up the talk by looking at the Government’s environmental track record. Here we have a Government of 7 long years, and, of course, it has built up a consistently good track record on the environment, has it not? No! Unfortunately, it has been exactly the other way around. Let us look at some of the environmental indicators. New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, under Labour, have been growing at a rate faster than in almost any other country.

That does not make for very good reading, so I will go on to something else, because I am sure I can pick something good that this Government has done. Here is a figure—emissions are growing at 50 percent faster than when National was in office. So here we have a Government that has been in power for 7 long years, it is aiming for carbon neutrality, but this is an unpleasant little fact for it: a major increase in the growth of greenhouse emissions has been caused by a drop in the renewable proportion of electricity generation. So how credible is it for the Prime Minister to have this lofty aim of carbon neutrality?

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): This year, 2006, has been a very big year in health, and when I say “big”, I do not mean big in the sense that a lot of good things have happened, but just that a lot has been going on. It has not been a very rewarding year for those who work at the coalface, and too many Kiwis who need health care have missed out in 2006.

Let us look at the round-up. In June there were 5 days when junior doctors went on strike. Just over 2,000 junior doctors participated in that strike. Also in June there was a 5-day strike by radiation therapists. In September 250 radiographers went on a 5 day - long strike, and in October 260 of them went on a 10 day - long strike, which will be fresh in the minds of those who work at the coalface—those who had to cancel patients’ names from waiting lists, yet again. In November we have just had a 7 day - long strike, which ended this morning, with 1,200 members of the medical laboratory workers union taking part, and next week, on 13 December, we can expect 3,000 hospital service workers to go on strike.

All is certainly not happy in the health workforce. Health professionals are expected to be grateful for whatever the Government dishes up to them. They often have very little choice, if any, over whom they work for, and unlike other workers, in many cases they cannot shop around for better pay and conditions. It is a monopoly situation that benefits nobody—certainly not patients waiting for health care.

Earlier this year I had a member’s bill to remove Pharmac’s exemption from the provisions of Part 2 of the Commerce Act. It was narrowly defeated, but had it been passed it would have given New Zealanders a much greater choice in medicines than they have at the moment. Because of Pharmac and Government policies, too many patients are being denied the medicines that would help them with their quality of life. Herceptin was big on the agenda this year in the health area. Research strongly suggests that Herceptin halves the reoccurrence of HER2-positive breast cancer. The Government has a billion dollars to invest in Mr Mallard’s folly on the Auckland waterfront, but no money to give to women who have been given a death sentence and no chance of survival. Many of those women are young, and the best present they could have had this Christmas from the Government would be the funding of Herceptin.

Plunket has also suffered at the Government’s hands this year. In the same week that PlunketLine celebrated its 12th birthday, it lost the contract to provide Well Child services through Healthline. Plunket has now been able to secure private funding so that PlunketLine can continue. That is a victory of communities and charity over Government interference.

Pathology services, too, have been in the news. Diagnostic Medlab has lost its contract to perform tests in Auckland, and a new provider with no staff, no laboratory, and no track record has the contract from 1 July next year. Aucklanders—and the rest of the country should beware—have a valid fear of a looming disaster with regard to their laboratory services. In Wellington patients who are referred for tests by private specialists will have to pay for services that their general practitioners or their public specialists could prescribe, and are prescribing, for free. Yet again, the private sector is being hit. The result will be a disincentive for people to use private health care, more pressure on general practitioners and public hospital specialists, and a lot of suspicion about the trustworthiness of what are actually very good pathology services. Other district health boards around the country look set to adopt similar strategies to those adopted in Wellington, and we will continue to battle for an even playing field for both public and private services.

The perennial problem of waiting lists continued to worsen in 2006. Tens of thousands of patients face treatment that is either delayed or denied, or that is being delivered across the Tasman. Thousands of Kiwis have been sent back to their family doctor by district health boards that have been threatened with losing their funding. However, because of the way that the Ministry of Health now collates the figures, we have no idea how many patients are actually being short-circuited in this way: how many are being sent back to their general practitioner when, in fact, in the first place they were sent to a specialist because they needed a second opinion or needed care that their general practitioner was unable to provide. In reality, district health boards are the meat in the sandwich; they are the scapegoats caught between patients and politicians.

We know that the health system is in critical condition, but the real, inconvenient truth is that it is struggling because of Labour’s failing health policies.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): What an interesting general debate it has been. We have had National Party member after National Party member get up and complain about the fact that Labour has policies. Although I accept that this may be a foreign concept to the National Party—which, can I point out again, did not even have a health policy going into the last election—this Labour-led Government will not stop making changes in this country that will benefit all New Zealanders.

A lot has been said today about the Nicky Hager book The Hollow Men. I have to say that although a lot of the revelations about the links with the Exclusive Brethren were very surprising in terms of their extent, for my part it was the revelation of the disunity in the National Party caucus that really surprised me. It was the utter, utter disdain with which National MPs hold each other, particularly those along the front bench. I am not sure how things will work with Mr English as deputy leader after he said of his colleague Judith Collins that he thought her health presentation at caucus was awful, she was pushed beyond her capacity, and she had an unfortunately high estimation of her own competence. It is not just that Bill English thinks that but that he is willing to put it down on paper and send it to his leader. Mr English said that John Carter had been promoted beyond his capacity, and we all know what he thinks about Murray McCully. Now, of course, Maurice Williamson has been promoted to the front bench, and we all know that there is no love lost between Mr English and Mr Williamson. I do not know how strategic it is to put them within such close range of each other.

The other very important thing that came out of the book was the utter disdain displayed by the National Party for the voting public of New Zealand at the last election. We heard about the superannuation policy, whereby National thought it might need to put up the age of entitlement to 68. National members suggested that rather than just be honest about the fact that that was what they believed in and what they wanted to do, perhaps they should just not tell the voting public that they wanted to do it. Dr Brash said he was even prepared to lie about it, if necessary. I think that that is a very important revelation for many New Zealanders, who, let us be honest, after 6 or 7 years of a Labour-led Government that has made promises before elections and kept those promises after elections, have forgotten what it is like to have a Government that says one thing prior to an election and then does exactly the opposite afterwards. I suggest that with recent comments from Bill English on asset sales and on how the Government owns too many things, we can look forward to more asset sales should National ever gain the Treasury benches.

While the National Party was courting extreme support groups during the election, its members were waxing lyrical about mainstream New Zealanders. Members said they knew hardship. One of the very interesting things that came out in the book was that Mr Bryan Sinclair suggested to National MP Sandra Goudie that she might want to find some assistance to meet “Don-specific” expenses. He was asking for her help in contacting rich donors so as to get some of Don Brash’s clothing expenses paid for, because Dr Brash had gone down in salary by $250,000 and was now on only $200,000.

Hon Paul Swain: Practically a pauper!

MOANA MACKEY: It is difficult to buy clothes on $200,000—Dr Brash was practically a pauper, as my colleague Mr Swain said. How can a party that believes things like that actually claim to represent ordinary, mainstream New Zealanders?

That is why, I suspect, National has ushered in the age of the sensitive new-age Tory—the David Cameron wannabe, the compassionate and conservative Mr John Key. His first speech was all kittens and cuddles. Was it not lucky that National got rid of the PC eradicator, Wayne Mapp, because his detector would have been going off all through that speech; it would have been going off the scale. Mr Key has proceeded to systematically endorse every single policy that Labour has put in place and he has turned his back on all the National policies that he campaigned strongly for at the last election. Mr Key is a man who trades on his State house past, but he is now the leader of a party that would deny the same protections to New Zealand families and New Zealand children today that he had growing up. He is a man who thinks he has done well despite growing up in a State house. That underlines a fundamental difference between a John Key - led National Party and this Labour-led Government. John Key is a man so in touch with ordinary New Zealanders that he said it is a privilege to be a New Zealander because we have the world’s best oysters.

I say to John Key that all the rhetoric, all the nice words, all the fluffy language in the world, and all the going forward that he is going to do will not put food on people’s tables, will not put a roof over their head, and will not educate their children. His words will not ensure that every child in this country has the right to health and education if there is no policy behind them. We are looking forward to seeing that policy, because around Mr Key are the same 47 people who were there when Don Brash was leader. I suggest to Mr Key that it might be easier if he just signed up to the Labour Party—I have brought a membership book down here. On this side of the House he might find it a bit easier to get his policies through.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First wishes to thank the Minister of Immigration for his policy announcement yesterday. For far too long immigration, as we all know, was an issue everybody was too scared to talk about or to do anything to address the underlying concerns that ordinary New Zealanders had. One political party broke that mould and was prepared to speak out. One political party was in touch with ordinary New Zealanders on this matter. One political party stood up to the criticism and castigation of the woolly, lily-livered left—and right—to challenge the failings of our immigration system. When others were too PC to stand up and do what was right, one political party had the backbone and courage to speak out on behalf of New Zealanders.

That party was New Zealand First. We remember the snide comments and the outright abuse we copped when we dared to raise immigration issues. We remember how others ran and hid, or put their heads in the sand, over immigration matters. Now we see the truly glorious irony that fundamental changes to our immigration laws, aspects of which we had been championing and defending for years, are going to happen. It was New Zealand First that had long said that our appeal system, for example, needed refining and tightening—and it is about to be done. It was New Zealand First that wanted greater powers to deport those we do not want or need in this country, and this will happen. It was New Zealand First that advocated we must match our immigration policy to demands in the labour market, and this is becoming a reality. It was New Zealand First who not only highlighted the failings of our border security systems but promoted robust change; we now see this coming into effect. It was New Zealand First that said there were too many loopholes in the visa system, and this is now being tightened. For years New Zealand First has highlighted the failings in the decision-making process, and now this is getting addressed. I want to thank the Minister for that.

We could go on, but it is worth making two points before I come to a conclusion. The first is that we welcome the Government’s move on this front, which we ensured was part of our supply and confidence agreement with the Government. The second is that the media needs to reorganise, and to recognise that it was New Zealand First, not all the johnny-come-latelys who all now want to jump on the immigration bandwagon, that ensured the issue got addressed. In short, New Zealand First blazed the trail, and we are here now working towards a solution. Some talk in politics—and some act.

Whilst I am at it, I tell members I noticed that in a certain book called The Hollow Men, at page 83, there is a deliberate strategy on the part of the National Party in the last campaign to try to steal New Zealand First’s policy on immigration. We forecast, of course, months earlier that National would do just that. But how they got to announce a policy, closing into the campaign proper, without the media mentioning it, is slightly beyond us. In short, I say to the New Zealand media that if they truly want to report to the market place what products are out there on show—so that voters might be able to make a fair choice as to who they will vote for—then for heaven’s sake they should follow what is going on in the political arena.

If we go again to that book, to page 159, we see an enormous effort to try to counter the policies that a party, namely New Zealand First, has held since its formation. That happened on the issue of one law for all. It happened even on the issue of having referenda used far more widely in New Zealand. You know, it is said that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Well, it is if we recognise it. It is if we admit it. It is if we tell people that, actually, this is not our policy or National’s policy, but this is the policy that belongs to New Zealand First. My message to the media is that if they had told the public that, then their desire to get National into power might have happened. But the media did not—and National did not get into power.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I move, That the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Social Services Committee, that the committee report finally to the House—[Interruption]—it will be a long time, 64 years later, but that person will be entitled to it, too—on or before 5 April 2007, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

This bill is the next stepping stone in the process of making the Supergold card, launched last month, a reality. This card was a central feature of New Zealand First’s confidence and supply agreement with the Government, and the purpose of the bill is to enable the full potential effect of the card to occur. It would be churlish not to recognise the work and cooperation of the Government and, in particular, the Hon Ruth Dyson and her staff.

The Supergold card is a concession card for the nearly 540,000 New Zealand residents who are aged 65 or over, or who otherwise qualify for and receive New Zealand superannuation, including non-qualified spouses, or a veterans pension. The card will be available from August 2007, will provide negotiated commercial discounts from participating businesses, and will help facilitate seniors’ access to concessions on Government and local authority services.

Part 1 makes two amendments to section 132A of the Social Security Act 1964. That section of the Act enables regulations to be made for the issue of entitlement cards. The first amendment in Part 1 will allow a regulation to be made for cardholder photographs to be placed on entitlement cards. Of course, if that were to happen from an individual point of view, it would be on a voluntary basis. This will enable the Government to provide cardholders with the choice of having their photo on the Supergold card, which will be useful for those who do not have photo ID.

The second amendment in Part 1 will enable regulations to be made allowing a microchip to be embedded on entitlement cards that will contain the same information that is currently contained on a magnetic stripe. This will allow the future possibility of embedding a microchip in the Supergold card, for this will prove to be useful for cardholders. In essence, the provision future-proofs the capability and capacity of the Supergold card.

Sandra Goudie: You should know this off by heart.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Should I know it off by heart?

Sandra Goudie: You should.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that member, according to Nicky Hager, does not. That is only a third opinion, but it is a neutral and independent one.

Part 2 amends schedule 1A of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act 1995.

Sandra Goudie: Oh, come on. Put a bit of action into it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member should not criticise it; it will not be long before she needs it. That member will be able to retire with some dignity and grace, knowing that she can “fly buy”, not to Bali or some other part of the world but to a better retirement, with some dignity and grace. Actually, it sounds as if that will happen sooner rather than later. This amendment will allow births, deaths, and marriages information to be used by the Ministry of Social Development to verify entitlement to the Supergold card.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Why do they hate old people?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I do not know why they hate old people. But when we in New Zealand First said we could increase the amount of superannuation they get every fortnight, National’s leader said it could not be done and we would not do it. Well, it has been done. The superannuation rate is now 66.12 percent of the net average wage, but it was 63.85 percent before the election. It is just one more promise made and kept.

Sandra Goudie: Grey Power aren’t dumb enough to be sucked into that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I do not know why that member, being on the cusp of age-assisted retirement—occupational or otherwise—is putting up a protest. She should ask mums and dads or aunties and uncles. Those people will say they are waiting with bated breath for August next year for the release of this card. It is difficult now, but hang on—

Hon Paul Swain: Help is on its way.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Help is on its way.

The Supergold card is an important initiative that will provide tangible benefits that will make a real difference to the lives of senior citizens, in recognition of the contributions they have made, currently make, and will go on making to New Zealand society. I would be horrified—we all would be—if the level of voluntary work by the elderly of this country were to stop, for example, tomorrow. We would not recognise this society, and it would be all for the worse. In a way this legislation recognises what the elderly have done. National Party members can laugh in their heartless way, but New Zealand First is a people’s party. We are the party with humanity, and we bring a human face to capitalism. That is why we are here. The Supergold card will be sent automatically to people—

Sandra Goudie: Slick as!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member says “Who cares?”.

Sandra Goudie: No, I didn’t say that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, we do, and hundreds and thousands out there do, too. Even the richest capitalist sons and daughters, in their minds’ eye, think they will not have to worry so much about their mums and dads, because more will be done for them.

The card will be sent to people who automatically receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension, with a special version going to war and emergency service veterans, just like we promised. The card will be of a credit card size, it will carry the cardholder’s name and client number, and it will indicate whether that person receives New Zealand superannuation, a veterans pension, or community services card benefits. It will replace the community services card and the superannuation card for senior citizens. People who currently hold these cards will be able to access their entitlements through the Supergold card, and other Government concessions may be added later.

There will be a dedicated Supergold card website, and an 0800 phone number—I will send the number over shortly. A printed directory will promote the range of concessions and discounts available to cardholders across the country from central government, local authorities, and businesses. Just in passing, I say that it is time for local and regional government to be far more involved in the care of the elderly.

The large number of seniors who will be eligible for the Supergold card represents a valuable, loyal, and rapidly growing market for businesses to be involved in. Already, several large companies have expressed a strong desire to be involved in offering business discounts. Their enthusiasm at this stage bodes well for the Supergold card rapidly becoming a valuable discount card for seniors. The experience in Australia, where states have successfully implemented similar seniors cards over the past decade, is also very encouraging. Discounts there have built up steadily, year by year, as more businesses have recognised the value of the card.

The amendments contained in the bill will add to the value of the Supergold card by maximising its potential uses, including offering cardholders the option of including their photograph on the card. Let me also again thank the Minister for Senior Citizens, Ruth Dyson, for her enthusiasm for this card, and for her own work and that of her office in assisting in the work needed to make this happen.

This is a great development for our seniors. This card has so much potential to make our seniors’ lives better. This card is about promises kept by New Zealand First. This card is about a genuine effort to recognise the contribution our seniors have made and continue to make. This card is about looking after ordinary New Zealanders who have served this country well. Ultimately, this card is our way of saying we have heard their call for help, and here is something real and tangible to make their lot in life better. That, after all, is the New Zealand way. That, after all, is what being a Kiwi is all about. That, after all, is why we are proud to live in New Zealand and why millions and millions of people around the world would rather live in New Zealand than somewhere else. At the end of the day, a society is judged on many principles and many measures, one of which is how it looks after its young, its healthy, its lame, its maimed, and, above all, its elderly. I commend this bill to the House.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): At this point I would really like to pay considerable tribute to Grey Power. Grey Power has had the idea of a discount card for a number of years now, and I pay significant tribute to the fact that it has been able to raise awareness of the value of a discount card and has been able to educate other people as to how to take that to another level and provide the kind of support our senior citizens really need. On that basis, I pay exceptional tribute to Grey Power for the great work it has done and for how it has managed to take the whole idea of a discount card to a new level, albeit through Mr Peters.

What will this card actually do? Mr Peters has reiterated what this card will provide, which is what we hope will be some significant discount options to people. As Mr Peters rightfully pointed out, about 540,000 people are aged 65-plus, and another 15,000 people who are below that age will also be entitled to this card. I thought that was quite an interesting point. It is to be hoped that cardholders will receive some significant benefits from having this card.

Maybe those benefits will include a discount on electricity prices, since we are quite clearly seeing a substantial increase in electricity prices that the current Government cannot control. That increase will have a significant effect on senior citizens, who will be pulling the plug on heating just to save on their power bills. It is to be hoped that the Minister Winston Peters will seek some discounts for our senior citizens on increasing power costs. We look forward to that with interest. I know that Grey Power will celebrate any move in that regard, given its continuing concern over the cost of electricity and the number of our older citizens who have been subjected to considerable hardship in the winter months. The health of some of those people was compromised, resulting in their deaths. We need to bear that in mind and really consider the sorts of discounts that may be made available to our senior citizens.

In reading the bill I notice some quite interesting points. The commentary states: “The card will enable seniors to access discounts and concessions from participating businesses …”, which is great. Businesses can see a really great opportunity here. As members will appreciate, our ageing population is one of our largest demographics, so there will be quite strong interest in that. Those people will be interested to hear anything from the Minister on what the tendering process has revealed to date and on what level of interest has been expressed to date by businesses as a result of that tendering process. Other concessions will come from the Government. As I said before, we are looking to the Government to see what concessions it will provide to our senior citizens through the Supergold Card, particularly in relation to the increase in power charges.

The third group referred to in the commentary is local authority services. I will be interested to hear what the Minister thinks will be added to the Supergold Card in terms of reduced charges for our senior citizens, apart from the rates rebate. I am sure that local authorities will be very interested to see whether they can actually afford to provide any discounts, apart from the rates rebate scheme, to Supergold Card holders. I am mindful that the Minister’s policy statement refers to trying to get a review of lottery grant funding, so that funding for transport for older citizens can be considered through lottery grants.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When did I say that?

SANDRA GOUDIE: It is my understanding that that is the case.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I didn’t.

SANDRA GOUDIE: Well, perhaps I should drag out some documentation. Maybe I have an email or two. I have not yet seen anything to indicate that the Minister has even looked at furthering that particular policy.

What else is involved? The other interesting thing about the Supergold Card—and this is something that people will be looking at with some degree of interest—is that this bill allows for regulation-making powers. What does that mean? It means that, in the future, regulations will be able to be made that could require photographs on Supergold Cards to be compulsory. They could also require microchipping on Supergold Cards to be compulsory. That would be something of an issue for some people, but we have to think about the other side of that equation, which is the fact that identity fraud is becoming an increasing problem. So there will be some interesting debates at the select committee, I am sure.

Even though this bill is only three pages long, it will make some significant changes to the way in which people could be subject to regulation-making powers in the future. People will need to give that some very real consideration. I take the case of my own parents. They do not have plastic credit cards, and, in the case of my mother, she does not have a driver’s licence or any other card that could identify her in any way. She will now have the option of deciding whether she wants a photograph on her Supergold Card. In some respects, that could actually be a good thing. [Interruption] Perhaps that member might like to take a call and contribute something to the discussion. It could be quite a good thing if my mother were to choose to have a photograph on her Supergold Card, because she has no other form of identification. She now relies upon the long-term relationship she has with service providers in her community.

There will certainly be some pluses—there is no doubt about that. No one will begrudge at all the ability of our senior citizens to have some further support through discounts for all sorts of services. National members welcome that—we absolutely welcome that—in spite of the claims that have been made to the contrary. But we do raise a point around some aspects of the legislation that have to be put in place to move this forward. Whether the regulation-making powers need to be a part of this bill is a question. I am sure that the fact that the Supergold Card will do away with the community services card and the superannuation card will raise some interesting questions around other entitlements, around whether there will be asset testing in regard to other entitlements, and around how that fits.

The Supergold Card identifies other entitlements; how far that goes, though, remains to be seen. There are issues around what sort of asset testing will be affected, if any, what sort of fiscal implications there will be, if any, and to what degree those will occur with regard to entitlements on the card, excluding the discount abilities.

National is pleased to support the discount card for our senior citizens; there is no question about that. I do not think anybody can dispute that this is a good idea. As has been said, our older citizens form a huge component of our voluntary groups and support groups in the community. I think this card will go some way towards recognising the huge input those citizens have had in our communities for many years. National is certainly supportive of that sort of recognition.

I do not know whether people know, but there is a Ministry of Social Development freephone for people who want to find out more information. I do not mind giving that a free plug, because I think people should find out more about what is going on here, and what the actual effect of this card will be. The more information that is available to them, the better. They need to look at what the bill actually does. I know that members of Grey Power will look at it quite closely. They have had a long-term interest, and I commend them for their initiative many, many years ago for their discount cards. It is just great that they can set the example by which others have followed in this House. On that basis, this legislation is positive for our senior citizens and we will be supporting that. In conclusion, the only other comment I would make is that there will be disclosure of information from Births, Deaths, and Marriages to the Ministry of Social Development.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): What a pleasure and privilege it is to speak on the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the fine oratory in the remarks of the Rt Hon Winston Peters as he introduced the bill for this first reading. This bill is a fine example—and may well the Opposition take note—of how modern-day Government works. Cooperation, and delivering on promises and arrangements made—in this instance, a confidence and supply arrangement with New Zealand First—leads to something of this kind: the golden age card for our elderly people. This card is obviously an acknowledgment of the fine contribution that elderly people have made to our nation, that they deserve, in many respects, to receive. It is a mark of respect.

Frankly, it does not matter precisely where the seed of the idea came from. Regarding our elderly well has always been something that we have tried to achieve in one form or another in New Zealand. Whether or not the idea is from Grey Power—all strength to them—the legislation has come through the vehicle of the New Zealand First Party and its leader Winston Peters. He has managed to bring the bill into this House by way of his arrangements with this Labour-led Government, which I am proud to be a part of.

I certainly hope that all parties in this House—as National has just remarked—will support this bill through an easy passage. It is not that long ago, and people will not have forgotten—in fact, I understand it is as recently as the publication of this Hollow Men book, which I have not actually had a chance to read—that there was apparently some natter amongst the National Party leadership of upping the age of entitlement to 68. Well, this rings true with a promise made to elderly people by Mr Bolger in a former National Party Government. So this nation needs to think about who will look after not only our young families but also our elderly.

Labour is on the path to looking after families young and old, and is building our economic capacity and ability in this country in order to deliver the services that we as a Labour-led Government care to support. The services provided for in this legislation are among those. This legislation will feed in very nicely to a suite of packages that this Government has been leading the way on, through this particular term and beforehand, in restoring faith for New Zealanders that we have a positive future to look forward to. The elderly who serve us overseas in emergency and other capacities will also be beneficiaries of this golden age card—as well as the 540,000 in our country—because they too deserve recognition; they put themselves out on a limb on this nation’s behalf. This is a way of acknowledging the fine contribution they make to our country.

This legislation will be easy for people to understand. As has been alluded to, there are contact phone numbers for people who are interested in what this will offer, what exactly the entitlements will be, and how they can access the discounts and benefits. Also, there is a number worth noting that is for businesses that are interested in becoming involved. I will read these numbers out before I conclude my speech. Of course, I think those people in New Zealand who really would like to get behind this particular initiative—and businesses will be important here—should come forward, get hold of us, and get hold of the information by ringing 0508 650 000. Interested businesses should please call that number, find out what this is about, and get into it. Senior citizens of our country are a large demographic and they will be constantly good customers—one hopes—if they can see they will benefit because businesses are involved in this golden age card by way of discounts.

Concessions on local government services—and central government services too—are some of the advantages we will be able to provide for the beneficiaries who are able to use this card. These beneficiaries are those whom we value: our mothers, our fathers, our grandparents, our kuia, our kaumātua—people such as those. All of these people are part of our whānau, and that is who we support here. So I am doing an advertorial, in a way, for people to please get involved, because it is people who are dear to us all that we support here through this golden age card.

The card has been proven to be very successful in countries like Australia, and I think many people in New Zealand who have friends over there will note that they skite about it quite often. Now we will bring it in over here. This is very worthy, and I look forward to other positive contributions to this first reading debate from other members in the House. There is much to be said, and much has been covered already.

I will just give, as I said I would, the number that Sandra Goudie alluded to for people who are interested. The number is 0800 254 565. This is a freephone number set up for seniors to make inquiries about what the golden age card provides. That number, again, is 0800 254 565. With that, I hope we can look forward to some other speeches in support of this bill so that it may be dispatched to the Social Services Committee, which I happily chair. I look forward to it coming to us in that committee, because this will be a very pleasant bill to assist the House with.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. We are extremely pleased to see that this Supergold card, launched last month, will become a reality for the senior citizens and the veterans of New Zealand. It was very interesting to hear the National speaker finally acknowledge that she did welcome the implementation of the gold card and will actually support this legislation. Like many others in this House, I was waiting for her to state the freephone number as she had said she would. She did not, so I will give it on her behalf: 0800 254 565. We want to encourage our seniors to find out more about this extremely important card.

As previous speakers have said, the Supergold card was a critical part of New Zealand First’s supply and confidence agreement with the Government. Today we see the gold card move to the next stage in the process. It will finally be available from August 2007. We must acknowledge the Minister for Senior Citizens the Hon Ruth Dyson, for the work that she has done. The Supergold card really is an acknowledgement of the MMP environment and how MMP, the environment that we now operate in, actually works. The gold card is about keeping promises too to our senior citizens that we all made during the 2005 election. We did not promise the moon and deliver dust, like others have often done. We have followed through on this particular card and on this policy, and we will continue to do so on the other policies that are coming forward.

In New Zealand First we recognise the value that our senior citizens bring to their families and to the communities they live in, and we will always support that value in all policy that has an impact on them. We have heard today that senior citizens number well over half a million people—half a million New Zealanders. We maintain in New Zealand First that the treatment of our seniors sends a clear signal of our status as a developed nation. We believe that there is very little point in pursuing economic growth and other objectives if our seniors are not looked after adequately. It is imperative that the most vulnerable in our society are always looked after—the very young and the seniors. In this case, we are focusing on our seniors.

The Supergold card, as outlined earlier by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, will provide negotiated commercial discounts from participating businesses, and it will help seniors get access to concessions on Government and local authority services. The very fact that large businesses have already expressed a strong desire to be a part of the Supergold card bodes well for the future. We are only too aware that our seniors who visit Australia are very keen to have the same card here in New Zealand. They know the value of the card over in Australia, and when they return to our shores we often hear that a card such as that one should be available here. At last the card will be available, thanks to New Zealand First.

We have also talked to our seniors and found out that in Australia the discounts have built up steadily over a period of years as businesses have recognised the value of the card that they operate. Of course, the exact same thing will happen here in New Zealand. We expect the value of the discounts here to build up steadily over the coming years. The Supergold card will make a real difference to the lives of our senior citizens. We are very aware in New Zealand First that many of our seniors face challenges to make their pensions stretch a little bit further so that they can enjoy the very busy life that all of them lead after they retire. We have often heard it said that it is the busiest time of their lives. I myself have heard seniors say that they do not know how they had time to work in paid employment. Of course, we know too that many of our seniors continue to work in paid employment for a very long time. They also make valuable contributions in voluntary work and in the community, in so many ways, from the St John Ambulance Association and keeping in contact with seniors in various communities, to Meals on Wheels, to the very many other organisations that our seniors contribute to. Of course, many of our seniors are involved in the very successful running of those particular organisations.

We cannot fail to say that seniors make a very valuable contribution in a family situation. How many of us give our children to our parents when they are sick and cannot go to school, so that we can go to work? It happens every day in very many communities right throughout New Zealand and in every family. We know that seniors are a very vital part of each and every one of our lives. Any family would find it extremely difficult to function without their parents—without their seniors—there to assist.

This card is for seniors and veterans who have participated fully in our communities and in our families. It has the potential to make their lives easier. It is essential that we recognise the contribution that our seniors make and continue to make, in so many ways. So New Zealand First supports the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill totally. We will support it going through all of its stages. We want to have a very positive future for our seniors and our veterans. We believe that they have earned it.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party has no problem with the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill in so far as it provides for an entitlement card for superannuitants to access better support services. It is a perfectly fine thing to do for them, and to that extent the legislation is not really very much of a problem. We need to get a bit real about the fact that this is just a loyalty card, like any other loyalty card. In fact, one gets a huge number of loyalty cards from all sorts of places and businesses everywhere. It is an ID card not dissimilar to the Hospitality Association of New Zealand’s 18-plus card, which is quite funny when I think about it. To have special cards for veterans is all very nice, as well.

But, in effect, this is a loyalty card that can be provided to those people in order to provide them with extra support and discounts for both commercially and publicly provided services. It is a great thing to provide that, but to do so does not necessarily require regulation or legislation. I will talk about that point a little more, because we are quite puzzled as to why legislation is being introduced. If members actually look at the bill, they will find that it does not say anything about the gold card. It is a very, very small bill with very few provisions, which are extremely general and deal with other issues.

We are most concerned about the fact that the Government and New Zealand First are using the establishment of what is a very good thing—this gold card—to put in place regulation-making powers that will enable the compulsory use of photographs and microchips on ID cards. Clause 4 states exactly that—that the purpose is to enable any cards to have photographs and embedded microchips. We have always been very concerned about these kinds of sneaky attempts to introduce electronic mechanisms to increase the capacity for Government surveillance of the public and for information sharing between agencies, without conducting the proper public scrutiny and debate that those kinds of mechanisms need. I note that in Britain, for example, there has been a shift from the use of optional ID cards, like this card ought to be, towards a more stringent information-sharing system that makes photos or microchips compulsory.

I do not believe that older people in our community want their advantageous mechanism—their gold card—to be used to potentially breach their rights of privacy. The card could interfere with their rights of privacy in terms of the information-sharing capacity that it provides. The provision in the bill is so generally worded that it could apply to virtually any Government ID or entitlement card, and that includes things like the community services card. That is a very serious issue, because the community services card is designed to help provide support for low-income people and beneficiaries. There is no doubt that we have a history in this country of treating low-income people as though they are a problem and as though they are criminals. A form of information sharing, embedded microchips, and surveillance capacity through those cards could therefore prove to be a real problem for those people. So this bill has serious implications that have nothing to do with the gold card, because the bill is being used to introduce a mechanism for another purpose.

We are very worried that the inclusion of the embedded microchip mechanism in this bill concerning the gold card will make the important public and human rights scrutiny of these provisions much less likely than it would otherwise be, because few people will even begin to think that the bill about the gold card would include an information-sharing mechanism such as the embedded microchip. People will not know they should make submissions, raise issues, and talk to others about it, because they would not expect this legislation to include those provisions. The fact is, of course, that the legislation is not necessary for the introduction of the card but is being used specifically to provide these mechanisms. We are very concerned about that. We will support the first reading of the bill so that that debate can be held on the issue, but we offer no promises of support after that point, because of our concerns about it.

We are of the view that it has been a waste of New Zealand First’s efforts and priorities to have legislation developed for this card, when that is completely unnecessary and when other legislative changes need to be made in order to better support older people in our community. One of those changes is an issue that New Zealand First feels as strongly about as we do, and that is the repeal of section 70 of the Social Security Act. The fact is that superannuation is supposed to be free of income tests; in fact, that is not the case. If a person receives a superannuation benefit from another country, then a deduction is made from the New Zealand pension. So those people are subject to income testing of their superannuation.

Frankly, the fact is that as long as the income source is legal, where that income comes from should be irrelevant. The principle is that superannuation is not to be income tested. That is a good principle to have, because superannuitants are people who have made a significant contribution to our community, and many of them rely solely on the pension for their income and live in dire low-income circumstances. It is not right that superannuation should be income tested, but for those few people it is happening. It is true that a comparatively small number of people suffer from that income test, but that is not a reason to keep such an anomaly in the law. If the principle is that superannuation should not be income tested, then it should not be income tested. As I said, New Zealand First completely agrees with that principle and has advocated for it before. Yet instead of making an effort to get the Government to change the law in that way, which would have had a real, beneficial impact on specific people, it has instead put out legislation that is largely irrelevant and performs an entirely different function from the one that has been stated. This bill is not about the gold card at all; it is all about the potential for information to be shared between Government agencies and for an increase in public surveillance.

We are very disappointed that New Zealand First has not prioritised its resources better. We do think the gold card is a great thing, and we will support this bill going through its first reading. But we will be taking a very serious interest in what happens on the issue of embedded microchipping in terms of this bill. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. The relationship between tangata whenua and gold anything took on a very interesting spin earlier this year when the Waitangi Tribunal found that the tribes of Hauraki were owed generous redress for goldfield revenues they should have received from mining on the Coromandel Peninsula, particularly in light of the fact that in the 1800s regulation of goldmining on Māori land was far heavier than on non-Māori land. Evidence before the High Court estimates gold reserves of up to $30 billion may still exist in Coromandel. The Treaty claims manager for Hauraki, John McEnteer, is rightfully asking whether continued Crown ownership of gold is a Treaty breach. The Hauraki inquiry, headed by Dame Augusta Wallace, said that the 12 iwi were due substantive restitution as a result of being marginalised by the transfer of land and resources to others.

It makes an interesting parallel to run alongside the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill, because it raises the same questions about whether Māori will be as unfairly treated under this bill as they were in their own goldfields. I ask this question because the gold card kicks in at 65. Pākehā die at 78, but Māori die at 71. So we get to pay for it like everybody else—we just do not get so much of it back. When we look at the living standards of older Māori, ngā āhuatanga noho o te hunga pakeke Māori, [ways that elderly Māori live] we find that older Māori are much poorer than non-Māori, with lower income levels, a greater reliance on superannuation for income, lower levels of savings and assets, and lower homeownership than non-Māori. Into that context again—drum roll, of course—comes the Supergold Card.

Let me say from the start that the Māori Party supports any initiative that recognises the unique contribution of our kaumātua and kuia to Aotearoa. I refer here to the excellent work done by Professor Mason Durie, who detailed some of the busy working life that many older Māori take up in their so-called twilight years. Not for these older Māori the leisurely days of sitting in a rocking chair and watching the world go by; instead, the opposite is the case. Durie remarks: “The roles of kaumātua include resolving disputes and conflict between families and between iwi, carrying the culture, recognising and encouraging the potential of younger members, cultural guidance and advice, maintenance of protocol, reception and care of visitors, protection and nurturing of younger adults and children, performance of ceremonial duties, spiritual leadership, and attendance and control of tangihanga.”

Clearly the diverse needs of kaumātua and kuia present a major challenge to planners, policymakers, providers, and politicians. How does the Supergold Card fare in meeting those needs? A card, even a Supergold one, cannot hope to meet the health needs of pakeke. That takes dedicated and specialist services. But we are happy that the card will give old people some discounts and concessions from agencies and other services, and we are keen to see whether that might also apply to local body services, phone, or power. Will it be better for those living in the town or the country, for homeowners or those who rent? The Māori Party has long supported keeping our kaumātua and kuia actively involved in community life. We want to make sure that superannuation provides for an equitable standard of living, as well.

We come back again to the issue of a cut-off date based on age. Because of their lower life expectancy, Māori and Pasifika to a large degree will simply miss out. If we are truly committed to reducing the gap between Māori and other New Zealanders, then Māori should be able to get the Supergold Card at 60 rather than 65. The difference in life expectancy between Māori and Pākehā is a major issue that can be addressed only through long-term initiatives to improve Māori health. But until we get to that point, adjusting the age of entitlement to recognise that difference would be only fair and progressive. Indeed, as Living Standards of Older Māori states, the older Māori population will remain at risk of relatively depressed living standards for as long as inequities exist between Māori and non-Māori in the area of economic well-being and health. If we are serious about addressing poverty and inequity, then we have to be prepared to do things differently.

The Māori Party congratulates New Zealand First on its commitment to ensuring the standard of living for senior citizens can be improved through the card. We are impressed that unlike the Government stalling over providing for the needs of our Viet Nam veterans, this bill includes recognition of war service. We cannot help but compare this generosity with Labour’s mean-spirited refusal to honour the Allies’ most decorated servicewoman of World War II and the Gestapo’s most-wanted person, Nancy Wake. Nancy Wake was a true New Zealand - born warrior and hero who helped recruit for the French Resistance, yet here in her own country, in the Year of the Veteran, Labour chooses to snub one of our greatest living war heroes for the simple reason that she does not live here.

This devaluing of whakapapa has been a rather hot topic lately with the bizarre situation of the Kiwis being docked their victory points for playing somebody whose great-grandmother, rather than his grandmother, came from Aotearoa; and, of course, with the former National leader suggesting Māori were no longer Māori because of intermarriage. But to deny Nancy Wake’s whakapapa because of her address is not only morally indefensible, it is insulting to her whānau, it is insulting to her iwi, and indeed it is insulting to all citizens of this land.

So against this background of such bitter and pointless dispute it is nice to hear about a bill with a positive purpose of honouring our elderly and recognising our war heroes, of ensuring practical, tangible help to our kaumātua and kuia in their final years.

The icing on the cake for the Māori Party will be if our suggestion to respond to the reduced life expectancy of Māori and Pasifika is taken up seriously and amendments made accordingly. We are happy to support this bill but we will be working hard to ensure that equity becomes as important a part of the legislation as the recognition of the true value of our nation’s senior citizens. Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill and I will say straight up that United Future supports the first reading.

When this bill was first tabled I thought back to the last parliamentary term when the Health Committee set about having an inquiry into the Agent Orange issue. As part of that inquiry we compared the full range of support available for veterans within New Zealand and Australia. Certainly there was a feeling by submitters to that inquiry that New Zealand veterans felt short-changed in comparison to their Anzac brothers and sisters. However, when we looked closely at the pensions and entitlements we saw that the differences were minimal. But what seemed to stick in the minds of veterans was the famous gold card that Australian veterans enjoy. It seemed to me at the time that it was a very simple thing for a Government to choose to deliver a gold card for veterans, and I think it is very good that New Zealand First has taken the initiative and pushed it out beyond just veterans to all seniors. We say well done to New Zealand First and we will certainly support the first reading.

What is good about this card is the fact that it gives ordinary members of the community in businesses and social service groups the opportunity to provide discounts or additional benefits to people who are holders of a gold card. It is a way that a community can honour senior citizens and I think it is an extremely good thing.

However I want to signal that, like the Green Party, I too have some concerns. They are not enough for me to oppose the first reading but I would be interested to see what the select committee comes up with and certainly, I would be interested to hear what submitters say about these things. These concerns are about whether there is the need for this to be done legislatively. The student ID is a very good example of an opportunity—just through sheer policy and some resourcing—to provide a card with a photo on that allows a person a certain status. I understand that this bill takes it a step further, and my criticism is that the opportunity for photographs raises a little bit of concern.

I was over in the United Kingdom in January of this year. Just as a tourist, I went and sat in the House of Lords and watched a debate about identity cards, including microchipping issues and things like that. The House of Lords was, I think, rejecting the proposal for about the third time. The reason for that was that, as they dug into it, they discovered this was an incredibly expensive undertaking and almost prohibitively expensive.

I ask the question, and it would be interesting to see what comes out in the select committee, about whether we need to be unleashing this potential on New Zealanders for an expensive way of developing ID cards when I think a policy and a bit of resourcing would achieve very much the same thing. I would be very interested to hear comments on that matter. I am concerned about the expense and, as I think Metiria Turei mentioned, whether we need this to be a legislative mechanism. I stand to be corrected on this, but I do not believe we have needed legislation for things like the community services card, yet it works pretty effectively.

I agree also with the comment made by the Green member when she talked about the fact that if we were going to be spending time—taking up a select committee’s time—making a difference for elderly people, the portability of overseas pensions is something that I think is actually a far more pressing need. Certainly United Future encourages the Government to make that a matter of urgency, and when we come back after the Christmas break I would like to believe work is being done on that. There are some really unfair things happening for a number of our superannuitants that certainly seem to be outside the terms of reference and intention of our superannuation scheme. [Interruption] Mr Donnelly assures me help is on its way and that is good.

United Future will be supporting this legislation. We are very happy to support it. We think it has some huge merit and we will interested to hear the answers to the questions I have posed today in this first reading speech.

Bill read a first time.

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Associate Minister for Senior Citizens: I move, That the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee, that the committee finally report back the bill to the House on or before 5 April 2007, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192, and 195(1) (b) and (c).

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

Ayes 71

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

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Motion agreed to.

Appointments

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

Police Complaints Authority

on behalf of theand on behalf of theHon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) Leader of the House Minister of Justice: I move, That, pursuant to section 4 of the Environment Act 1986, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Dr Janice Claire Wright, of Wellington, as Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, for a term commencing on 5 March 2007.

I also move, That, pursuant to sections 4 and 5 of the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint the Honourable Justice Lowell Patria Goddard QC, High Court Judge of Wellington, as Police Complaints Authority for a term of five years with effect from 13 February 2007.

Dr Jan Wright is an independent policy analyst and consultant with a number of non-executive public sector directorships, and has been selected to be the next Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Dr Wright’s strong academic credentials and personal attributes give her the ability to apply intellectual rigour to complex matters affecting ordinary people.

Dr Wright has a Doctor of Philosophy in Public Policy, Harvard University; a Master of Science in energy and resources, University of California, Berkeley; a Bachelor of Science (1st Class Hons) in physics, University of Canterbury; and a Diploma of Teaching, Auckland Secondary Teachers’ College. She is currently a member of the Accident Compensation Corporation board and chair of Land Transport New Zealand. Previously she was chair of Transfund New Zealand, and has been a council member of Transit New Zealand, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, the Independent Biotechnology Advisory Council, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand.

Since becoming an independent policy analyst and consultant in 1998, her clients have included the Environmental Risk Management Authority, the Ministry for the Environment, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, Christchurch City Council, Victoria University, and parliamentary select committees on transport and the environment.

The role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was established in 1986 to provide independent scrutiny, advocacy, and advice, with the goal of maintaining and improving the quality of New Zealand’s environment. This role has the capacity to investigate, report, and make recommendations on any matter where the environment may be, or has been, adversely affected. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is independent of the Government, and reports to the House through the Speaker, working within established practices that do not impinge on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s independence. Dr Wright takes over from Dr Morgan Williams, who did not seek a third 5-year term of office, on 5 March 2007.

I move now to the Police Complaints Authority. Section 4 of the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988 provides for the appointment of an authority whose function is to investigate complaints alleging any misconduct or neglect of duty by any member of the police, or concerning any practice, policy, or procedure of the police. The authority is also responsible for investigating any incident involving serious bodily harm notified to the authority by the Commissioner of Police.

Justice Lowell Goddard QC has considerable experience in the criminal justice system and is well qualified to perform the duties of the authority. After graduating with a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Auckland in 1974, she practised as a barrister, and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1988. In 1992 she was appointed Deputy Solicitor-General for New Zealand, and in that role undertook responsibility for the prosecution of all indictable crime in New Zealand. She was appointed to the High Court bench in December 1995. Justice Goddard is well regarded within judicial and wider legal circles, and I am confident she will make an excellent authority.

The current authority, Judge Ian Borrin, will reach the statutory retirement age for the authority in early 2007. It is an opportune time to acknowledge and thank Judge Borrin for the dedication he has shown over a number of years of service in what is certainly a highly important and challenging role. Judge Borrin became the deputy authority in 1997, subsequently became the acting authority in 2000, and has been the authority since 2001. Judge Borrin leaves the new authority with a solid platform upon which to continue to strengthen the status and performance of the entity, including further developing the role of independent investigators and the timeliness of complaint handling.

Additional funding was provided in Budget 2006 to address a backlog of complaints that had built up over time, and those resources are being used to great effect. The Minister of Justice intends to advance the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill next year, to further enhance the capacity of the authority by expanding its membership to three people.

I am confident that Justice Goddard will effectively manage the transition to the new structure proposed in the bill, and provide the high standard of leadership and integrity required of the holder of this office. I welcome the support of the parties in the House for this very important appointment.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): National will be splitting its calls on this debate. I will speak on the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and my colleague Chester Borrows will speak on the motion to appoint the Police Complaints Authority.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is an Officer of Parliament, appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House for a term of 5 years. We heard earlier that that term will start in March 2007. My colleague the Hon Clem Simich was on the subcommittee of the Officers of Parliament Committee that interviewed, and made the recommendation of, Dr Wright for this position. I was on the Officers of Parliament Committee that confirmed that appointment, and now it is coming through to the House.

The office, powers, and functions of the commissioner are established by the Environment Act of 1986. The commissioner is required to comply with section 17 of the Public Finance Act of 1989, and accounts to the Speaker as the responsible Minister for the office. The commissioner has the capacity to investigate, report, and make recommendations on any matter where the environment may be, or has been, adversely affected. But the commissioner does not have the power to make any binding rulings, and is unable to reverse decisions made by public authorities or the courts. The commissioner provides Parliament with advice and an independent check on the capability of the New Zealand system of environmental management and the performance of public authorities, central and local, with statutory and administrative responsibilities for maintaining and improving the quality of the environment.

And so it is that this House is making a recommendation to appoint Dr Janice Claire Wright to the position of Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, a very important position. Dr Wright has a very good CV. I have it in front of me. I do not intend to go through it at length, but I can tell members that she is a very talented and determined person. She has those qualities that will enable her to be an excellent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, so the National Party supports the recommendation of the Minister, and we look forward to working with Dr Wright in the ensuing years.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I rise on behalf of the National Party to endorse the appointment of Justice Lowell Goddard QC to the role of Police Complaints Authority in her first term, for a 5-year term. Justice Goddard comes to this position with a long history as a high-profile member of our judiciary, and I am sure that she will bring to this position a significant degree of integrity. That is a very important attribute for the Police Complaints Authority to hold, in order to allow it to endure as a system.

The role of the authority is to investigate complaints against the police, and to scrutinise the procedures of the police in the various circumstances that cause the public some concern from time to time, such as deaths in police cells, police shootings, and some other matters. The role is one of being the official scrutineer of public and police engagement, so the authority has the ability to either enhance or counter confidence in the police, depending on the way that the police are found to have carried out their duties. There is also the dual role of the authority in terms of running its own investigations and supervising investigations of police officers by the police, a particular process that has come in for some flak in the past.

We all need to have confidence in the police’s ability to achieve their objective of carrying out their core business of protecting life and property. So I look forward to the beginning of work in this role by Justice Goddard in February. At the same time, I pay respect to Justice Ian Borrin, who has served in this role prior to this appointment. The manner in which he has conducted his duties, the scrutiny and evaluation he has held police under, and the level of integrity with which the authority has carried out its role, in terms of scrutiny and evaluation, has really been second to none. I look forward to that continuing. Thank you.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): It is hard to believe, looking back, that just 20 years ago New Zealand had no statutory agencies with responsibility for the environment on behalf of the Government. Not only did we have no Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, but we had no Ministry for the Environment or Department of Conservation. We had what in those days were called “little green dots” spread through some agencies like the Department of Lands and Survey, and the New Zealand Forest Service, but there was a huge debate in those days around creating agencies with a proper mandate to carry out the Crown’s obligations to protect the environment on behalf of the people of New Zealand. So around 20 years ago those three agencies were created—the Ministry for the Environment and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment under the Environment Act, and the Department of Conservation under the Conservation Act. Up until then we had a Commission for the Environment, which was not a statutory agency; it was a creature of Cabinet fiat, and had only voluntary processes.

So a lot has happened during that time. As we celebrate that 20th anniversary—and, in the case of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment the anniversary in March next year—we look back on 20 years of two people who have served in that role with great dedication and in a very distinguished way. I want to pay respect at this stage to the first Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Helen Hughes, who was particularly famous for a rather dry remark. When asked by a visitor from overseas what her powers were, and what sort of teeth she had, she said: “Oh, no teeth at all, but very powerful gums.” She was succeeded 10 years ago by Dr Morgan Williams, who has also had a distinguished role in the position. I pay tribute today to Dr Williams, as he approaches his retirement from the position, and also to the new incumbent—a third distinguished person—Dr Jan Wright.

During the 10 years that Dr Williams has been the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, he has published a series of reports that were ignored or attacked when they first came out but have been regarded as standard good sense within a few years. I think of Creating our Future: Sustainable Development for New Zealand, in which he laid out what New Zealand needs to do to implement sustainable development. I think of his report See Change: Learning and education for sustainability, in which he talked about the need for environmental education and how important that is if we are to raise a generation of young people who are environmentally literate and who actually understand the biophysical systems we depend on for our lives.

Possibly his most famous contribution has been Growing for Good: Intensive Farming, Sustainability and New Zealand’s Environment, which is an examination of the environmental impacts of our farming and our food production systems. It goes way beyond farming and takes it right through to the supermarket chains, which dictate what farmers must do, and to the overseas markets. He shocked people by pointing out that we had a sixfold increase in the application of nitrogen fertiliser over a comparatively small number of years, that our water quality was suffering, and that intensification of farming had major environmental impacts. The report was greeted initially by screams of outrage, but these days when we look at the farming journals we find more and more farmers saying that they have completely changed their practices and their view of farming as a result of the report. It has had an amazing impact on our move towards sustainability, and I believe that it will go on having an impact for many years yet. It is full of good information and good analysis.

So I thank Morgan for his contribution over 10 years, and I particularly welcome Dr Jan Wright, who I think will be a very distinguished performer in the role. Dr Wright has, first, a physics degree, then she studied energy in the energy and resources division at the University of California, Berkeley, with distinguished people like John Holdren. She then completed a PhD in economics from Harvard, specialising in health economics. It is a very wide and varied background. I first knew Jan when she was teaching at the Lincoln Centre for Resource Management in Canterbury and working on the economics of energy efficiency for households. She taught a raft of students who have since ended up in distinguished places, and she taught serious energy analysis, which we need more and more as the foundation of the work that has to be done as we address the serious impacts of climate change, energy security, and oil prices.

We have come a long way in 20 years. I hope that in the next 20 years we will make as much progress in terms of cementing into the mainstream of Government thinking the requirements for environmental sustainability and conservation. I strongly endorse the appointment of Dr Wright by the House.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei ahiahi. I rise today to talk to Government motions Nos 3 and 4, driven by the constant call of Māori that we, the Māori Party, identify, track, and articulate the markings of progress in this Parliament.

It is a call that this Parliament has borne witness to over centuries. Indeed, at the time of the centennial in 1940, the MP for Stratford apparently stood up in this House and declared that it was “an opportunity to celebrate 100 years of progress in this wonderful Dominion, one which has never been out-shone in any other country, indeed a real Pacific haven away from the troubles of an older world”. That is what he said.

That was the prevailing view until Sir Apirana Ngata came along, and he got up in this House and shared his view of evidence of Māori progress. He said: “I do not know any year the Māori people have approached with so much misgiving as this centennial year. In retrospect, what does the Māori see? Lands gone, the power of chiefs humbled in the dust, Māori culture scattered and broken.” As we move towards the bicentennial in 2040, now is the opportunity to really focus on whether genuine progress for Aotearoa includes Māori within its frame.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment may be the one step—a very important step—in achieving that progress. I stand today to acknowledge the outstanding contribution that Dr Morgan Williams has made to this nation in his role as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. I have never met the gentleman, but I understand he is someone who has valued the importance of integrity, independent opinion, and transformation. I am told that in fulfilling his functions as guardian, as advocate, as auditor, as information provider, and as adviser he has taken seriously the need to focus, absolutely, on the progress we are achieving in meeting our responsibilities to care for and nurture the environment.

In that, tangata whenua have greatly valued the vision we share with Dr Williams of providing for the land we want our children to inherit. Tangata whenua believe that if we care for, nurture, and respect the environment, and if we collectively take responsibility for Aotearoa, then our natural resources will be healthy, safe, and intact for everyone. So in this light the work that Dr Williams has led in developing the genuine progress indicator, has been welcomed by us, the Māori Party. We appreciate the way the genuine progress indicator inserts the economic contributions of household and volunteer workers, by adding to one side of the ledger but subtracting other factors, such as crime, pollution, and racism, from the other end. We believe that this indicator can provide us with a far more comprehensive measure of wellness than conventional indicators.

That will be the context in which this House welcomes Dr Janice Claire Wright as the new Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Dr Wright is charged with the honour and the serious responsibility of assessing the impact that humanity has had on the earth’s ability to sustain life. Tangata whenua attribute huge value to such a role. As whānau, hapū, and iwi, we consider our responsibilities as tangata kaitiaki very seriously, and we know they require that we take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment. So in this light the Māori Party is delighted with the appointment of Dr Wright, a person who describes her skills as including the capacity to be an inspiring leader who sets the pace for change. She is politically astute, and able to work at all levels of Government.

The Māori Party will be contacting her, to bring her up to speed with the proposal we have tabled in this House for an urgent cross-party parliamentary commission to look at reducing Government, personal, and business dependence on oil. An urgent commission would indicate that we are taking the oil crisis seriously, and that we would work together as a nation in a collaborative approach to set out a time line for action. Now that would be real progress.

The other appointment being announced today is the recommendation for the Hon Justice Goddard to be appointed as the Police Complaints Authority, a notable first for this High Court Judge. Although again I do not know this identity, I note that the Hon Justice Goddard is not unused to being first. She is, after all, one of two women first to be appointed a Queen’s Counsel—along with Chief Justice, the Hon Dame Sian Elias—and the first Māori woman to be appointed a Justice of the High Court. We, the Māori Party, warmly congratulate her on this auspicious appointment.

We also want to take this opportunity, with our eyes firmly focused on genuine progress, to share some of our thoughts around the proper functioning and management of the Police Complaints Authority. The Māori Party has been disappointed that this Parliament failed in 2000 to take up the recommendation from Sir Rodney Gallen that the authority should no longer be a Crown entity but an Officer of Parliament, with the independence of the Ombudsman.

The notion of independence has been a concept that Māori have raised concerns about consistently over the last decade. The report entitled Māori Perceptions of the Police reports a strong perception by Māori that “… the Police Complaints Authority would be self-protecting and biased in favour of the police should Māori bring a complaint against the institution or individuals within it.” The report describes the views of Māori participants who felt there was little point in complaining about these practices, as they did not see the Police Complaints Authority as being independent from the police. Indeed, a frequent perception expressed was that simply being Māori was sufficient cause for suspicion by the police. The document Māori Perceptions of the Police recommended that another process for hearing Māori grievances should be undertaken immediately. It is the process that Sir Rodney Gallen recognised in his suggestion that there should be provision for a Māori member to be appointed to the authority—a recommendation that the Government of the day neglected to implement.

We cannot bury our heads in the sand to the very real concerns of bias that have been presented by whānau, hapū, and iwi in the context of the nature of an authority to address complaints made by Māori against the police. So, in the interests of being helpful, the Māori Party comes forward in speaking to this motion with two particularly good proposals for consideration by the Hon Justice Goddard.

The first proposal is the restructuring of the Police Complaints Authority as a truly independent body, resourced to undertake substantive investigations as well as its current policy inquiries. The heart of the problem has been that the Police Complaints Authority has relied a bit too much on police officers for the authority’s investigatory capacity, and suspicion about police investigating complaints about their colleagues has lingered. The previous Minister of Justice, the Hon Phil Goff, when releasing the review of the Police Complaints Authority, confirmed this when he stated: “There is a strong public view that police investigation of complaints against themselves is neither independent nor appropriate. It is critical that there is full public confidence that such investigations are independent.” Although the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill was passed, in recognition of the need for an impartial and independent watchdog on policing matters, it would be fair to say that in some communities considerable angst is still raised.

The second suggestion we bring is to consider the establishment of an autonomous Māori investigative branch as part of the new Police Complaints Authority, to review Māori complaints against, and Māori relationships with, the police. The ongoing interest of the public to have the decisions of the authority reviewed, the consistent questions around impartiality, and the drive for autonomy are all vital issues that require further discussion.

We welcome the Hon Justice Goddard to this very stimulating area of policy discussion and we, the Māori Party, look forward to joining with both her and Dr Wright in working together in the pursuit of genuine progress for Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): My co-leader Jeannette Fitzsimons has already spoken on the appointment of Jan Wright to the role of Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, so I will not be speaking on that matter except simply to add my personal thanks to Dr Morgan Williams for the extraordinarily good job that he has done in that role, and to say that I look forward to Jan Wright’s continuing the excellent tradition and precedent that has been set for that role.

I rise, really, to speak on the appointment of Justice Goddard to the Police Complaints Authority and to say at the outset that the Green Party supports that appointment. It is clear that Justice Goddard has had an illustrious career and that there is no reason to think anything other than that she will do an excellent job. The problem, of course, is not her as a person—as highlighted by Te Ururoa Flavell—the framework within which she will be operating and the resources available will be the real problem. I thank Te Ururoa Flavell for putting forward a couple of useful suggestions that have merit and are worth considering, particularly from the Government’s point of view, because that is where the decisions on resources and suchlike will be made.

If we look at the framework within which the Police Complaints Authority currently operates, and also at the resourcing available, we will see that enormous problems are caused. The first one is simply time delays. My colleague Keith Locke has had a complaint before the Police Complaints Authority for 7 years. For 7 years his complaint has not been dealt with. It is absolutely outrageous that that can be the reality coming from a body that is charged with investigating complaints against the New Zealand Police, which has significant statutory authority to use force against citizens of this country. It is absolutely outrageous. That may be an extreme case, but significant delays are not unusual. I just think back to the Steven Wallace case. As far as I am aware, there has still not been a finding in that matter. So time delays are an enormous problem, and a large part of that can be put down to the fact that the resourcing made available to the Police Complaints Authority is totally unacceptable.

The second real problem is that most complaints are not investigated by the Police Complaints Authority; they are investigated by the police. Essentially, that means that officers who have complaints made against them are being investigated by their mates. This is particularly true in rural communities where the commanding officer visits the other police officers socially. Those officers have a barbecue on the weekend, they play sport together, and their children know each other. Those are the people who investigate complaints against each other. It is just not surprising, is it, that some of those findings are open to a suspicion of bias—it can be nothing else.

This is partly a resourcing issue. There have to be the resources to investigate complaints against the police independently. The other issue is that the authority has to be able to develop an investigative capacity. That is one of the reasons why the Green Party has said very clearly that it would like to see an independent prison inspectorate joined with an independent police complaints authority to enable an investigative capacity to be developed that could conduct investigations into closed-shop professions, such as the police and correctional staff.

The other thing around the Police Complaints Authority is that it has tended to be user-unfriendly in the past. As someone who has made complaints to the Police Complaints Authority in the past, I have to say that the system seems designed to discourage people from pursuing complaints against the police. That may be an attempt to filter out unmeritorious complaints, but that is not what actually happens. What happens is that the people who are most alienated from our political systems, who are those most alienated from the systems of authority and power in this country, are continually dissuaded from making complaints. I hear all the time—and I am sure that other members do, too—of cases that warrant serious investigation, such as complaints against police misconduct. The people who do not make those complaints simply ask what the point is, because they say their complaints will not even be investigated. They say that the cops will look out for each other, they will investigate themselves, and they will just brush it under the carpet—and, of course, in my opinion, that is what happens on numerous occasions.

Another problem with the Police Complaints Authority is that it is totally complaints-driven, so we do not get the systematic investigation into serious, systemic problems within the police. For example, we know that some police officers abuse their powers to search without a warrant. We know that it happens; we have seen evidence of it. Evidence has been brought before this House in select committees and the like of police abusing powers to search without a warrant. Those are highly draconian powers of search, and no investigation is being done. That is exactly the kind of thing that a police complaints authority should be able to look at, and this Police Complaints Authority does not do that job.

Similarly, I refer to the use of pepper sprays. There is almost no control over the use of pepper sprays. We have seen on our TV news people being pepper sprayed while handcuffed. I hear allegations all the time of people having been pepper sprayed in police cells. That is totally contradictory to regulations, to guidelines, and to all the assurances that we were given when those sprays were brought in to be used by the police. No investigation is being done, at any serious level, into these matters, and that is exactly the kind of thing that the Police Complaints Authority should be empowered to look at.

Even when complaints-driven matters are so serious that the Police Complaints Authority actually conducts an investigation, the information it uses for that purpose cannot be used for prosecutions, because the secrecy provisions that the Police Complaints Authority is wrapped up in mean that the matters it raises in interviews and the like cannot be used as evidence. I think that that is totally ridiculous. What other profession has a situation where, if complaints are made against someone relating to potentially criminal activity, after the first investigation is done the evidence generated cannot be used in court? It is ridiculous. People say: “Oh well, this is to promote openness so that people will spill their guts to the investigators.” Well, one could make the same case for any kind of crime. It is absolutely ludicrous, and it essentially means that there is one rule for the police and one rule for everyone else. I would be interested to know where the National Party stands in respect of this issue, with its one-law-for-all rhetoric—where does it stand on having the same law for the police as for everyone else?

I recall the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the policing of the protest during the visit of the Chinese Premier, and Mr Barnett will remember this very clearly because he was chairing the committee at the time. It was a very good piece of work that we did, but we were enormously hampered by the rules governing the Police Complaints Authority. The information that the authority had obtained through interviewing complainants and police could not even be made available to the Parliament. Even Parliament was told that it could not have that information for the purposes of a select committee inquiry, because the legislation did not allow it. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Of course, that situation leads to the findings of the Police Complaints Authority being entirely opaque. The authority makes decisions but complainants have no idea of what it looked at in making its decisions, and the basis on which those decisions were made. So it leaves a suspicion in the public mind that the authority is not properly investigating cases. Whether or not the authority is doing so is not the point. The point is that the decisions the authority makes are not being justified on the basis of saying what matters it considered, whom it talked to, and what information it used to make its decision. That information is not available to the public. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of complainants and an ongoing suspicion that the complaints are not being conducted properly, thoroughly, and with regard to all matters.

The Green Party supports the appointment of the Hon Justice Goddard to this position, but we fear that we are handing her a poisoned chalice, because the legislative framework around the Police Complaints Authority is so poor that inevitably she will be hampered in doing the job effectively.

The Green Party looks forward to the progress of legislation, which is before this House, that will progress a truly independent Police Complaints Authority. What is more, we would like to see that legislation operate so that an independent Police Complaints Authority can work in conjunction with an independent prison inspectorate to allow the development of an investigative capacity that can actually do the job, that has the resources to do the job, that has the expertise to do the job, and that is able to generate enough momentum within itself that it can actually crack the shell and penetrate what is really going on within professions such as the police and the Department of Corrections. We have heard allegations of a culture of abuse, violence, and intimidation within both those bodies.

This country needs an independent investigative body that can seriously look at this problem and get to the bottom of it, so that we can all be assured that we have the best, the least corrupt, and the most transparent services of those kinds anywhere in the world.

Motions agreed to.

Bills

Māori Purposes Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

METIRIA TUREI (Green): In the last few remaining moments before the House suspends for its well-earned tea break, I would just like to make some initial comments about Part 1. This part deals with the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, particularly around the issues to do with delegations to the Deputy Chief Judge, and, if I am correct, around the judge who did not have his warrant but was sitting and hearing cases and was not eligible to do so.

I know that although the debate on this question has not been particularly severe or overexcited, there are real issues here around the principles of justice that are worthwhile highlighting. I know, for example, that the Law Commission is very concerned about some of these provisions that retrospectively validate the decisions of the judge who was sitting without a warrant. He was sitting on a large number of cases. It was not just a few cases and on a few days, at which point somebody realised there was a mistake and it needed to be fixed; he sat on, as far as I am aware, 60-odd cases—

Pita Paraone: 80.

METIRIA TUREI: My learned friend tells me 80 cases. So there are real questions around the justice for those people, particularly those who lost in those circumstances—those who took cases, were heard by this judge, and were not successful—and whether their rights have been infringed because there was no validity to the process. They were not properly in the court and dealt with properly by the judge. Those people do have a legitimate case for concern that they did not get justice in the court, because the court was not operating lawfully in those circumstances. I have real concerns for them and for the effects that the judgments may have had on them. In some of the cases, given that there were 60 in a quite short period of time—a month, actually; 60 cases in 30 days—they were not enormous and not particularly time consuming, but they were important to the people who brought them to the court looking for justice in a right and proper process.

I think it is important that this Committee, if it is going to pass this legislation and this part, acknowledges that those people have had their rights to justice interfered with. That is a fair enough thing to say. If the Committee agrees that this provision should pass, then it needs to be very, very clear that it has very good reasons for doing so. Part of those reasons would be the justice implications for those who won in those cases. They were successful and have relied on the validity of that decision since it was made, and these are decisions that were made 6 years ago, in 2000.

The consequences of that decision could well be economic, given that we are talking here about Māori land decisions. They could be to do with issues such as succession and whether shares and land should be transferred or shared between certain members of the family or whānau, and people could have made plans and arrangements because of the decisions that were made. To interfere with that now, after such a long period of time, because of a mistake made by the justice bureaucracy—the court itself and those who oversee the validity of warrants of judges—is in itself an interference with the proper process and with their rights to rely on the court.

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

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): My apologies, Madam Chair. I was expecting to hear from the new Māori affairs spokesperson from the second-largest party in this House, but obviously the new leadership has kicked in and there does not seem to be any interest in this bill.

I stand to take a call on this part and I want to pick up on a comment made by the last speaker, when reference was made to rights to justice being interfered with, in relation particularly to some orders made by a former judge of the Māori Land Court—and, can I say, a very eminent member of the judiciary at the time—Judge Norman Smith. I am not quite sure, but I believe it was he himself who brought it to the attention of the authorities that his warrant had expired. That is point No. 1.

Secondly, I question whether the rights to justice of people whose cases were affected by the decision of that judge had been interfered with. In any of those cases, if the applicant was concerned about the final decision made by the court, then he or she certainly still had the opportunity to follow due process. The fact that the judge was honest enough to recognise an oversight, in terms of the renewal of his warrant, is not a case, I believe, to suggest that rights to justice were interfered with.

The other issue I want to refer to in this part is the exercising of special powers being delegated from the Chief Judge to the Deputy Chief Judge. During the second reading I made reference to the point that the need to do that is possibly a result of the fact that the Chief Judge is currently also chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal, and that this extra duty has some impact on his ability to carry out his duties. But I was reminded by my caucus colleagues that because we are human we also get sick from time to time, and if the Chief Judge were to take ill, who would carry out his duties while he was off work? So we support the idea of the Chief Judge being able to delegate his authority to the Deputy Chief Judge.

Although we did express some concern about the notion of validation legislation, I think that in the case I detailed earlier, and based on the advice given to us by officials during the select committee process, we do not think that such validation would have any impact on the orders that were made by the judge at the time.

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we support this part of the bill. Kia ora.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I am very pleased to be here to take a call in the Committee stage of the Māori Purposes Bill. I turn immediately to Part 1, which has three or four main points, as I am sure members of the Committee have already spoken about. I want to make a comment on at least two of those.

Clause 4 deals with the appointment of judges—increasing the permanent judge membership of the Māori Land Court from eight to 14. National supports that, but we raise the concern that, first of all, an increase in the judiciary requires a corresponding increase, I would imagine, in resources. We did not receive any confirmation that that would necessarily follow. The other thing is that while, no doubt, someone did some work on the number of judges that might be required, we are told that 14 would not be appointed to the court at once, or an extra six, but that as they were needed others would be appointed.

I stress that although it is all very well anticipating an increase in workload, it seems to me at least that the way the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd has been allocating the assets in respect of Māori fisheries is running reasonably smoothly. Of course, there is the other jurisdiction around the foreshore and seabed.

As I say, we recognise that there is probably a good reason for the increase in judges, but we would wish to see some corresponding increase in resources should it prove necessary to increase the number to 14. It is no use having judges sitting there without the necessary support.

I turn to clause 5, which enables the Chief Judge to delegate to the Deputy Chief Judge some or all of his or her functions, powers, and duties conferred by the Act. Again, at the Māori Affairs Committee we had questions about that and asked the officials whether this was something that happens in other jurisdictions. If I recall correctly, although an express provision of this nature does not necessarily apply in other parts of the judiciary, nevertheless there is an understanding that there is statutory power for the next senior judge of any other court to take over if the Chief Judge is away.

There are legitimate reasons why a deputy should have the powers of the Chief Judge, and those were set out as things like illness or when a Chief Judge is prevented from exercising duties because he or she is not able to be there. If I remember the officials’ advice correctly, one of the reasons it was deemed necessary for these powers to be given to the deputy was the dual role of the Chief Judge, who is also chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal. Of course, New Zealand First has a bill on this very matter, relating to conflict. So the delegation provision seems a reasonable thing to do, but, again, it was not without some reasonably investigative discussion in the committee.

The part that concerns National most is the provision that validates the 83 decisions of former Deputy Chief Judge Norman Smith. He basically acted without a warrant. His warrant had expired, but he continued to make certain decisions, in any event. We added a note into the commentary on the report back. Although some of the committee considered that retrospective validation is justified, the National Party does not agree with the use of retrospective legislation to validate the types of decisions in this particular case.

In other words, what has happened is that the parties who were the subjects of those cases before Norman Smith actually had no idea that he was acting without a warrant at the time. Although that may not, in the long run, make any difference, none the less we do not think that the way this matter has been approached is desirable. The jury is still out for us as to whether we support this provision. He just carried on making decisions. Someone was remiss in not realising that Judge Norman Smith was acting outside his warrant. That is not good; really, it should not be tolerated. We have now come, in the form of this bill, to validate his decisions. As I say, National has real difficulty with that.

Hon Dover Samuels: What do you think should be done about it, Georgie?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: My friend on the other side of the House Dover Samuels is singing out about what I think should be done about it. Well, we had some suggestions at the Māori Affairs Committee. We did ask the officials whether they had gone back to the parties against whom and in favour of whom these decisions had been made. We thought that was a reasonable thing to do, but the officials did not think so, simply because time has now elapsed and certain parties to the actions have acted on those decisions. Yes, that is an explanation, but it does not necessarily make it right. I hope the Māori Land Court is watchful in the future and does not let this sort of thing happen again, even though there is now provision to cover this sort of eventuality.

The other provisions in Part 1 are around—and my friend Pita Paraone was talking about this just a minute ago—the Deputy Chief Judge being able to exercise the powers of the Chief Judge. The explanation given as to why this should be so is that judges have a certain workload and a certain distinctiveness. Officials can always give a good reason for some of these things, but I do not know whether the reasons are always logical or necessarily appropriate.

However, the provision in Part 1 that National has most concern about is that relating to the validation of Norman Smith’s decisions. I hope that once the bill goes through, officials of Te Puni Kōkiri will consider writing, at that stage, to the persons affected, anyway. I cannot remember whether we asked the officials to do that, but the Minister of Māori Affairs might like to get to his feet and tell us whether there is any plan for the officials to let people know what has happened. The decisions will have been validated, but I think that, if nothing else, it is pure courtesy to let those people know what has happened. There is provision, I understand, for the decisions to be reheard, if the parties want. Perhaps the Minister could give some assurance that he will treat this matter in, at least, a courteous fashion and instruct his officials to write to the parties concerned to let them know what has happened. Perhaps he would like to take a call to let us know that.

The other thing the Minister might like to take a call on is the actual position of the Chief Judge. Right now, I understand, the Chief Judge is sitting on only one tribunal claim. It seems to me, in the context of his sitting on only one Waitangi Tribunal claim—flora and fauna—that he does not seem to be particularly busy. Maybe the Minister could give us some backing by saying that. I remember that when I was sitting on the tribunal, Chief Judge Eddie Durie was extremely busy. So perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and explain why those provisions are necessary.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā tātou katoa. E te Minita, tēnā koe i tēnei pō. I want to make just a few points.

Darren Hughes: Te wepu.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Tēnā koe e te wepu o tērā taha o te Whare. Kia ora tātou.

[Greetings to you, the whip on that side of the Chamber.]

I will make a couple of points in respect of this bill. Firstly, I repeat for the Minister that the difficulty with these sorts of bills for people like me is that we are pulling together a number of different things under one bill, and we have to vote on a whole set of complex issues. It seems to me that pulling together provisions about fish, Treaty claims, and judges is a pretty difficult exercise to follow through, and one would have hoped that we would split up these provisions. The difficulty with this sort of bill is that there are some good points that could be helpful to our people, and there are some, obviously, that need a lot of work. That came through in the submission process. That is the first point.

We want to comment on other points, and I will run through them quickly. The notion of the appointment of judges and the lifting of the number of judges is a good idea. We support the notion in clause 4, and we have no problem with the notion in clause 5 of the Chief Judge and the Deputy Chief Judge working together, where the powers of delegation are followed through.

Metiria Turei and others have noted concerns in respect of decisions made by Judge Norman Smith, and we support those comments. Georgina te Heuheu has raised those issues, as well. The validation of his decisions creates a lousy precedent, and we need to take heed in the future. I also support the notion that Metiria Turei raised in respect of the decisions already made. It seems that the Māori Affairs Committee gave the issue a fair bit of discussion and felt that there was no going back on those decisions. Suffice it to say, the Māori Party signals a concern about this sort of precedent and hopes that it will not happen again.

I draw the Committee’s attention to an amendment that the Māori Party has put on the Table for consideration. It is to do with the issue of the appointment of judges. Another amendment has to do with the extension of judges’ warrants so that they can practise not just in the Māori Land Court but also in the other courts. There is a recommendation on the Table relating to this, and I would like members to look at that. It would broaden the judges’ scope and extend their warrants so that they can practise not only in the Māori Land Court but also in the District Court. The recommendation relates to clause 4. We suggest adding a new subsection (8) to section 7 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which clause 4 amends. The new subsection states: “(8) Any Judge appointed under subsection (1) may also preside in a District Court, if agreed by the Chief Judge.” That is our recommendation.

The reason is that we believe the judges’ expertise should not be limited simply to land issues. The judges bring a particular element of expertise in tikanga Māori that would also pay dividends in respect of their practice in the District Court. I would like the Minister and other members to consider this amendment. We feel that this amendment would enable a good spread of expertise across the court system, and would allow us to use the expertise of those judges, who, in particular, have an acknowledged background in tikanga Māori.

So those are some of the points that I put before the Minister. The main one, of course, is simply about supporting the concerns other members have raised. Secondly, our concerns are basically about the pulling together of a number of bills into the one place when, in fact, some of them could have been separated out—in particular, the various clauses around the Treaty of Waitangi that cause concern. We will be speaking to that issue shortly.

Finally, I put to the House the recommendation that is on the Table in respect of allowing the jurisdiction of Māori Land Court judges, with the agreement of the Chief Judge, to extend to the District Court. So I leave that recommendation for the Minister, and hopefully he will provide some sort of response to it. Kia ora tātou.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Several submissions on the Māori Purposes Bill commented that the workload of the Māori Land Court was already heavy and that delays were being experienced. Although Te Ture Whenua Maori Act allows temporary judges to be appointed, permanent appointments are needed to address ongoing work levels. The intention is not to appoint six extra judges immediately, but to make additional appointments in stages. At present the court is operating with a full complement of eight judges, plus an additional two temporary judges.

In relation to the retrospective legislation, very careful consideration was given to the need to validate Judge Smith’s decisions. It is the best way of providing certainty to the applicants and other parties concerned. The decisions were made by an experienced former Deputy Chief Judge for a short period after the expiry of his temporary warrant. There are no issues about the judge’s expertise or competence. Individuals and their families should not be left open to the stress and expense of other action. It is important to mention that this provision is not groundbreaking. Legislation of this kind is needed from time to time. In regard to the Māori Land Court, in 1991 the Government of the day, National, passed retrospective legislation to validate decisions of Judge McHugh.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I am not too sure whether this is the appropriate time, but I was hoping that the Minister, the Hon Parekura Horomia, might respond to the notion of extending the warrant of Māori Land Court judges. I stand up and offer him the opportunity again to have a go at that one, bearing in mind that if we are talking about workload—and he just provided some background to that—one would support that notion. Surely extending warrants a little bit wider—if they are required—might help with that situation. Of course, it is always in the hands of the Chief Judge. I stand to encourage the Minister to respond to that notion, if he can.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): In talking to the proposed amendment, I say that it does raise a particular issue for me. If we support this amendment as proposed by the Māori Party, it begs the question whether the exchange will be a two-way one. I am not quite sure whether, in fact, the Māori Party would appreciate a number of non-Māori judges presiding in the Māori Land Court, making decisions that will affect Māori. When I say that, I want to make it clear that I am not critical about the appointment of non-Māori to the Māori Land Court jurisdiction, because I believe that race should not be an issue, and that we do get the best people presiding on matters such as Māori land. I am not sure that this is the intent of this amendment, but on the face of it I cannot see New Zealand First supporting it.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I want to comment on Te Ururoa Flavell’s amendment, although it is actually Minister Parekura Horomia’s job to rebut it as this bill is in his name. I do not believe that the member Te Ururoa Flavell’s proposed amendment is in order. It seems to me to be outside the scope of this bill. I raise the question that if the stated reason for increasing the number of judges from eight to 14 is an increase in their workload,—and we are talking about their workload in the Māori Land Court—then why would anybody in his or her right mind consider that we allow the Māori Land Court judges to also sit in the District Court? That seems to make no sense at all; it is totally illogical. I have already questioned whether there is sufficient workload at this point in time to warrant an increase in the number of judges. There may be in the future; we probably think that there may be. But the fact is that the allocation of fisheries, in regard to that aspect of an increased workload, seems to be going reasonably well anyway.

Maybe our anticipating the need for this increase may come to nothing in the end. But, as I say, the stated reason for this increase in the number of judges is the increase in their workload. In my view it is absolutely a nonsense that a suggestion should be made that they also sit in the District Court.

I comment on the point that Pita Paraone made, as well, which is whether that would then mean that someone would seek a corresponding crossover. I do not even have to raise the issue of whether we are talking about Māori judges or Pākehā judges; the reality is that the jurisdiction is different. National would not support this amendment, on the grounds that it is totally illogical with regard to the purpose stated in the bill.

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Clause 4 be agreed to:

to add as subclause (2) the following subclause:

(2) Section 7 is amended by adding the following subsection:

“(8) Any judge appointed under subsection (1) may also preside in a District Court, if agreed to by the Chief Judge.”

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): Part 2 of the Māori Purposes Bill deals with amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The majority of submissions received that opposed the bill were in respect of this part. It deals with a closing date for submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal of historical claims. The date set is 1 September 2008.

National supports this part, and we certainly support the setting of a closing-off date for the lodging of historical claims. In fact, if I recall correctly, we were the first party to suggest this provision back in 2002, and it was part of our Treaty of Waitangi policy. The National Party, having raised the issue early on—and now other parties see the sense in it—takes credit for the provision. But that is no surprise anyway, given that the settlement process was largely kicked off by our party in the 1990s.

Given that there were objections to this part, I think it is very important that we state why we support it. Firstly, we should be very, very clear that we are talking about only the lodging of claims—the submission of historical claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Historical claims are defined as encompassing claims relating to events occurring before 21 September 1992. That date has been properly chosen, in my view, because that was the date on which the Government of the day—again, the National Government—under Sir Douglas Graham, settled upon the principles to guide the settlement of Treaty claims. The intention of this provision is to provide certainty to not only the tribunal but also claimants around, first of all, what constitutes a historical Treaty claim. I understand that the Māori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell said yesterday in his report-back speech something to the effect that this is the first time that date had arisen. Indeed, it is not. Back then, in 1992, historical claims were deemed to be those occurring before 21 September 1992.

The main reason for introducing a closing-off date is the issue around certainty—certainty for the tribunal, certainty for Governments, whoever the Government is, and certainty for the claimants. My experience as a member of the Waitangi Tribunal was that the major tribal claim would be lodged well in advance—most were lodged in the 1980s. But in the way that the tribunal approaches and hears claims, and, I hope, in the way that the Office of Treaty Settlements guides the Government in settling the claims, there is always a possibility for claims—usually minor in nature, though not insignificant to the parties involved—to arise in the course of hearings. I suggest that most historical claims are now known.

I guess if the claims are not known, then that puts a difficulty in the way of those planning for some end in sight to this process as to how they should plan for that time. If those claims are not known, then it is extremely unlikely, in my view—after sitting on the tribunal as a member, some 10 years ago—that they would not become known anyway as part of the bigger claim. These minor claims would not necessarily constitute a claim by themselves, but most historic matters would be revealed during the hearing of a claim. National supports this part, and we think it is proper.

Amendments are being proposed by both the Green Party and the Māori Party for other dates. I have looked at those amendments, and National will not support them. None of them actually make sense in terms of the way the settlement process has proceeded. But I guess if one has never been in Government, then sometimes one has a bit of difficulty in seeing the sense in some of these issues. No doubt my colleagues to the back of the Chamber will have something to say about that comment. When one is in Government one actually has to govern—that is the point—to the best of one’s ability, in the best interests of all New Zealanders.

Pita Paraone: What about when you’re in Opposition?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: In Opposition one can advocate the same principle—that is the point. Whether I am sitting over there or over here, it is the principle that matters. The principle is that at some stage we need to have some forward-thinking about how we might bring this whole claims process to a logical and durable conclusion. In my view, if one is in Government, the only way to see a light ahead is to know what one is dealing with. For as long as there is no closing-off date for the lodging of claims, we will never know what is ahead of us. That does not make for good, efficient planning in Government. New Zealand First, having been sort of in Government, or perhaps in Government right now—whatever New Zealand First is—will have a sense of this, anyway. New Zealand First was certainly in Government in 1996, in coalition with National, so it will have a sense of the need to be able to plan, to be able to see a light ahead, and to be able to adjust the necessary resources in order to get that process working to a proper time frame.

Of course, when National is in Government in 2 years’ time, it will put some proper resources into the Waitangi Tribunal, because if there is a bit of a hole in the thing right now, it is right there. The tribunal has been starved of funding under a Labour Government, so it is no wonder that the tribunal sort of crawls along. We will make sure that the tribunal is properly resourced, so that we can give claimants some confidence that their claims are moving along, and so that they see the sense in there being some sort of finality to the process. That is what is happening with that. A statement in our report back basically says that in the interests of a more timely settlement of historic claims, a closure date for the submissions of claim is warranted, and we certainly support that.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I really need to take issue with some of the things that the National spokesperson has mentioned, though I would like to welcome her back to the fold in terms of Māori affairs portfolios and issues. It is great to have a Māori from National back again in the role of Māori affairs spokesperson.

I take issue with the question of certainty that was raised by the last speaker. Her view that this Treaty settlement deadline gives certainty to the Waitangi Tribunal, to claimants, and to the Government is, of course, complete rubbish. The tribunal did not come to the Government and ask for a Treaty settlement deadline in order to make its process easier. The tribunal has no interest in a deadline. As far as I can tell from all the submissions we received, there was no indication from the tribunal at all that a deadline would be of any use to it.

Actually, the deadline raises real questions, given that it is set so soon. There is an argument that it is only in relation to historical claims, and that people can lodge broad generic claims with the tribunal, which they can then fill in later with the research and the historical work they will need in order to make the claim viable in the future—that they can do that after they have lodged the claim, and that that will be all right. The tribunal will suffer from a ridiculous false economy, by having large numbers of incomplete and not particularly well-researched claims lodged with it in a big, huge rush. It will then, once the deadline comes about, have to sort through those claims and wait for the claimants to be properly prepared to progress their claims.

So in a few years’ time, after the settlement date of 2008, there will be real bureaucratic problems in dealing with the management of the claims that are not ready to proceed because they should never have been put there in the first place, as they were not ready to proceed. This deadline will not be advantageous to the tribunal at all. It will not assist the tribunal in its planning, because it will not be able to progress claims properly in a well-researched and well-prepared manner. It is a totally false economy for the tribunal, and it will do it no good. The tribunal certainly did not ask for a deadline, so there is no justification for saying it will be better for the tribunal than the present situation.

And the deadline is certainly not a better proposition for claimants, either—absolutely not. The majority of submissions that the Māori Affairs Committee received on the bill were about that particular point. Of those submissions, by far the majority were completely opposed to the settlement deadline. It has been said before, and I am sure it will be said repeatedly tonight, that there has been no consultation with claimants or potential claimants about the deadline. There is no evidence at all before the select committee, in front of the Government, or anywhere else that shows that a deadline will be beneficial to claimants—nothing; no evidence; no submissions; nothing. The fact is that a deadline is not beneficial to claimants. This is a political sop put in place by Labour because National was running its race hate rhetoric, which I talked about last night. It has nothing to do with making sure that claimants have a better opportunity to progress their historical claims through a tribunal process that is designed to redress those and provide justice.

This measure does not provide certainty to claimants; the situation becomes even more uncertain for them. Claimants will now have to find ways to manipulate the process, by making claims fit within at least some kind of historical claim definition before 2008. They will have to look for things very quickly to put in their claim, which they can then back up with research later. They will have to hope that their claim is comprehensive enough, with no research, no resources, and no assistance to prepare it, and hope that later on after the deadline is over they will be able to find the information to back up their claim. So this deadline will put claimants under considerably more stress.

I note also the issue around most claims being known, which was mentioned by the National spokesperson. That is not true, either. The fact is that most of the claims that have come before the tribunal are those that were relatively obvious—that is fine—but they are not the ones that smaller hapū, in particular, will already know about and would then have been able to put forward in due course. Lots and lots of smaller hapū in this country do not have resources to submit claims. Often those hapū do not have particularly old, old people either, who have historical knowledge. We have to remember, as was mentioned earlier today, that the death rate for Māori is extremely high, so we do not have lots of older people who have the necessary historical knowledge. There are whole families whose oldest member might be 60 years old. They will not have the information they need to set out the facts about the history of their land loss in the kind of detail that is needed by the tribunal. Instead, a lot more other professional work would have to be done to enable them to prepare their claims. They are the ones who will miss out.

The tribunal process was set up to provide a system of redress and justice for exactly those people—for those who do not have access to the courts and who do not have huge amounts of money. It was designed to be an easily accessible process for Māori. But if we put in a deadline like the 2008 deadline that we have here, it will prevent the people who have the least access to justice from ever getting any, so it will completely ruin the process. The whole point of the tribunal will then be lost.

It is true that the tribunal process and settlement negotiations take a reasonable amount of time. We have had close to 170 years’ worth of wrongs committed against Māori, and of the theft of land through legislation and other means—all of the things that everybody in this Parliament knows about. We cannot expect all of those claims, all of those wrongs, and all of those issues to come to light in just a few years. It has been only 10 years or so since we began to deal with the Treaty claims and negotiations process in an effective and a clearer way. The process cannot be run quickly, and we cannot expect that it would. We should spend a lot more time on allowing the tribunal process to continue to develop and evolve, to provide the best possible framework for providing justice to the victims of these crimes, for whom it was designed.

Instead we have a Government—it has been successive Governments, actually; it does not matter whether it is a National or a Labour Government—that is trying to find ways to close down the process, because it is costly and because it makes it obvious that the Government continues to undermine Māori progression and development over time. It is true that what happened is a horrible memory. When the settlements come before Parliament, we can see that they show real horrors from our history. They are not pleasant, but this country and this Parliament have to take responsibility for what happened. We have to be mature enough to cope with those histories and deal with the fact that those awful things happened. We should not be frightened of doing that.

We should allow the process to occur. Otherwise, we will end up doing the same old thing that we always do in Parliament, in Government, and in our country: trying to hide from the facts, and making the situation worse. That is what we are doing here. This deadline is part of the process of denying justice in a system that is set up to provide it, out of expediency because it is cheaper and easier for the Government to do so. I completely agree with the National spokesperson that the deadline provides certainty for the Government—absolutely it does. But the tribunal system is not set up for the benefit of the Government; it is set up for the benefit of the victims of wrongs—the victims of crime. They should be the priority in any process.

I have three amendments to this part in my name. One of them changes the closing date for the deadline to 2050, which is a little over 200 years from the time when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. That is fair enough. It gives us another 50-odd years to deal with the claims that are coming through. It gives us another generation’s worth of time to work through the complexity of the Treaty process. Some claims are taking over 10 to 15 years to prepare, and some settlements are taking close to that time, as well. The people to whom justice is directed need to have time to work through that. That is one of the changes I would like to see made to the bill.

The second amendment is to omit the date of 1992, at which claims become historical, and replace it with 1 January 1841. That gives the Government a year after the signing of the Treaty. It can have a year in which we will accept that the Treaty was intended to be honoured. After that, all of the things the Government did and refused to do, all of the mistakes it has made, would become contemporary claims. Then the deadline is irrelevant. That is the point. The things that the Government has done, or that its representatives have done in the past, need to be held to account. We can be mature enough and grown-up enough to take responsibility for them. That is our role as parliamentarians and citizens of this country, which should be a bicultural country where two nations try to work together to deal with the issues. That change in the date will help to set the matter back and give us a clearer idea. This country is only 160-odd years old. It is actually a very young country in its current form. To say that all of the claims for what occurred prior to 1992 are historical and will become irrelevant to the tribunal process after 2008 is crazy. It is a crazy idea, so I have an amendment to change the date at which claims become historical to 1841. It is another way of showing that these are contemporary claims, that they are contemporary issues, and that they are real and live for people.

Earlier I was talking about many communities not having elders who have the memory or the confidence to talk about the things that happened to them, their families, and their grandparents in the past. Those things are live issues for the communities that live now. They are not historical for them, because they suffer the effects of the very same crimes that were committed against them. So to them the issues are not historical but are contemporary; they are right now and people suffer them all day, every day. We see that reflected in their daily lives. Therefore it is wrong to suggest that the things that were done to them—the crimes committed against them—are historical crimes.

Finally, I have an amendment to the bill that will delete the Treaty deadline process altogether, because it was never a good idea. I can hear the National spokesperson taking credit for it. She should not take credit for it; this deadline is an act of overt racism, and no one should proudly take credit for that kind of act in this Parliament in 2006. We should be a much more grown-up environment than that. We know how to deal with these claims justly. There are other models of it happening all around the world, where crimes have been committed against indigenous people and people are being held to account for them. Governments and processes have been held to account. We are a leader, in large part, in those kinds of models. We should be proud that our models work. We should fix the bits that need to be fixed, but we should never be proud of instituting blockages and processes that then interfere entirely with the process and with access to justice.

This is not a proud moment for us at all. I urge all members of this House to seriously reconsider their position on this bill and to vote in favour of my amendment or, if not my amendment, then the Māori Party’s amendment to delete the Treaty settlement deadline. The deadline is not a fair thing to do. It is not good policy. It was never a good idea. It is a racist thing to do, and it must be stopped.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Listening to the last speaker, I despair. If things are as bad as that, then I can understand why people want special privileges for a certain sector of our country. To describe New Zealand First and me as overt racists because we support Part 2 of the Māori Purposes Bill is, I think, scraping the bottom of the barrel. I am quite clear in my mind, and I say this on behalf of our party, that this country needs to go forward and look in anticipation to what the future holds for us. The provisions of Part 2 are a big step towards achieving that very goal.

I am very fortunate that one of my parents is still alive. He is 90 years old and he knows the history of his people. Yet every day he exhorts his children and those of his brothers and sisters to look forward and not go back to the ills of the past. I suggest to the Committee that Part 2 goes a long way towards addressing the very wish that people like my father have for this country and the path they would like it to go down.

The previous speaker said that if we adhered to the suggestion of enforcing a closure date of 2008, that would be justice denied because a lot of people would not have the opportunity to provide the history on which they would base their claims. Perhaps the reason why my father is still alive is that he wants to look forward. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is this. After listening to the speeches of members of some parties in this House, I would suggest that Māori already have a good knowledge of the so-called ills they have had to endure. To me, 2008 is a real compromise; my party suggested that the closing-off date should be 2010.

Part of the reason for the concern that came through from many submitters was, I believe, that they misunderstood the intent of Part 2. They thought that all their applications needed to be in order before lodging their claims. I repeat that this part of the bill concerns only the lodgment of claims. People still have the opportunity to do the necessary research required to complete their full claims. I would be very concerned if 2008 was the date on which all claims were to be settled, because then there would be the argument that claims were being dealt with just to meet the expediency of the bureaucracy. It is not the first time I have made that comment in this House.

Part 2 is specifically designed to give some certainty to Māori—quite rightly, as expressed by the previous speaker—certainty to the Crown, but, more important, certainty to this country. There is no way I want to leave a legacy for my grandchildren that means they will have to continue this battle, when we could have addressed the issue and provided a much easier path for them to face. Any notion of moving the closing-off date, in terms of historical claims, back to 1 January 1841 is just a covert way of circumventing this part of the bill. In fact, I suggest that it is a rather cynical approach. Instead of Green members just saying they oppose Part 2, they have submitted amendments in order to avoid having to admit that.

I will not make an issue of who is responsible for there being a closing-off date, but suffice it to say that setting a date is in the best interests of this country. If we are to go ahead like we want to, then this is the sort of legislation we need to put into action. It is no good saying that this was not something the Office of Treaty Settlements asked for—of course it is not going to ask for it. That office is the servant of this Government, irrespective of which party is part of the Government, and it does what is required of it in terms of the policy that the Government sets for it.

If we want to criticise the Office of Treaty Settlements, then we have to criticise the policy. I say that as one who came from a long term of service as a public servant, and I know full well that although public servants may not like certain policies, they are required to carry them out. If they do not do so, then they have to leave. After working for 39 years in the public service, I say there must be something good about it. Sometimes I feel for the officials who come before select committees, but that does not deter from the intent and the quality of this part of the bill. On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that it is our pleasure to support the intent of Part 2.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State): Te mea tuatahi māku, kei te mihi atu ki a koe te Kaiwhakahaere. Ā, i tēnei pō e tū atu ana ki te tautoko i te pire whakawhiriwhiri take Māori. Hoi anō, tēnei e tū atu anō nōki ki te tautoko i taku whanaunga a Pita, te mokopuna o Kāwiti ē tū nei, ki te whakamārama ki a tātou ngā āhuatanga e pā ana ki tēnei wāhanga o te Tiriti.

[Firstly, greetings to you Madam Chair. I rise tonight to support the Māori Purposes Bill and my relation Pita, grandchild of Kāwiti, who stood to explain to us aspects of it that relate to this part of the Treaty.]

I am taking a short call to stand and support my whanaunga there, Pita Paraone, in his submissions supporting this bill. You know, it is very interesting that when I hear the comments of some of the previous speakers, and those from the Kākāriki, the Greens, I am inspired to recognise that we are getting closer to the days of festival, the days of merry Christmas, happy New Year, and Santa Claus. I have listened to a lot of speeches in this House, and I know that sometimes people get transformed as they get closer to Christmas, because the figments of imagination and fantasy bloom in all of us as we peruse a number of bills that come before this House. But I suggest that if the Green Party supports a 2050 close-off, then I do not think that many people will be around this House by that date—I certainly will not be here. I just wonder at their rationale, because quite frankly the majority of the Māori people in this country want to get this business over and done with.

Shane Jones: Āpōpō.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: Āpōpō—they want to get on with the action. “Bring it on!” They want to be able to see a cut-off date, put their claims in, do their research, and get on with the job. They do not want all this, ehara kau rātou, te iwi Māori, e hiahia ana kia tārewa tonu tēnei kaupapa.

[they, the Māori people, do not want this matter left unsettled.]

They do not want to see this hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives, especially to 2050. Then in 2050 there will be some crazy somebody from some crazy party who will say that 2050 is not good enough, so let us move it to 2100. Well, it would just go on and on and on—

Shane Jones: Good idea!

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: It is nice for the whanaunga to say good one—kei te pai. Most of us will probably be in the mortuary by then but, anyway, no worries.

I come back to some of the bills that have come before this House just before Christmas. I know that we all have good feeling for each other—some more than others—but when we look at this bill we see there is a lot of rational thought behind it, and I support the submission of my whanaunga, Pita Paraone. It just makes common sense. Let us get on with it.

I know that National has said that it supports the date of 2008 as the date of introduction. National said that it was its policy to begin with. We can have another kōrero about that later on, but as I said earlier on, Christmas brings some funny things, and perhaps people forget their own policy. But this is the date that has been mooted by the Labour Party since I was a young fella.

I congratulate the Minister of Māori Affairs on bringing this bill, and specifically this provision, before the Committee. I wish him well. Some of the things that are raised in this Committee in terms of time frames really amaze me. I come back to what I said—perhaps it is because we are getting towards Christmas time. Maybe one day we will see the Minister of Māori Affairs coming down the chimney, delivering some presents. I know that he is keen to do that; he is keen to put on the red suit, come down the chimney, and fill the tōkenas with good kohas. So in terms of the debate I have heard a lot of funny things as we get closer to Christmas, but I think that the submissions made by the Green Party actually take the cake.

I support the bill, and I believe that the majority of the people in this country, and the majority of Māori people, want to get on with the business, put their submissions and applications in by 2008, do the research, and get on and settle the claims.

No reira kei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Meri Kirihimete ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.

[So I greet you all. Merry Christmas, and good health to one and all.]

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā tātou katoa. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero ki a tātou a Māori nei, māmā noa iho te kōrero mō te anga whakamua, ko te whakatinanatanga koi nā te uauatanga. Ko tā te ao Māori e kimi nei ko tētahi huarahi kia ea ai ngā uauatanga e pā ana ki ngā kerēme, ko te whakatinanatanga koi nā te mahi uaua. Ko te nuinga o te kāinga me kī, me kōrero au mō te Waiariki, kei te whakahē ki tēnei wāhanga. E te Minita, koi nei te tikanga o te noho whakahirahira o tēnei wāhanga o te pire. Ko te nuimga o tērā hunga, he kaikerēme. Koi nei mātou e kī nei, me ūkui katoa i tēnei wāhanga o te pire. Katoa.

E pēnei ana te kōrero, ko te wāhanga 16 o te pire kei reira tētahi whakamārama mō tēnei mea mō te “historical Treaty claim”. Ā, me kī ko ngā nawe, ko ngā pēhitanga i mua tonu o te 21 o Hepetema, te tau 1992. Ko tā mātou e kī nei o te Pāti Māori, āe, kātahi anō tēnei kōrero o te “historical Treaty claim” ka puta mai, engari kei te rongo i te kōrero o Georgina te Heuheu. Nā, ko tēnei wāhanga o te pire, kā tīni haere tērā wāhanga . Ka mutu, ka whakatahangia ko ngā mea ō nehe ki tētahi wāhanga. Ko te mea nui kia whakatau i ngā kerēme katoa. Koi nei tā mātou e hiahia nei. Engari, mēnā ka whai tēnei huarahi, kua pahū ake ētahi kerēme anō o tēnei ao.

Ko te mate kē, kāore tēnei kāwanatanga i haere ki te mata o te whenua ki te pātai i ngā iwi, pēhea ō rātou whakaaro mō tēnei pire. Ahakoa kua tata eke ki te rua tekau tau o te kirimana i waenganui a ngāi Māori kia haere te kāwanatanga ki te iwi Māori ki reira kōrero ai. Nā, ehara tēnei i ngā mātāpono o te Tiriti o Waitangi, arā, ko te “partnership”, ko te “participation”, otirā, ko te wānanga i ngā take e pā ana ki a ngāi tātou. Me kī, ko te wānanga i ngā take mō te painga o te katoa.

E te Kaikōrero, ko taku hoa a tākuta Pita Sharples i ngana ki te kōrero ki te akiaki i te Komiti Whāiti Māori nei ki te poro i tēnei wāhanga o te pire—otirā, kia waiho ki te taha pea kia mutu rā anō te kōrero ki te ao Māori—engari huare ake. Me kī, kai te pātai te Pāti Māori me ūkui tēnei wāhanga o te pire kai roto i ngā kōrero i runga i te tēpu.

Kō tētahi uauatanga o tētahi kōrero o roto o te pire ko tēnei kupu ko te “submit”. Ko te “submit” e kōrerohia ake nei, ko te pepa kotahi? Āe rānei, he pepa kotahi, āe rānei e rua ngā pepa, āe rānei he ripoata? He pātai nui tērā. Ko taku e kī nei, āe, kai te kī mai te mema anō hoki, te tikanga, mā tēnei pire e taea ai e te kāwanatanga te whakariterite i ngā huarahi hei whai a ngā tau kei mua i te aroaro. Ka puta mai te kōrero a te mema o Nāhinara, a Georgina te Heuheu kai te kī mai a ia, ko te nuinga kai te mohiotia e te motu. Ko tāku e kī nei, nōhea tēnā kōrero, nāwai tērā i kī? Ko tā mātou o te Pāti Māori e kī nei, kua mutu kē tērā. Kua kōrerohia kētia, ko te 1.3 piriona taara tāku e kōrero nei, kua oti kē tērā. Ko ngā kaupapa here o te Office of Treaty Settlements, kua oti kē tērā. Ko te wāhanga ki tēnā iwi, ki tēnā iwi, ki tēnā iwi, kua oti kē tērā.

Nō reira, ko tāku ki tērā wāhanga o tērā kōrero. Nō reira, ko tā mātou e kī nei, āe, me anga whakamua engari me whakatikatika i ēnei wāhanga. Ko tāku e kī nei hei kōrero whakamutunga, me poro i tēnei wāhanga, me tīmata mai anō i te tīmatanga. Me hoki ki te iwi, ki reira kōrero ai. Kia ora tātau.

Nō reira, ko tāku ki tērā wāhanga o tērā kōrero. Nō reira, ko tā mātou e kī nei, āe, me anga whakamua engari me whakatikatika i ēnei wāhanga. Ko tāku e kī nei hei kōrero whakamutunga, me poro i tēnei wāhanga, me tīmata mai anō i te tīmatanga. Me hoki ki te iwi, ki reira kōrero ai. Kia ora tātau.

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

[Greetings to us all. I need to stress to us Māori members that it is easy to talk about going forward, but the difficulty is implementing it. What Māoridom is seeking is a way of overcoming the difficulties relating to the claims. Implementing it is the real difficulty. Most claimants who made submissions opposed this part of the bill. That is why this part of the bill is so important. Most of that number were claimants. The majority from home, from the Waiariki electorate that I represent, oppose this part. That is why we say that this part of the bill must be done away with—all of it.

Contained in clause 16 of the bill is a definition of “historical Treaty claim”—that is, grievances and breaches prior to 21 September1992. We of the Māori Party say that this reference to a historical claim has only just emerged, but we note Georgina te Heuheu’s statement about it. This part of the bill will eventually change. In the end, claims from the past will be put to one side in another category. The most important thing is that all claims are settled. This is what we desire. But if we were to follow this pathway, a whole lot of other claims relating to this era would emerge forcefully.

The real problem is that this Government did not go to the people throughout the land to seek their views about this bill. There has been an agreement for nearly 20 years among Māori for the Government to go the Māori people to consult with them. This is not according to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—partnership, participation, discussion with us, and so on; let us say, discussion of matters that will benefit all.

My colleague Dr Pita Sharples urged and prompted the Māori Affairs Committee to do away with this part of the bill—indeed, put it to one side, perhaps, until consultation with Māoridom has been finally undertaken—but to no avail. The Māori Party is asking to have this part removed from the bill that has been tabled.

Another difficulty we have relates to the wording in the bill for “submit”. Is the “submit” mentioned here a single paper, a two-page one, or a report? That is an important question. The National member Georgina te Heuheu has stated that most of it is known widely throughout the country. Where did that talk come from, and who said it? The member also tells us that this bill will enable the Government to arrange procedures for others to follow in the future. But we of the Māori Party say that that has been done now. It has already been discussed. The $1.3 million is what I am talking about here. That is finished. The policies of the Office of Treaty Settlements, that has been done. Participation by that tribe and the other tribe, that is completed, finished.

So that is my view on that part of the debate. Therefore, what we are saying is this: yes, let us go forward, but let us tidy up these parts as well. My closing statement is this: let us chop out this part; let us go back and start again. Let us go back to the people, and promote dialogue there. Greetings to us all.]

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I move, That the question be now put.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Kia ora tātau katoa e kōrerotia nei ngā kōrero mō te kaupapa nei.

[Greetings to us all debating this matter.]

I very rarely agree with my whanaunga from Matauri, but I would like to stand here tonight and record for Hansard my support for his recommendation that the closing-off date for Treaty settlements be 2100. Me mihi atu ki a koe, Dover, e whakatakoto i tērā kōrero roto i te Whare nei.

[I salute you, Dover, for making that statement in this Chamber.]

But on a more serious note, I come back to a general question, which I address to all Māori in this Chamber. It is a simple question: do they believe—and I ask them to raise their hands if they do—that their tūpuna thought there would be a deadline for Treaty settlements? What I thought would be the case is so; none of us believes that our tūpuna thought that. Let the record show that neither the Minister of Māori Affairs nor any other Labour Party Māori MP put up a hand. Neither did the translators, the officials, nor anybody else in this Chamber. So while we are here talking about a closing-off date for Treaty settlements, no Māori in this Chamber believes that any of their tūpuna thought there should be one.

That being the case, I ask myself what the rush is. The Treaty was never meant to have a deadline, although if it is to have a cut-off date then I do support the Green Party spokesperson’s suggestion that it be 2050 because, if the statistics are right, by 2050 we will be halfway there, and when that bill comes up in 2050, it will be out the back door as quick as look at you. So kia kaha rātou te moe tahi, te hanga i te iwi, kia pai te āhua o tēnei Whare.

[I encourage them to wed each other and to create a race that will enhance this Parliament.]

The Treaty was not about a deadline. There was no end date. Our tūpuna had no expectation that there would be an end to their claims to rangatiratanga, an end to their rangatiratanga runga i wā rātou whenua, ngahere, moana me wēnā atu o ngā taonga o Te Ao Māori.

[self-determination over their lands, forests, waterways and those other treasures of Māoridom.]

There was no expectation by Parekura’s ancestors—or Dover’s, Dave’s, Clem’s, Pita’s, Metiria’s, Georgina’s, Te Ururoa’s, or mine—that their rangatiratanga would come to a end on any particular date. I know this to be true, as do all of the other Māori in this Whare. If Governor Hobson had said: “You can have your rangatiratanga but on a certain date it’s all going to come to an end.”, then how many people would have signed the Treaty? It would have been the same number of people as the number who put up their hands in the Chamber tonight—none.

The Treaty is about our management of our resources, both Pākehā and Māori. The Treaty talks about dispute resolution, about rights of citizenship, and about governance. It does not talk about an end date for any one of those things.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Nobody knew it was going to be broken.

HONE HARAWIRA: The fact that it was broken is even more reason for it never to be ended. We need to fight to have it validated, and if that fight should go on forever, then it will go on forever.

If there is to be an end date, then let that end date be for compensation claims, not settlement claims. It should be for claims of compensation only. I referred back to the historical claims that have been settled to date, and found that in every case the Crown never offered more than 3 percent of the value of any one of those claims. And in respect of every one of those claims the Crown never settled for more than 2.8 percent of those claims. Even to assume that we as Māori in this Parliament could accept that historical claims should be settled by 2008 is to assume that our tūpuna would want us to give that away, that our tūpuna would accept that we could give away our children’s and our grandchildren’s rights to the resources—what little they are—we ourselves enjoy today.

I welcome Georgina te Heuheu back to her post. It is good to see her back there, on behalf of the National Party.

Like Metiria Turei, I also say that settlement in haste is settlement without justice, and rushing forward into 2008 will not resolve any of these issues. I do not know that Māori people think they have this big problem hanging over their heads and that they want it settled fast. Certainly, I think they want compensation, they want what is due, and they want it now. But that is not to say that they want their historical claims settled forever by 2008. I know absolutely that if the Māori members in this Parliament were to go traipsing around the country on a tour and were to put that case to Māori, the reply would be a resounding: “No, thanks!”. So let us not con ourselves in this Parliament that there is any expectation on behalf of Māori that 2008 comes even close to being a rational date for the settlement of claims.

The level of opposition in the submissions on the Māori Purposes Bill on this particular matter is huge—80 percent of submissions from Māori are opposed to the 2008 settlement date. I heard my whanaunga over there from Ngāti Hine talking about how the matter needs to be settled in order to move the nation forward, but we cannot move the nation forward if people have been stolen from. We cannot move forward with justice without settling justly—and a 3 percent settlement is not a just claim in anyone’s books. There is not a person in this Chamber who would accept a 3 percent settlement on just about anything—except in a tsunami.

I tell folks that we in this Parliament can do better—not just for Māori but for this nation—by realising that trying to force an early settlement of Treaty claims is simply denying reality, which is that Parekura Horomia’s children, along with my children and the grandchildren of all of us Māori in this House, will continue to actively fight for the settlement of their claims in their time. And the Māori Party stands here to serve notice to the rest of this Parliament that we will support them every step of the way.

Me mihi atu ki a tātou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Motion agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The first amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to Part 2, to omit this part, is out of order as it is a direct negation of the question that Part 2 stand part. The proper course of action is to vote against the part.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 16 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 16 be agreed to:

to omit the expression “21 September 1992”, and substitute the expression “1 January 1841”.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 18 be agreed to:

to omit new section 6AA.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 18(1) be agreed to:

to omit the expression “1 September 2008”, and substitute the expression “1 September 2050”.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 18(2) be agreed to:

to omit the expression “1 September 2008”, and substitute the expression “1 September 2050”.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Maori Fisheries Act 2004

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): In respect of Part 4 I would like to raise a generic issue about the settlement of claims, whether relating to aquaculture or otherwise, and I would like to raise a point that was brought up with me by one of my whanaunga from Te Tai Tokerau, where many wise people come from. He said to me that one of the reasons we should be opposing the Treaty claims settlement process, be it in relation to aquaculture or otherwise, is that—

Hon David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member, but can you clarify for the benefit of the Committee the position concerning a member who is speaking from a chair other than one allocated to the party he belongs to. Is that appropriate, even in the Committee stage?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member should be speaking from his own chair, please. We will give him plenty of time to get over there.

HONE HARAWIRA: I thank Mr Benson-Pope for his assistance. I just wanted to point out an issue that was raised with me in respect of aquaculture claims settlements and claims settlements generally. The point raised with me, and I have since had it clarified with some of the officials myself, is that one of the concerns Māori should have in respect of these settlements is that once the Treaty settlement process is considerably through—that is, 50 percent is good enough—the Crown will then be able to signal to the World Bank and to the International Monetary Fund that this place no longer has encumbrances on the kind of rape and pillage brigade that goes into countries for the singular purpose of amassing wealth and securing the resources of indigenous people.

I wanted to raise that here and put it on the record as a concern of the Māori Party that, be it in respect of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act of 2004, or be it in respect of the Treaty claims settlement process, there is a desperate need for Māori to oppose an end date to the claim processes, in order to ensure that those encumbrances remain for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Once those encumbrances are removed, the country becomes open to attacks by, and the invasion of, big money corporates from overseas, who will have no respect for the rights of not only Māori in this country but Pākehā as well. Koi nā noa taku kōrero mō tēnei pō.

[That is my contribution for tonight.]

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You ruled against the previous speaker speaking from another desk. But under Speakers’ ruling 45/6 it is quite clear that a speaker can speak from any desk that he or she likes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for that. I think it is from any desk in the group of seats allocated to the party.

LINDSAY TISCH: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Speakers’ ruling 45/6 states: “(1) There is no limitation on where members may address the Chair from. Members may use their own desk or another member’s; (2) or come to the Table if they want to.” That implies to me that the previous speaker could have spoken from wherever he wished to speak from.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The issue was raised by Mr David Benson-Pope. He was wrong, and I ruled wrongly. So I apologise to Mr Hone Harawira, but I do think he looks more comfortable with Mr Te Ururoa Flavell.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Part 4 agreed to.

Clause 1 Title

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): I move, That the Committee divide the bill into Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill / Maori Land Amendment Bill, the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill, the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 80.

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

Ayes 107

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 46; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Motion agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Enabling use of emergency powers

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): The Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill is complex legislation, and it has been quite difficult for colleagues to navigate their way through the bill to put in place something that is meaningful and pragmatic. I say it is complex legislation because it is part crystal-ball gazing—“what if” scenario planning—and part pragmatism and plain old common sense.

I did not have the opportunity to take a call on the second reading, so I want to take a moment or two to commend my colleagues on the Government Administration Committee for the constructive way in which they worked on putting this bill back before the House. Can I also recognise the officials, three of whom have just come into the Chamber, for the quality of their advice. They demonstrated that not only were they good at speaking, but also they were extremely good at listening and going away and considering the committee’s concerns. To the officials I extend our gratitude. I extend gratitude also to the Regulations Review Committee for its advice when we referred to that body, and also to Sir Geoffrey Palmer and his team for the quality of the advice that he provided in trying to overcome an issue that had brought us to an impasse. His advice and that of his team was quite expert.

I turn specifically to the bill. The question posed is why we need an epidemic preparedness bill. The answer, of course, is that it is simply prudent to plan. It is no secret that we live in fear of avian flu—an issue that I am sure goes through our conscious or subconscious mind regularly when we travel. When we hear of outbreaks of this overseas we are concerned about not if, but when it might arrive in New Zealand. Without being alarmist, when we look at some of the worst-case scenarios, we see that if we do have a pandemic that we cannot counter, it is possible that up to a quarter and possibly a third of our population might be infected or could, in fact, vanish. If we look at the example of the 1918 flu, we see that is in fact what happened. Approximately a quarter of the adult population was struck down. It was not just the elderly or the very young who were vulnerable, but, significantly, in that episode it was young men who, for some reason, were more affected.

I do not for a moment want to leave the Committee with a view that this is imminent, but as I have said it is certainly prudent to plan. It is also prudent to point out to those in the Chamber that if we look at avian flu specifically, we see that it has not yet been transmitted human to human, but we do not want to rest on our laurels.

I now turn specifically to clause 5 as it was introduced, which empowered the Prime Minister to issue a notice in the Gazette, on the written recommendation from the Director-General of Health, declaring that he or she was satisfied that the effects of an outbreak of an infectious disease are likely to disrupt or continue to disrupt the essential Government and business activity of New Zealand. After considering that issue in some detail, the committee recommended a number of changes to this provision.

The first of these is that we recommend an amendment to clause 5 to allow the epidemic notice to be issued by the Prime Minister, with the agreement of the Minister of Health, on the written recommendation of the Director-General of Health. That is a very important recommendation, because essentially we are saying that we want to ensure that another Minister is involved in the decision-making process, and this would reflect the accountability of the director-general in the decision as to whether to issue an epidemic notice. The second issue of note is a recommendation including a provision ensuring that, in addition to notifying the epidemic notice in the Gazette, the Prime Minister is required to notify the House of Representatives as soon as is practically possible that an epidemic notice has been issued or extended. These matters may seem dry, but they go to the heart of executive accountability. So those two recommendations are made.

Another issue of note is about quarantinable diseases. The committee proposed that the term “infectious” disease be changed to “quarantinable” disease, as listed in new Part 3 of schedule 1 of the Health Act 1956. This includes avian flu, plague, and yellow fever among quarantinable diseases. This clause responds to the concern raised about the possible application of this provision to any infectious disease. The issue of depriving people of their liberty—that is, quarantining them—is one of those things where we, as lawmakers, have to balance up between individual liberty and the safekeeping of the community at large. It is an issue that exercised a lot of the committee’s time, and again it is an issue of some importance. I point out that it is only highly infectious diseases that will now come into that category.

Another issue of importance, which I want to take a little time to examine, is prospective modification orders. These prospective orders would come into force only once an epidemic notice was in progress, and a clause 5 epidemic notice was declared by the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Minister of Health. Prospective modification orders, or orders in advance, are sensible, prudent planning mechanisms. It is just another means of forward planning. The view of the committee was that once a pandemic strikes, it would clearly be too late to try to plan retrospectively. It would also make it very clear what stakeholders were required to do if a pandemic struck, and therefore, in our view, this would improve compliance. That is a very important issue. Despite our planning, not every contingency will be foreseen, and therefore immediate modification orders may well be necessary.

I want to draw out this distinction for members of the Committee. Advance orders, as the name suggests, are where we can plan in advance, and through the due process of parliamentary oversight we can make those legislative changes, but during a pandemic, an outbreak, when the country is in crisis, it may be necessary to make decisions on the run. The commentary, under the title “Immediate modification orders made during an epidemic”, sets out the procedure for immediate modification orders. I have to say that this is one of those issues that exercised the grey matter of the select committee. What we were planning for here was the possibility of decisions being made without parliamentary oversight. It goes right to the heart of the role of the House of Representatives. Our view, finally, was that it was a last resort. A pandemic would have to be raging before this took place.

Having said that, it still bothered me that the House of Representatives was not going to be involved, and that is why this issue, as I have already pointed out, is quite difficult and complex. In order to attempt to overcome this issue, the select committee in its report back to the House wrote, under the heading “Parliamentary scrutiny of immediate modification Orders in Council”, a proposed solution: “We recommend a more expedient scrutiny process to disallow these regulations by way of a disallowance resolution on a notice of motion of any member of the House within six sitting days of the immediate modification orders being made.” We think that is something the Committee needs to consider. The report then stated: “The House should be able to debate the notice the day after it is lodged; and, to ensure it is debated, the motion should have priority on the House Order Paper so that it is dealt with within the 6 sitting days. We note that Standing Orders will need to be amended for this purpose, and we will write to the Standing Orders Committee to recommend that this be done.” I will recanvass that very quickly, if I may.

We are saying that orders made on the fly under difficult circumstances, when a pandemic is raging, may not have the scrutiny of the House of Representatives. In order to overcome that issue it is suggested that, as soon as practicably possible, under the disallowance regulations the issue can be dealt with. That is something we would like the Minister in the chair, Pete Hodgson, to take note of.

One last issue, if time permits, relates to summoning Parliament or recalling the House during an epidemic. It is possible that the House will not be able to be recalled, and the committee suggests a solution in the commentary. We state: “We believe that it should be the Speaker who makes this decision on the advice of the Director-General of Health. We believe that the mechanism providing for a decision to defer a sitting of the House should not be a legislative matter, and would be best left to the House’s own rules.”

I conclude by saying that the bill is complex. It canvasses a whole host of difficult issues. I believe that the select committee, working in a very constructive way, has done its best to put before the Committee a workable bill. I would not be surprised if, in the unfortunate situation that this bill gets tested, we find things that have not been dealt with and that we will have to revisit. But with the best will in the world by the parties—and I mean that; I think it has been with the best will in the world—this is the best legislation we can put before the Committee for consideration at this point in time.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill. I ask members to forgive me if I repeat some of the things my colleague Brian Connell has said in terms of what is in Part 1. I think it is important to do so because, as my colleague has said, this is an important bill that the Government Administration Committee has worked hard on, and we need to understand what it is we have all agreed to.

Several members talked at the second reading last night of how an epidemic caused by either avian flu or another infectious disease has the potential for enormous economic and social consequences. Labour’s whole-of-Government planning is well advanced, and this bill provides for the legislative nuts and bolts needed should we be confronted with an awful emergency of this type.

Some commentators have suggested that an H5N1 pandemic could be similar to the most serious influenza pandemic on our record, the 1918 Spanish flu. Clearly, that is on our minds, because many people have spoken about it. It spread around the world in a year, killing millions. It hit New Zealand in 1918 and killed 8,600 people, including 2,160 Māori. The Government had to close schools, theatres, and hotels, and many businesses were closed because of staff illness, leading to shortages of basic supplies. Schools and halls were turned into makeshift hospitals, as the virus spread very quickly. Sometimes people died within a day of their symptoms first appearing. Today, we can only imagine what that might be like.

An Epidemic Commission was set up in 1919 to investigate the cause and course of the epidemic. This led to major reforms of the health system, including the passing of the Health Act 1920. As we know, that Act was updated in 1956, and today we are considering modern, relevant, and vital legislation that will leave the country better prepared than it was in previous epidemics. It will also enable the Crown to provide a proper response should there be a human outbreak of avian disease or a similar disease capable of becoming an epidemic.

Part 1 enables the use of emergency powers. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that there is adequate statutory power for Government agencies, firstly, to try to prevent the outbreak of an epidemic in New Zealand; secondly, to respond to an epidemic in New Zealand; and, thirdly, to respond to certain possible consequences of an epidemic, whether here or overseas. The trigger mechanism includes the added protection of a requirement for the Prime Minister to have the agreement of the Minister of Health, and the written recommendation of the Director-General of Health. That also ensures added accountability. As my colleague has mentioned, the description “infectious” disease, in clause 5, has been changed to “quarantinable” disease, which includes those listed in Part 3 of schedule 1 of the Health Act. Those diseases are dreadful things like cholera, plague, and yellow fever, as well as bird flu.

The select committee recommends substantial amendments in clauses 7B to 9 to include modifications through Orders in Council in advance of any epidemic, and modifications while an epidemic notice is in force. The making of prospective modification orders will ensure proper scrutiny through the Regulations Review Committee and the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989. It will also enable health authorities and others to learn in advance what they are expected to do before an epidemic comes. Prospective orders would come into force only once an epidemic notice had been declared and the epidemic was in progress. Under clauses 9A to 9H, immediate modification orders will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by way of any member of the House giving a notice of motion to disallow them. As the Minister of Health mentioned last night, it is intended to amend the Standing Orders to make the disallowance motion debatable and to give it priority on the Order Paper.

Clause 9I enables judges to modify the rules of court during an epidemic in the interests of justice, so as to take into account the effects of the quarantinable disease, but certain common law doctrines are not affected—that is mentioned in clause 9J. Finally, clause 9K requires that where people’s rights, remedies, courses of action, or legal situations under an enactment are affected by a modification order, they must be told of their modified rights.

The members of the select committee spent a considerable amount of time working on the amendments to Part 1, and we appreciated the advice of the Law Commission and the officials so as to get a reasonable balance between the emergency powers, which can be quite draconian, and ensuring accountability through parliamentary scrutiny.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to Part 1 of the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill. I thank the Government Administration Committee for graciously including me in its proceedings. I was serving on two committees on the same day for much of the deliberations on this bill, and it was a bit of a juggling act, but I appreciate being included and having the opportunity to speak to this bill, which I have had a bit of an interest in. I also thank the officials for their patience, because this was a very tricky consideration. We are talking about rather enormous powers under very, very difficult circumstances, and at this stage we cannot anticipate the full impact of those circumstances.

This issue is really interesting. What alerted my interest in it, and why I asked for the opportunity to sit without voting rights on the committee, was a briefing I was given by the Ministry of Health some time ago. The joke at the time was that bird flu was Y2K with feathers on. We take a risk in underestimating the importance of doing some pre-planning on this matter. Certainly, the facts are that a pandemic is different from any other type of flu that we may be familiar with. It is not seasonal; it can come at any time. It may impact on any age group, and it is often difficult to predict which group will be the most seriously affected. If we look at the 1918 Spanish flu, we find that young men, for instance, died in larger than expected numbers. Certainly, as has been mentioned by a previous speaker, Māori were badly hit by that pandemic at the time.

There is usually a very high rate of attack and a high rate of fatalities, and a pandemic often happens in a series of waves rather than as a one-off event. The thing I found most sobering was that when I was briefed by Ministry of Health officials, they talked very directly about the fact of not if this happens, but when. Statistically, there are several pandemics per century, and, apparently, we are overdue. Therefore, we must take this matter seriously.

I join with other members who have thanked Sir Geoffrey Palmer and his team for the work they have done. As we looked at the level of intervention that was possible—and suggested at the beginning of this bill—it was very helpful to get some very steadying advice from people like Sir Geoffrey. He talked about the fact that there will be two main types of regulations, one of which is heath. He rightly suggested that health regulations were likely to have the highest priority in terms of the type of work that can be done in advance—between now and whenever a pandemic may be called. These are advance modification orders.

There are other matters that the bill in its current state addresses, as we anticipate some of the consequences of such a crisis within New Zealand. Just this morning I was talking with the Hon Peter Dunne, who said that his revenue department was already beginning to realise the serious implications for revenue collecting within this country if a pandemic were to occur—if the numbers of people infected were large, and if it occurred over a sustained period of time—and how the department could respond to that. These are the kinds of whole-of-Government implications that cannot be understated.

The Law Commission did a report some years ago on emergency powers. The basic recommendation was that being specific in our pre-planning around legal matters is very important. We were told that there are something like 11,000 principal statutes in New Zealand law. The thought was that rather than trying to amend all of them, it would be important to anticipate areas—health is the particularly obvious one—where some action will need to be taken and where powers may need to be increased for the season of the pandemic. This would be the case in other areas such as immigration, for instance, where we can anticipate the need for border control.

It is important to remember that there are several things that planning for a pandemic involves. First of all, we will try and keep it out of New Zealand, and we need laws and powers to do that. Certainly, we want to keep the pandemic out as much as we can through border control. Once the pandemic is established we need to stamp it out, by whatever means we possibly can. We need to manage it, in terms of managing people who are ill. Obviously, the way we manage a pandemic is different from the way we manage any other health problem and crisis that we face. Finally, we need to recover from it. In the select committee we talked about the powers, and the fact that from the moment the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health declare a pandemic we then go through a series of waves of infection, during which time those powers will need to be implemented to try to maintain, control, and contain the pandemic as best we can.

Another set of powers may need to come in to deal with the consequences and the mop-up that will need to happen. We talked about the need to bring in tighter controls and, at the appropriate time, to relax them as we start to move out of pandemic mode and into recovery mode. It is one of those things that there is a lot of guesswork about, based on other experiences and historical accounts we have of pandemics. We need to understand that what we will be dealing with will be novel. It will not necessarily be like anything we have known to date. We will be dealing with people who are very sick and dying, and we are talking about something that will be easily transmitted between humans. Therefore, the kinds of social contacts that we enjoy will need to be restricted.

In my own mind I was thinking about several natural disasters that I have lived through in the area where I live—the Edgecumbe earthquake, floods, and things like that—where communities have rallied together and provided support for each other. It occurred to me that our natural tendency as human beings when we are in a crisis is to pull together. Yet this crisis would require the very opposite response, whereby people would need to remain isolated from each other, yet somehow provide support. So a pandemic would require a whole different set of skills and responses that are, at times, almost counter to what it means to be human and help other people. It would require people to respond in such a way as to avoid civil disobedience and all those kinds of things.

During the aftermath of the Edgecumbe earthquake, I remember being disturbed by the number of people who struggled to obey the most simple little rules that were put in place for public health reasons. For instance, we were not allowed to flush toilets until we knew whether our sewerage system had sustained damage, we were not allowed to use water excessively, and we were encouraged not to shower on a daily basis but to try to stretch that out. I could not believe the number of people who thought they could be the exception to the rule. They thought that it would not hurt if they flushed the toilet only a couple of times during the day, or they soaped up and jumped under the shower for only a minute; they thought that that would actually be all right. I was genuinely appalled.

Having lived through that experience, I understand that the types of constraints that need to be brought into place to contain something like a pandemic will not be easily complied with. People believe they are a law unto themselves in those situations, so sometimes when we talk about fairly Draconian powers we have to understand how those powers may genuinely need to be implemented in the middle of a crisis.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tātou i te Whare. I was listening on the radio today to some people talk about the whole pandemic issue. They were harking back to the flu epidemic of 1918. A guy was saying that Australia did better than us in terms of the fact that fewer people suffered there than here. The reason for that was that the Australian authorities knew about the epidemic early, they told their people about it early, and they set up blockades early. Because people knew early, they understood what was going on and reacted positively.

I mention that because I know that what Judy Turner was just talking about will absolutely be the case in this country. People will panic, and they will not listen. For some strange reason, we have the belief that as long as all the officials know, then it is OK. But it will not be the officials—the ambulance drivers, the police officers, the Fire Service officers, or the health department officials—who panic; it will be everybody else. It will be not just Māori; it will be Pākehā and everybody else. Panic will happen, because there is no comprehensive communications strategy to alert the nation to what may happen.

I take the point that we do not want to get into scaring everybody and panicking them too early, but there is no reason why we cannot be intelligently feeding them information about what may happen. Saatchi and Saatchi could be paid a decent sum of money to do a campaign that runs for a whole year, if necessary, so that by the time that year is over, the whole nation understands what it should do if a pandemic comes. But if a pandemic hits tomorrow, there will be rampant panic right throughout the country. In the far north, for example, where I live, nobody knows what is going on. I have just got off the phone after talking to a friend of mine who works for the police. She said that the council has had training, the police have had training, and the Fire Service has had training. That is fine, but when I asked her whether ordinary people knew what to do, she hesitated, then said “Well, no.” And that is the concern.

This Parliament needs to take control of the situation and ensure that a proper communications strategy is put in place. There is no point in having all the doctors, scientists, and everybody else understanding what the problem is. It is not even worth knowing about the waves of a flu epidemic. What we need to know is that the people understand what will happen. Judy raised exactly the point that in times of crisis, people naturally want to bond together. There is no public education as to how to bond together without people all getting together. There is no strategy out there to convince people to stay close to their phones. There is no strategy to teach people to use their computers to talk to one another when a pandemic goes down, so that they can remain in touch, and feel comfortably in touch, with their loved ones.

I know, for example, that if a pandemic hit now I would be on the first plane north, if I could be; if not, I would get a cab or a rental car, or I would steal a car—I would do whatever it took to get home. If somebody was to stop me on the road, I would just go around that person—I would not listen. There is no strategy to convince me that my family is all right. There is no communications plan that suggests to me that I should stay in Wellington because my family will be all right.

Of course, because people do not know what is going on—and they do not—and because they do not know what is going to happen, they will break the rules. I know that this issue concerns Māori particularly, because when the first person dies for whom a tangi will not be allowed, there will be chaos. Relations will come in from all over the place, to try to get that body. There will be chaos; there will be panic and violence. And I suggest that all that is required is a simple injection of funding to ensure that there is a decent communications strategy. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill. We must, like every other party, congratulate the Government Administration Committee on the great job it has done. It has been quite interesting to hear from other speakers that the memory of previous epidemics looms large in the minds of all of us here in this Chamber, particularly the flu epidemic at the end of World War I.

Fortunately for us or, perhaps, unfortunately—one can argue both sides of that argument—we have no real experience to draw on in this particular case, so of course the planning needs to be very thorough. Fortunately, the majority of us did not experience the Edgecumbe earthquake. It was very interesting to hear what happened there. But when we think back to the tsunami on Boxing Day 2 years ago, it was quite interesting for us to hear that some people actually went down to the beach to look at that wave of water approaching. Some people wanted to be part of it. The call to go to higher ground was basically ignored; people believed they would be safe.

In the case of a flu epidemic we would experience much the same problems here. We do not really know enough to be thoroughly organised, so we need legislation of this nature to be put in place early. We do not want to have to organise ourselves right at the time of a flu epidemic; we need to be organised prior to that point. It is very good that the select committee and officials have identified problem situations, particularly those regarding the summoning of Parliament or its recall during an epidemic.

In any situation such as this, power is required by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and, obviously, the Director-General of Health to put this plan into place. We know that we may need to delay the sitting of the House of Parliament. I was quite interested to read in the commentary that there is currently no mechanism to do so when the House is adjourned, or to delay Parliament’s summoning beyond the 6-week deadline after the return of the writ.

Another issue to be considered was where the House should meet, because obviously travel will be very challenging. We have heard from previous speakers that taxis, air flights, trains—any way to get home—will be the priority. It will be very difficult to return to Wellington to meet in the one location.

So we believe that Part 1 is as thorough as it can be at this particular point in time. New Zealand First supports this part.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to existing enactments

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Part 2 does not need an awful lot of debate, but it seems that because there is a Supplementary Order Paper coming at the end of it, I should make a few remarks. The Supplementary Order Paper makes minor changes to the very good work done by the Government Administration Committee, and I take the opportunity to thank the select committee again for its work on what has been a difficult piece of legislation, and to acknowledge the work of the Law Commission, and in particular of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, in dealing with some of the difficult constitutional matters.

I also acknowledge, as they are in the Chamber, the work of a huge number of officials, especially in the calendar year 2005 and the first half of 2006 as we got this plan together, and indeed the work of people from all around the hospital sector and other sectors in this country who have put together what is probably the best pandemic plan in the Western World—if not the best, then one of the best.

I say to my colleague from Kaitāia that, yes, I am sure that a lot of people do not know what to do, but one thing he can do when he goes home this weekend is, first, make sure that in his house he has a bag of rice, some water, and some Panadol—and, in case it is not a pandemic but actually an earthquake—some batteries, and so on. Then he should ring again the person he was talking to, and invite her to do the same thing. These are basic things we can all do, and they are a start. I commend this legislation.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): National has supported this bill right through. I acknowledge the Minister’s comments on the Government Administration Committee, and on the work that officials put in. National had a major input into this bill, with Shane Ardern being the chairperson of the select committee, and Brian Connell and Sandra Goudie making contributions. National has supported this bill right through. It is important legislation, and it is very interesting that the whole Committee is supporting it tonight.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 82 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Epidemic Preparedness Bill, the Health Amendment Bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), the Parole Amendment Bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2), the Social Security Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 2), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 81.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Māori Purposes Bill without amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into five bills; and the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill with amendment, and that the Committee had divided it into seven bills.

Report adopted.

Bills

Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 5 December.

NATHAN GUY (National): In concluding my call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, I would like to draw the House’s attention to part of the explanatory note, and to also talk about the compliance costs around this amendment bill, because I believe that that is the crux of this whole bill. The bill will end up before the Primary Production Committee, and I think it will be critical for that committee to drill down into some of these compliance costs.

The concern I have is the duplication around the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. When Minister Damien O’Connor said in the House last night that there would be no increase in compliance costs, it was interesting to hear the Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, say: “Yeah, right!”, like the Tui billboard. But the important thing to realise, which is stated in the explanatory note, is: “It is not possible to estimate the monetary value of compliance costs associated with the proposed regulatory changes.” I think that that is an important issue. In particular, for those businesses that will be transporting some of these products up and down the country, there will be added costs in consultation and in filling out forms. It is interesting that it will cost $85 to have those registered to each individual person, and that there will be a cost of $85 per hour.

So National is supporting this bill to go to the select committee, but we have some concerns, particularly around compliance costs. I believe that that is where it will be extremely important for the select committee to iron those costs out and try to get a handle on exactly how much they will be. The important thing is that the people paying the costs will be the likes of farmers in New Zealand, the grassroots people. Vegfed and the wine industry will also pick up any increasing costs around this amendment bill. So National is supporting the bill to go to the select committee, but we do have some concerns.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.