Tuesday, 27 March 2007

Tuesday, 27 March 2007

Tuesday, 27 March 2007

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Bills

Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill

Procedure

Madam SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Minister of Women’s Affairs informing me that the Government, with the agreement of the member in charge, has adopted the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill.

Points of Order

Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could inquire, through you, of the Government whether the Deputy Prime Minister or other Ministers intend to make a statement to the House regarding the events that occurred last evening, when a Chinese newspaper journalist was manhandled within the precincts of this parliamentary complex.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not really a point of order.

House—Procedures

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I need to ask you some questions that relate to the procedures of the House. I ask you to turn your attention to the current Order Paper, which has some 13 Government items on it. We note that the Opposition, by and large, supports about seven of those, and that five cannot be progressed because of coalition difficulties, which makes the Order Paper, in fact, very, very short indeed. I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether you could tell us whether it would be possible for the Government to use Standing Order 72 to suspend a large part of the Order Paper next week, in order to progress to the next item of business—which conveniently happens to be the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. That would give the House enough time to pass that bill—and would therefore take away all the difficulties that the current Government has in holding its numbers together on that bill—before Easter.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): That is a novel idea; I thank the member for his suggestion. But in order to do that—and the member will note that I have already added an item to the Order Paper, as the Speaker outlined just this afternoon—one would have to move sequentially that each of the bills come after member’s order of the day No. 1, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Of course, the numbers would have to be available for those motions to be put, as well. I am sure the member has thought that through. I am flattered by his suggestion to the media that for the last year I have managed the House’s business so rapidly entirely in order to prepare for the Crimes (Substitution of Section 59) Amendment Bill next Wednesday, but I must admit that my degree of perspicacity is not as large nor as long-range as that.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a new point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: Have you? Then, does Gerry Brownlee want to speak further to the point of order he raised?

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Yes, Madam Speaker. I, in fact, asked you to consider whether such a move was possible. Although Michael Cullen may claim he has not thought of it, I doubt that. I note that although the Government would claim that it has plenty on the Order Paper, that raises the question of why on earth the House will spend time today in discussing such a self-congratulatory motion as that in Government notice of motion No. 1 on the Order Paper, and also why the Government is so bereft of ideas that it has to go to the likes of Lynne Pillay in order to fill out the Order Paper.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I thank the member for raising this issue earlier on. Of course, debating Government notice of motion No. 1 will give us a chance to find out whether National has done another massive flip-flop, or whether it still opposes lifting 70 percent of the New Zealand kids who are below the poverty line out of poverty.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member who raised the point of order knows, Speakers do not rule on hypothetical questions relating to the Standing Orders. However, I would note that the Standing Orders can always be suspended under Standing Order 4.

Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you reassure the House that no accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery will be impeded for political reasons from covering events in Parliament that have been announced as being open to the media? I think it is important that there is a ruling on that matter, because there is on tape a comment by a member of the police, in these precincts, saying that the Chinese officials told him that they will cancel the ceremony if Mr Nick Wang, an accredited member of the press gallery, remains there to take photos of the event. That is clearly political pressure from a foreign power on our Parliament, and it cannot be accepted.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. As I have already commented publicly, I am receiving reports on that matter and I will act on it when I have got them. I hope to do so very quickly.

Government Business—Procedure

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any indications from the Leader of the House as to when we might now expect to see on the Order Paper in the Government’s name the Fireworks Safety Bill from Marian Hobbs, or, for that matter, the Health and Safety in Employment (ILO Convention 155) Amendment Bill in the name of Sue Moroney?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): No, but I can promise the member fireworks every day he cares to turn up in the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I do not think that was a point of order.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Health, Minister—Confidence

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

John Key: Who is to be held to account for the bungling of a half-billion-dollar contract and putting essential health services at risk for 1.5 million New Zealanders—the boards that awarded the contract, despite an obvious conflict of interest; the Minister who appointed the leadership of those boards; or, as has always been the case previously under her Government, nobody?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The board is clearly responsible. I also point out that there was a clear conflict of interest. Notwithstanding that, Dr Paul Hutchison, National MP, asked the board to consider contracting him.

John Key: If the Prime Minister thinks that the boards are responsible, can she confirm whether she has confidence in the chairs and the various deputy chairs of the Auckland regional district health boards?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have declined to express that confidence until I see the outcome of this matter.

Hon Annette King: Did the Prime Minister hear the comments made by Dr Tony Bierre on Radio New Zealand this morning when he claimed that he had always disclosed his conflict of interest, even before he was elected to the Auckland District Health Board in October 2004, and has she seen any evidence that Dr Bierre told the voters of Auckland that he intended to pursue a contract for his company if he was elected?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Absolutely not. I believe that Dr Bierre’s behaviour was quite duplicitous. I note that his Citizens and Ratepayers colleague Dr Blue has described him as a very charming and intelligent individual and that a National MP actually advocated for him to get a contract from the board.

Judy Turner: Is it not true that knowledge of Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest was in the public arena long before the contract was awarded, and who does she hold accountable for the amount of time that went by with no effort made to address this?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Indeed, it is true that the member of the board Dr Bierre was asked to stand down in December 2005. I am told that when he was asked to stand down he said he would not do it until he took the advice of his good friend Dr Jackie Blue. He did stand down, it was in the public arena, and the board carried on.

Sue Kedgley: Does the Prime Minister have concerns that if the Auckland district health boards allow Labtests to re-tender for the Auckland laboratory contract, the message to public servants will be: “Conceal your conflict of interest, use your public position for private gain, and your company will not suffer.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: This contract was struck down by a court. That shows how serious the conflict of interest was. It was not serious enough to stop a National MP asking the board chair whether he would give a contract to Dr Bierre, but it was serious enough for a court to strike it down.

John Key: If the Prime Minister’s statement is that Dr Bierre’s conflict of interest was “very obvious”, why does she still have confidence in her Minister and in the members of the various Auckland district health boards when the facts of life were that it was blatantly obvious to everyone before the contract was even signed?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the member had listened to my earlier answer he would have heard me expressly decline to express confidence.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the letter that was written by Dr Bierre to Dr Hutchison on Friday, 24 June 2005 concludes with the sentence: “Your suggestion of a letter to Wayne Brown would be greatly appreciated.”, and does that throw any new light on the role of Dr Hutchison?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: We know that letter was written, and we know that as a result of receiving that letter Dr Hutchison wrote to Mr Wayne Brown and said: “Please consider giving my friend a contract.”

Sue Kedgley: How can the Prime Minister have confidence that the new lab tendering process will be fair, given the district health board’s record in turning a blind eye to an absolutely blatant conflict of interest?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The first matter to be addressed is to get services clearly contracted from 1 July, before the board looks at the longer-term issues.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister how she could have confidence that the new lab tendering process would be fair. I wonder whether she could address that question, given the blatant conflict of interest of the district health board.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: There are two issues here: the first is to secure services from 1 July; the second is for the board to take a longer-term look at how it deals with contracting for these services. Clearly, the process would have to be a lot better than that supported by National Party MPs in the past.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Brown’s assessment of his own performance last week that he had “done nothing wrong” and that he was “exceptionally successful”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Wayne Brown—who was first appointed to many positions by a National Government—has been a successful chair of many bodies. The matter now is to look at why the board proceeded to offer this contract, knowing what it did about the conflict of interest.

Hon Pete Hodgson: How does she explain Dr Bierre’s press statement made last Thursday evening: “At no time did I mislead the board …”, with the finding in paragraph 330 from the judge that “Dr Bierre’s actions breached two statutes.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I personally find the court’s finding compelling. I do not think there can be any defence of Dr Bierre’s actions. The only people who have defended them are two National Party MPs.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the country is rapidly starting to see her as a commentator who is surprised and shocked at every issue that goes on, but unlike a Prime Minister she does not take responsibility for anything whether it is Auckland health, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, or the Department of Corrections?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I get concerned when someone described as a very charming and intelligent friend of a National Party member gets awarded a contract like this. That is why the matter needs to be looked at.

Peter Brown: Is the Prime Minister in a position to give the House an assurance that no matter what the final contractual arrangements for lab tests in Auckland become, the dedicated staff who currently work at Diagnostic Medlab will be treated with the respect they deserve and not told by anybody, privately or publicly, that if they do not like the arrangements they can go drive a taxi, and if she can give that assurance how is she going to achieve that with the current bully-boy chairman in charge of the Auckland District Health Board?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What anyone would conclude from looking at that court judgment is that those who come forward to tender for contracts for services must be on a level playing field. End of story!

Hon Annette King: Has she seen the judge’s comments that Dr Bierre had “limited concern about conflict of interest that he demonstrated throughout”, and does she agree with the judge that Dr Bierre was asked to stand down rather than doing so voluntarily, as he continues to claim?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Absolutely, and he was asked to stand down. Of course, he needed advice from Dr Jackie Blue before he did that, but eventually he went.

John Key: When did the Prime Minister first learn that there could be a potential conflict of interest in respect of Dr Bierre, and what did she do about it—did she ask the Minister, did she ask anyone on the board, or did she just come back from overseas and decide to wing it again with another commentary piece?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think that “winging it” would be a good description of the member’s own behaviour last week, quite frankly.

John Key: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister a very serious question about when she found out. It was quite clear in the newspapers for months beforehand that there was a potential conflict of interest. There were many, many articles written on the issue. The Prime Minister must have known prior to that. If she is a dutiful, responsible Prime Minister, I am sure she will have asked her Minister to investigate. Maybe she can tell the House when she first had concerns.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can say that this dutiful and conscientious Prime Minister did read what was in the newspapers and did raise the matter with the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health reported back on the advice of the ministry, which has been the same all along—that it did not see a problem. I think we need to look at the quality of that advice.

John Key: If the Prime Minister did ask the Minister of Health and the Minister of Health said there were no issues, why was it totally obvious when she came back from overseas?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The development from the time I went away was a court judgment that struck down a contract of a National Party friend.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave—again—to table part of the ruling made by Justice Raynor Asher where he described a warning from me to Wayne Brown regarding a conflict of interest, as careful and clear.

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

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the full letter from Dr Hutchison. He continues to exclude the part that does not suit him, which shows that he was promoting his friend Dr Bierre.

Document not tabled.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister convinced, then, that the Minister of Health did a good enough job of actually looking into the conflict of interest, given that he must have known it was a very significant issue because a judicial review had been lodged, and did not some bells go off in the Prime Minister’s head that when a judicial review has been launched there may be a conflict of interest and therefore an issue to look into?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, of course, but the advice the Minister received was that it was not an issue. I might say that when a National Party member of Parliament writes letters, thinking it is not an issue, one is surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is now carrying on like this.

John Key: Why is the Minister of Health—[Interruption] Actually, I am not the one in the gun; that member is. [Interruption] Oh yes, the member is.

Madam SPEAKER: Would members please settle. Could the member ask his question, and then we will receive the reply.

John Key: Why is the Minister—[Interruption] That member could not even organise a decent stadium—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. We will hear the question in silence and we will hear the answer in silence. If anyone interrupts, that member will leave the Chamber.

John Key: If the Minister of Health gives such shonky advice to the Prime Minister or does not bother digging deep enough when a judicial review is ordered, and then the Prime Minister comes back and relies only on the judgment and does not do some investigative work beforehand, is she now surprised the people of New Zealand think that her Government is responsible, even if she does not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What the member will never get a chance to learn is that Ministers operate on advice. The advice was that there was not an issue—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I say to those members who interrupted that the question was heard in silence, and I wish them to leave the Chamber. I said that the question was to be heard in silence, as is the answer. Please leave the Chamber.

Hon Bill English withdrew from the Chamber.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

Simon Power withdrew from the Chamber.

Madam SPEAKER: Mr Key, you can stay until we hear the answer as you asked the question.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I gave an answer. It is a little impossible to remember, in the turmoil that followed, what the question was and what then followed.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Throughout the exchange covering that question there was a lot of banter from both sides of the House. Very, very provocative statements were made by the Minister Trevor Mallard, which did bring some rebuke from you, but not a mention of his name, nor an expulsion from the House. You made a request, and a large number of National Party members accepted that they were outside your ruling and left the Chamber, but I note that a number of those members have questions on the Order Paper today. It would be unfortunate, I think, if the Government’s behaviour incited a response that in return meant the Government could not be questioned because those members were subsequently expelled from the House. I ask you perhaps to consider whether those members might be able to return to the House to ask the questions they have lodged on the Order Paper.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Although that practice has developed over recent times, it has been a relatively recent one and I do note that even as recently as last Thursday a Minister who was about to answer a question was required to leave the House, which required another Minister, who was relatively new to the topic, to stand and answer on his behalf. I think, at the end of the day, if that rule is applied in the way the member requests, there is not much point in your issuing those kinds of warnings, if what it says is that anybody who interjects now, except for those who might have a question on the Order Paper, will be required to leave the Chamber.

Ron Mark: In the interests of consistency and fairness, Madam Speaker, I point out also that last week, when you asked a number of members who had interjected after your warning to identify themselves and leave the Chamber, a number of honourable members did so, and I was one of those members. I also had a supplementary question that I wanted to ask and was unable to ask, and that was my own fault. I also note that, despite your request, during that question there was a large amount of noise from behind me in the cross benches of National’s caucus, yet not one person from that area stood up and left the Chamber. If I had been watching, I would be able to tell you the names. All I know is that there was a lot of noise, you asked those people to leave, and no one left from that quarter. I ask you to consider that in ruling on Mr Brownlee’s request.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their comments. There had been a vigorous exchange across the House from all parties. It was when that started to get out of hand, to the level of creating disorder, that I took the somewhat unusual step of asking for both the questioner and the Minister answering to be heard in silence. When the question was asked it was heard in silence, but the answer, almost immediately it started, was not. That was a flagrant breach of the ruling I had given, in the circumstances. So I am sorry, but in the interests of consistency, somehow or other we have to maintain order in this House.

John Key withdrew from the Chamber.

Savings—Economic Impact

2. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports, if any, has he received on the economic impact of increasing savings in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I continue to receive a large number of such reports. These include reports from the Reserve Bank, from a US funds manager, Bill Buechler, and from a former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, all of which have stressed the importance of increasing savings. Also, a substantial report from Treasury late last week makes the point that homeownership is not enough, and that New Zealanders also need to increase other forms of savings.

Charles Chauvel: What is the Government doing to encourage New Zealanders to save more?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: From 1 July this year this Government’s KiwiSaver plan will make it easier for New Zealanders to save for their retirement. It is a scheme that has been widely praised both in New Zealand and overseas, and I appreciate the widespread support from the House for this proposal. It is a pity that that support did not include that of the National Party, whose only aim was to cut taxes for the most well-off, rather than to increase the savings of those on moderate incomes.

R Doug Woolerton: Did the Minister note in that report from a former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, that policies to force people to save are unpopular, that poll-driven donkeys get nothing done, and that showing leadership in a bigger-picture view is what is required to deal with our looming superannuation crisis?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. Mr Keating said that leaders get things done and that poll-reading donkeys get nothing done. I think that is a very reasonable comment to make in these circumstances. Australia, of course, went down the compulsory contribution route as a result of a trade-off in the early 1980s around inflation. My own view remains that compulsion for employees does not need to be a part of KiwiSaver in the future.

Corrections, Minister and Department—Confidence

3. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) on behalf of JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Corrections and his department; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): As I have told the member who set down the question twice already this month, yes; because the Minister is hard-working and conscientious. Although the department clearly has room to improve, I am confident that, with its current leadership, that will happen.

Gerry Brownlee: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her previous statements and those of her Minister that there is no widespread corruption within our prisons with the public admission of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, Barry Matthews, that there is a “culture of corruption” in his department?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That in itself does not say how widespread it is. It says that Mr Matthews has problems with some individuals.

Gerry Brownlee: How does the Prime Minister reconcile the previous statements made by both her and her Minister that corruption and dysfunction are not widespread in our prisons with the decision to stand down the Wellington regional manager of prisons, a senior Department of Corrections official?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Easily, by looking at the way that this matter has been reported. It is clear Mr Matthews said that that man was “not under suspicion of corruption”.

Ron Mark: Would it not be fair to say that the mere fact that the Department of Corrections has put together an anti-corruption team, that it has suspended 11 employees thus far at Rimutaka Prison, and that investigations are ongoing into issues that do not involve just corruption but might well involve employment matters such as competence, not tend to give some weight to the thought that confidence in the department can rightly begin to rise because actions are in hand and business is being taken care of, and maybe she has some announcements to make further on, over the next few weeks, that might again raise confidence in the department?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I see the actions that the head of the Department of Corrections is taking to clean up the problems that are evident as very encouraging, and I am sure that amendments such as those to the Parole Act that the Government is bringing to the House will improve the situation further. Overall, we need to make sure that the different parts of the criminal justice system are working well together. On the evidence, there has not been the good interaction that there should have been between some elements of it.

Gerry Brownlee: Why is the Prime Minister confident in saying that corruption in the prison service is not widespread, when the chief executive of the prison service, Barry Matthews, uses the very expansive statement that a “culture of corruption” is rife within his department?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said in reply to the member’s first supplementary question, that is not in itself a statement that it is widespread.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Prime Minister has so much confidence in Damien O’Connor and the Department of Corrections, why did she hastily announce just before leaving the country a review into the entire justice system, including the Department of Corrections, because she is “concerned about the overall operation of the system”, then fail to tell anyone the terms of reference, the time frame for the review, and even who would actually be conducting it?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member will just have to wait.

Driver Licensing—Limited Licences

4. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister for Courts: Of the people who applied for a limited licence in each of the past 3 years after being disqualified from driving or having had their licence suspended, how many had their applications granted and how many were dismissed, struck out, or refused?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Acting Minister for Courts): Applications granted, including applications by consent, were 3,668 in 2004, 3,403 in 2005, and 2,964 in 2006; dismissed were 12 in 2004, 16 in 2005, and 17 in 2006; struck out were two in 2004, two in 2005, and none in 2006; and refused applications were 17 in 2004, 15 in 2005, and 19 in 2006. The decision to grant a limited licence is made, of course, by a District Court judge who is required to make such decisions.

Ron Mark: Does he think that allowing people convicted of dangerous driving, multiple speeding offences, and drunken driving to virtually buy their licences back after losing them is proving an effective deterrent to dangerous driving; if so, why does he think that?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I remind the member in the House again that decisions on whether a limited licence can be granted is, of course, made by a judge under our judicial system.

Ron Mark: Does he think the limited licence application process is working as intended, given that there are online forums around entitled “How to get a limited licence for under $400”, companies that specialise in the “get your licence back” business, advertising now on radio, and that 99 out of 100 applications are approved—in effect, rubber-stamped?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: There is a clear judicial process for judges to follow to consider whether a limited licence can be granted. These reasons include extreme hardship to the applicant, undue hardship to a person other than the applicant, and “an order under this section is not contrary to the interests of public safety”. Those are fairly clear guidelines.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table an online forum from www.kiwibiker.co.nz entitled “How to get a Limited License for under $400.00”.

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

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a home page from a legal site that states that despite requiring extreme hardship to be eligible “we usually manage to find hardship for our clients that can be characterised as extreme”.

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

Laboratory Services—Auckland District Health Boards

5. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: How were the Auckland district health boards hoodwinked by Dr Bierre, as stated in answers on his behalf in the House last week?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): In Justice Asher’s judgment there are many, many references to Dr Bierre’s behaviour. For example, in paragraph 230, the judge says: “Dr Bierre should have declared the conflict of interest arising out of his ADHB membership and his desire to bid for ADHB funding for his own laboratory at the outset of his ADHB membership and certainly from the end of December 2004 … The necessity to disclose became even stronger when he applied for ADHB funding in March 2005, and stronger again in November 2005 …”. By the time the judge reached paragraph 330 he had concluded that Dr Bierre had breached two statutes. The faults certainly do not lie with Dr Bierre alone, but had Dr Bierre behaved as one might have hoped there would not have been a conflict of interest.

Hon Tony Ryall: If the district health boards were hoodwinked and misled, why would they give Dr Bierre the contract even after they found out they were hoodwinked and misled?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I think the words of the judge were that a serious process error was made by the district health boards.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is one of the parts of the judgment the Minister accepts absolutely the judge’s ruling that on becoming aware that Dr Bierre might be involved in a bid in December 2005, the district health boards should have refused to entertain any bid involving him, given Dr Bierre’s involvement in the district health boards’ strategy and matters relating to the whole process; if so, why did the Minister’s appointees, Wayne Brown, Kay McKelvie, and Pat Snedden, sign the contract knowing of what the Prime Minister has now described as a duplicitous conflict of interest?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes; and part of the reason I suspect they did is that they had from the Audit Office a written opinion to say that all was well, and from their own lawyers a written opinion to say that all was more than well.

Maryan Street: Whose responsibility is it to manage conflicts of interest on district health boards?

Hon PETE HODGSON: In law, the answer is that it is the responsibility of the boards and the membership comprising the boards. The new National Party members on the Auckland District Health Board in December 2004 were given a presentation on conflicts of interest soon after the election, along with other board members. The presentation was prepared by Richard Westlake, a very experienced member of many boards. Dr Bierre and Jackie Blue could not have been in any doubt of their obligations.

Barbara Stewart: Does he consider that making a scapegoat of Dr Bierre, who was only taking advantage of a golden opportunity to feather his own nest, is an adequate response to the lab-test debacle; if not, what steps is he taking to ensure that such a fiasco cannot reoccur?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member asks a very good question, and the answer is that he is certainly not the only person who has made errors. He did, however, manage to breach two statutes. The issue of whether it happens again is the one that is prime in my mind, but before I address it, I will be addressing another issue, which is to ensure that a contract is in place for the people of Auckland for reliable, quality community laboratory services from 1 July this year.

Hon Tony Ryall: If, as the Prime Minister says, Dr Bierre may be guilty of criminal behaviour, and given her questioning why the board persevered with the contract in the face of conflicts of interest, should the district health boards involve themselves in any future contracts for laboratory services involving Dr Bierre, in light of the Prime Minister’s description of him today as “duplicitous”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: One of the important findings of the judge was that the very process of the court case rendered equal the playing field for all players, which had been unequal prior to that.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister saying in the House today that it is OK to award a contract to someone who has used inside information and whom the Prime Minister says may have been involved in illegal activity; and is that the new form of accountability in public life that this Government promised?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am making a related point, which is that the judge, in his judgment, found that the very process of disclosure in the court case meant that any advantage that anyone had is now gone.

Working for Families Programme—Tax Credits 1 April 2007

6. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: By how much are Working for Families tax credits increasing on 1 April 2007?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am pleased to advise the House that the Working for Families tax credits will increase by $10 per week per child on 1 April. For a Kaitāia family like Josephine and William and their four children between the ages of 12 and 3 years, who are currently receiving $263 per week in family tax credits, it means they will be another $40 a week better off, receiving in total $303 in targeted tax relief. Under National’s policy—which the electorate rejected, of course, at the last election—the same family would not have been $303 better off; it would have been $293 worse off.

Russell Fairbrother: How many families are receiving this increase in Working for Families tax credits?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: A total of 360,000 families will be entitled to Working for Families tax credits—that is, three out of every four families with children will be receiving tax relief—amounting to $1.6 billion annually. The latest $10 per child per week increase applies to all eligible families, whether they are in work or reliant on a benefit.

Russell Fairbrother: What will be the effect on household income of this increase in Working for Families tax credits?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The latest increase is expected to move an additional 70,000 children out of poverty. With the full implementation of the Working for Families package on 1 April, New Zealand will move from its current ranking of 18th out of 24 countries in terms of the number of households in poverty, into the top half of OECD countries. It will most likely move into the top five, alongside Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Sweden.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. What is the rationale for denying New Zealanders who require income support, but who are not in employment, the opportunity to be supported in meeting their financial responsibilities as families?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Working for Families has already made beneficiaries better off by around $31 a week, and from 1 April 2007 family tax credit rates will increase—as I have just said—by a further $10 per week per child. This significant investment in the well-being of all New Zealanders will, clearly, ensure that families with children that earn less than $35,000 a year effectively pay no tax, at all.

Economic Growth—Productivity

7. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) on behalf of Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement of 3 November 2005 that “Growth in productivity is the major factor in setting New Zealand securely on a path of sustained economic growth.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I stand by the rest of my statement that “it requires investment by firms in plant and equipment, and investment by government (and private sector partners) in infrastructure. But the major investment it requires is in the skills of the workforce.”

Hon David Carter: Has the Minister seen the most recent figures published by Statistics New Zealand, which show that productivity growth for the last 12 months is the lowest on record; and what is the Minister’s response to that record?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The figure the member cites is labour productivity, not total factor productivity. Of course, in a period when the economy slowed down but employment remained extremely strong—unemployment remained well below 4 percent—that is the natural outcome. Treasury is forecasting labour productivity growth to average in excess of 2 percent per annum over the next 3 years.

Hon David Carter: Has the Minister also seen a recent publication from the Bank of New Zealand headed “Living In a Fool’s Paradise”, which describes the latest productivity figures as “abysmal”; and is he aware that this report notes that productivity growth has declined every year since 2001 whilst he has been the Minister of Finance?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What has, in fact, been happening over that period is extremely strong labour force growth and employment growth. During the 1990s when the economy slowed down the cycle, there was large labour force shedding and unemployment rose. In 1999 Mr English said Labour’s plans to reduce unemployment to the kinds of levels we are now seeing were a “hoax”.

Hon David Carter: Is it not a fact that he as Minister of Finance has presided over a period of economic buoyancy, but that the productivity figures prove that nothing has been locked in to the long-term benefit of the New Zealand economy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I repeat to the member that Treasury is forecasting labour productivity growth to average in excess of 2 percent per annum over the next 3 years. There have been significant changes to the tax system in the last couple of years, and further changes in this year’s Budget will tend to underpin that productivity growth.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: When the Minister’s goal of sustained economic growth runs into conflict with the Prime Minister’s goal of becoming the first truly sustainable nation in the world and he has to choose between continuous growth and genuine sustainability, which will be the Government’s priority goal and why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the member makes a false dichotomy. New Zealand, for example, has a very poor record in terms of output per unit of energy consumed. We are clearly capable of substantially increasing productivity growth, while at the same time addressing the sustainability issues that the Prime Minister has outlined. Indeed, in the longer term one suspects that, for New Zealand, increasing the level of economic growth will require attention to be paid to those sustainability issues—if for no other reason than international marketing considerations.

Craig Foss: I seek leave to table four documents. The first is a document from Statistics New Zealand from 16 March, entitled “Labour Productivity Growth Lowest on Record”.

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

Craig Foss: The second document, dated 19 March, is a report from the Bank of New Zealand entitled “Living in a Fool’s Paradise … Productivity slump highly inflationary”.

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

Craig Foss: I seek leave to table the third document, dated 22 March, again from the Bank of New Zealand, entitled “Productivity Slump Inflames Inflationary Concerns”.

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

Craig Foss: I seek leave to table the final document, which is a written question from myself to the Minister of Finance that asks: “Is there persistent core inflation in New Zealand as reported in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand December 2006 Monetary Policy Statement?”, to which the Hon Dr Michael Cullen answered: “Yes, but it remains consistent with the requirements of the Policy Targets Agreement …”.

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

Corrections, Department—Confidence

8. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) on behalf of SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister stand by his statement in the House last week that it was “ridiculous” to claim that corruption at Rimutaka Prison went on with the knowledge of management; if so, how does he reconcile that with the suspension of Wellington’s regional prisons manager and Barry Matthews’ statement this morning that the concern that management was allowing these things to happen has gradually increased as the inquiry has gone on?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I do stand by my statement, and I would like to repeat what the chief executive has said regarding the employment issue currently at Rimutaka Prison—that is, that that manager is not under any suspicion of corruption.

Gerry Brownlee: If we are to believe the Minister’s statement that it is ridiculous to believe that there is widespread corruption in our prisons, why has the Prime Minister in the House today relied so heavily on her own investigation into these matters to prove there is not widespread corruption in our prisons—despite the chief executive acknowledging exactly that?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I do not believe that the chief executive has acknowledged that. In a staff of over 5,000 people, in a very difficult area, it is inevitable that there will be individuals who from time to time do not abide by the law or by the procedures we lay down. We will identify those people, stand them down, dismiss them, and prosecute them, wherever necessary.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that last year the manager of Waikeria Prison was appointed to “address the culture” at Rimutaka Prison, because it had twice the number of incidents where force was used by guards on inmates as at similar facilities; and why is the current investigation required unless it is not intended by the Prime Minister to be a whitewash?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I can acknowledge that work has been under way to change the culture at Rimutaka Prison for well over a year. Further investigations are currently under way to identify any people who may not have abided by procedures, current practice, or the law, at Rimutaka Prison.

Gerry Brownlee: Does the Minister think that it reflects well on him that, by his own admission, there have been investigations into these matters for over a year, but it is only since the time that Simon Power has been asking questions about these matters that guards have actually been suspended or put off the job for engaging in these corrupt activities?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: My recollection is that Simon Power has been asking the same question for over 18 months. That is not why we are making progress here. We will identify any faults and any mistakes in the corrections system, and make changes and take action wherever necessary.

Overseas Investment Legislation—Conservation and Access

9. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) to the Minister for Land Information: What reports has he received on the success of the 2005 changes to the overseas investment legislation in ensuring greater access for New Zealanders and improved conservation values?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information): It is a privilege for overseas investors to own sensitive New Zealand land, and the Overseas Investment Act, passed by the Labour-led Government in 2005, was updated to ensure that, as a prerequisite of the sale to overseas people, we can acquire foreshore, seabed, river, and lake bed, and secure access to them. The sale of Poronui Station near Taupō, from one overseas party to another, has been approved on terms that show that this legislation is working.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What has been achieved in the Poronui Station sale?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Privately owned riverbed on the station is now to come into Crown ownership. Access through the property to adjacent conservation land and to the rivers has also been secured so that New Zealanders now have rights to fish, tramp, and picnic. The terms agreed are becoming typical. Another example was last year’s sale of Carter Holt Harvey forests, where significant public access gains were made.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that there would be greater access for New Zealanders and improved conservation values if the sale of sensitive land to New Zealanders included the same mechanisms for providing, protecting, or improving walking access over that land as the Overseas Investment Act requires for land sales to overseas investors; and, if he does not agree, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The walking access panel recently reported with some recommendations that will make some very good advances in terms of walking access over New Zealand land, particularly by the proper definition of marginal strips and paper roads. I think that is good progress in respect of those lands.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou te Whare. In respect of the claims of the success of the changes to the overseas investment legislation, what response does the Minister have to the statement from Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa that foreign investment will boost house prices even more, making them far too expensive for the average New Zealander to buy, and the statement from Margaret Mutu, chairperson of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Kahu, that by trying to sell the 9-hectare block at Rangiputa for $4 million the Government is planning to wipe its hands of all historical land claims by Ngāti Kahu for the cost of a measly 45 acres?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Although these matters do not fall directly within my responsibility, I do recall and agree with the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer last week, or the week before, when he indicated that he was not convinced that overseas purchase of residential land was having a significant effect on house prices.

Hone Harawira: Does the Minister support suggestions from a Government MP that Māori should turn their coastal lands into camping grounds or holiday parks for the enjoyment and greater access of all New Zealanders, but that other New Zealanders need not do so; and is that the Government’s solution to the problem that New Zealand camping-ground owners are cashing in on the millions to be made by selling their coastal properties to overseas buyers, and now ordinary Kiwis have nowhere to go for their holidays?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am aware that the Minister of Conservation is advancing the creation of additional camping grounds on Department of Conservation land. In respect of the likes of this land, which until now the public has been excluded from, including riverbeds and adjacent conservation land near Poronui Station, all New Zealanders have not had rights there, but both Māori and non-Māori are gaining rights as a consequence of this new deal on Poronui Station.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy

10. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Why should community-based early childhood education centres like Royal Road Preschool implement the Government’s policy of 20 free hours when to do so means they will be worse off financially and have to close?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): Community-based centres want to introduce the 20 hours of free early childhood education policy because it agrees with their own drive to make a real difference to the education of young New Zealanders.

Katherine Rich: What does the Minister say to the parents of children at the Royal Road Preschool, who face closure of their centre if they accept his policy, when he is the Minister who stared down the barrel of a camera and said: “If you are a parent and you are watching this, very simple, your child’s 3 to 4, you go down to your local centre, enrol, say ‘My child is here for these 20 free hours.’, that’s all you do.”? What a fraud!

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I would say to those parents that we all know that this policy is enormously popular. The Ministry of Education will visit this particular centre to talk through its financial situation with the staff there, because we want to ensure that those children have access to the policy.

Dianne Yates: What reports has the Minister seen regarding support for 20 hours’ free early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I was very pleased to hear the leader of the National Party championing the policy by saying: “We want these young kids to be able to have 20 free hours.” Mr Key may, however, like to consult the co-leader of the National Party about this change of heart, because Mr English will inform him that according to the website of the National Party it is committed to scrapping this policy, thus ensuring that no young kids have access to 20 free hours.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister explain what principle of equity and educational choice leads to a 5-year-old child attending early childhood education being fully funded for only 20 hours per week for 1 month of the year, when that same child, if attending school, would be fully funded for his or her education for the whole year, or is this situation just a historical anomaly?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, it is a financial reality. The policy is focused on 3 to 4-year-olds. Children who remain in early childhood centres for reasons such as disability will continue to be funded, but the others move on to a funded position in a school.

Katherine Rich: Is the Minister’s policy of 20 free hours really free, when documents prepared by his own officials state that shifting from a childcare subsidy to 20 free hours “could mean that some childcare subsidy clients pay more than they do now for early childhood education”, and when these clients are exactly the same families he is trying to engage in early childhood education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member quite rightly points out, there are two funding systems in place here. One is the subsidy that works its way from Work and Income into the hands of parents, who transfer that money to an early childhood centre in return for care. The other, of course, is what we are introducing here, which is educational funding for 20 free hours at these centres. That is what the policy is.

Katherine Rich: What kind of “Mahareyism” is it to argue that 20 free hours is better because it is free, when his own officials point out that some childcare subsidy clients dealing with Work and Income will be worse off—worse off—if they have their children receive the 20 free hours rather than keep them in their present situation?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: All I can say is that it is a bit rich for the member to rise in the Chamber and make that argument, when her policy is to scrap the entire policy.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister pretend he is concerned about increasing the participation of Māori and Pacific Island toddlers in early childhood education, when staff at the Royal Road Preschool—a community-based, not-for-profit centre that serves those communities every week—are saying it will have to close if it accepts the Government’s 20 free hours policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We on this side of the House do not pretend to support the advancement of Māori and Pacific Island children. That may be what people in the National Party do, but we on this side have made huge advances over the past 7 years, through our policy of early childhood education, to advance the interests of those very Māori and Pacific Island children—children the member herself would never support, because she would scrap the policy.

Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill—Smacking Ban

11. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that her Government would “absolutely rule out legislation banning smacking. That would be a very silly thing to do.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes.

Heather Roy: Why does the Prime Minister not trust her MPs to exercise their own consciences on this vote?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: What is on the conscience of the Government is the need to do something about the appalling rate of child death and injury from violence in the home.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Is one of the groups advertising against the bill a group called Focus on the Family, which was founded by Dr James Dobson, and is this the same Dr James Dobson who has likened proponents of gay marriage to the Nazis, backed political candidates who called for the execution of abortion providers, defined embryonic stem cell research as State-funded cannibalism, and urged Christian parents to pull their children out of public school systems; if so, would she rather be associated with Unicef, Save the Children, Plunket, and Barnados in supporting the bill?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I most certainly would rather be associated with Plunket, Barnados, and Save the Children, which are reputable organisations that stand for decent values and for not having violence in our homes, than with the extreme right-wing fundamentalist groups that do not care about those issues.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can the Prime Minister justify breaking her word, given to the electorate of New Zealand prior to the last election, by maintaining that Sue Bradford’s bill does not ban smacking, when her own Labour MP Charles Chauvel stated during the debate on the short title of the bill, on 14 March, that the bill could quite properly be described as the “Making a Smack Unlawful Bill”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Firstly, it is perfectly plain that the bill does not ban smacking. It is a fact that around the world, eight countries have introduced such legislation. This bill is not such legislation.

Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister confirm that more than 55 well-known organisations involved in the care and welfare of children, including Presbyterian Support New Zealand, the New Zealand Paediatric Society, the Families Commission, and the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, support this bill, which does not create a new offence but simply removes the defence for an existing criminal activity and gives children the same protection under the law that adults and animals have?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes and those are the very good reasons why reputable organisations that care about our children support this bill.

Gordon Copeland: Why does the Prime Minister not support the amendment of Chester Borrows, since it allows a smack on the hand to continue whilst outlawing hitting with an implement of any kind and, indeed, outlawing even a smack that causes injury beyond that which is transitory and trifling, since objectively that conforms with her stated position?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is my understanding that Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who advised the Justice and Electoral Committee on both amendments, advised that Mr Borrows’ amendment would leave New Zealand in breach of international conventions and, furthermore, was a lawyers’ charter.

Heather Roy: What right does she believe she has to override the views of the majority of New Zealanders and her own caucus and to tell me, as a mother of five, how to raise my own children?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member will never get from me anything like Jenny Shipley’s code of social responsibility, which tried to tell people precisely how to do that.

Hon Steve Maharey: To summarise this debate, can the Prime Minister confirm that the bill before the House neither bans smacking nor sets out how parents should raise their children, and that it simply removes the defence of a person who is facing prosecution in court for using excessive force to discipline children?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member’s analysis is absolutely right. I believe that if this bill passes, the police will have a reasonable chance of actually getting convictions against child beaters who take to their children with riding crops, bits of wood, and the rest of it.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a list of over 50 organisations that have put their hands up in support of the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill.

Document not tabled.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table from Hansard the speech of Charles Chauvel, a Labour MP, in which he said the bill could be appropriately named the “All Use of Force to Punish a Child will be Illegal and This is Clear to Parents Bill”.

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

Heather Roy: I seek leave of the House to table an article from the Dominion Post of 14 June 2005, in which the Prime Minister is quoted as saying that her Government absolutely rules out legislation for banning smacking, as that would be a very silly thing to do.

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

Madam SPEAKER: Question No. 12. I call the Hon Tony Ryall.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am aware that we are leaving question 11, but the Prime Minister purported to quote from a document in the name of Sir Geoffrey Palmer in her answer to my supplementary question. I believe that in such circumstances she is bound to table that document. Could I have a ruling on that point, please?

Madam SPEAKER: The member should have raised that at the time.

Gordon Copeland: Madam Speaker, we have not started the next question yet, have we?

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, we have, actually. I have called the Hon Tony Ryall.

Gordon Copeland: I know, but I said in raising the point of order that I did not realise that. I was just momentarily a little bit late. I would ask for your forbearance and a little flexibility on the matter.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The Prime Minister was not quoting an official document. She was quoting Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s evidence to a select committee, which is not the same thing as that.

Madam SPEAKER: In order to clarify matters, can I ask the Prime Minister whether she was quoting from an official document.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No, I was not. I was quoting from my understanding of the advice to the committee.

Madam SPEAKER: I think that clarifies the matter for the benefit of the member. Thank you.

Laboratory Services—Auckland District Health Boards

12. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: What action, if any, did he take to investigate claims there may be conflict of interest concerns over the Greater Auckland district health boards’ consideration of changes to community laboratory services, and when did he take that action?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I became aware in July last year that there might be a conflict of interest, when Dr Hutchison asked me a parliamentary question. I then sought advice—advice from the Auckland District Health Board informed the answer. That advice said that Dr Bierre had stood down from all board business 6 months prior to the issuing of the community laboratory request for a proposal. However, I now know from Justice Asher’s judgment that Dr Bierre actually stood down on 21 December 2005, effective from 14 January 2006, only shortly before the issuing of the request for a proposal. I might also note that I now also know that Dr Hutchison was aware of the conflict of interest and, indeed, promoted it 13 months before he told me about it.

Hon Tony Ryall: Who in the Auckland District Health Board misinformed the Minister, and does the Minister now regret that he did not make more active inquiries surrounding these conflicts?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Auckland District Health Board informs the Ministry of Health generally, which drafts answers for my consideration. I have, however, today received advice from the chief executive of the Auckland District Health Board, apologising for the error back then in July 2006 and saying that the advice should have read “6 months prior to the community laboratory contract being let.”

Hon Tony Ryall: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s description that Dr Bierre is duplicitous, and her questioning that Dr Bierre’s activities may be illegal; if he does, is this the sort of person with whom this Government is prepared to allow its appointees to do business?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Dr Bierre is a National Party member on the National Party ticket for the Auckland District Health Board. I find it interesting that in the space of 18 months—

Madam SPEAKER: I ask for order. I assume that the Minister is trying to address the question. He has a long preamble, but would members just give him the opportunity to answer so that we can all hear.

Hon PETE HODGSON: —National’s spokesperson on health can go from supporting this fellow, to wanting him run out of town. The long and short of it is that the judge has found that not only did Dr Bierre break two laws but also that the whole process of advantage has now evaporated. Therefore, I agree with the Prime Minister.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister confirm his answer he gave earlier in question time, that he would be happy for his appointees to sign a new contract with a company associated with Dr Bierre; despite Dr Bierre’s illegal use of insider information, his misleading comments, and the Prime Minister’s description of his activities as potentially illegal, is he prepared to trust multimillion-dollar laboratory contracts to a man whom his own Prime Minister, and he himself, has labelled as duplicitous?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The gentleman has broken the law, and his contract has been struck down. In the striking down of the contract, a judge of the High Court said that it is now a level playing field because of the process of the court proceedings.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister be absolutely clear that he is prepared for his appointees to enter into a contract with a man who not only has acted illegally but also has used inside information, and is duplicitous—in the Minister’s own and his Prime Minister’s words—and that that is the sort of person whom the Minister is prepared to enter into a contract with through his appointees?

Hon PETE HODGSON: A quick reminder—the man whom this member of Parliament now so strongly dislikes was his buddy’s mate a year and a half ago, and his buddy went to the Auckland District Health Board and tried to extract public money from him. In fact, his buddy got Dr Bierre to write to him, so that he could go to the Auckland District Health Board. We want to be careful about who is being duplicitous around here.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do hope you were listening to the answer.

Madam SPEAKER: I was trying to.

Gerry Brownlee: I appreciate that it would have been difficult. Part of the difficulty arises from the implied allegation from Mr Hodgson that because somebody in our party had a previous knowledge of or knew Dr Bierre, somehow a blind eye should be turned to his poor behaviour. That is not the case from the National Party, and never has been. That is why the questions are before the House today. It is objectionable that Mr Hodgson should want to progress along those lines. It is worse that he is not prepared to answer the simple question as to whether he will sanction public money finding its way into this man’s hands again.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. It was extraordinarily difficult to hear, so I have assumed that the Minister has addressed the question.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. The fact is I did ask the Minister a very clear question, because it goes to the issue of acceptable standards in public life in contracting. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister have described Dr Bierre as duplicitous. The Prime Minister has suggested there may be illegal activity. The Minister did not answer the question as to whether he was prepared for his appointees, the people he chooses to do the business for him, to sign a contract with a man whom even the Prime Minister has called duplicitous.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Has it occurred to the member that if I were to instruct the Auckland regional health boards not to deal with Labtests, that decision would itself be subject to judicial review?

Motions

Family Support Tax Credit—Increase

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That this House endorses the Family Support Tax Credit increase of $10.00 per week per child that comes into force on 1 April 2007. This year, 1 April will mark an important milestone in the Labour-led Government’s work for New Zealand families. The changes that are happening on that date are not just about talking about issues; they are about addressing them with positive changes to help hundreds of thousands of families, and indeed millions of New Zealanders.

The most important of those changes is very simple. The family tax credit increases by $10 per week per child on 1 April. That will assist some 360,000 families, by itself. Three-quarters of all New Zealand families with children will be getting assistance on 1 April this year. This is stage three of a process that began in Budget 2004, with an increase on 1 April 2005 of $25 per week for the first child and $15 per week for second and subsequent children. At that point the threshold for family support changed to $27,500, and on 1 April 2006 it was lifted to $35,000, with a cut in the abatement rate to 20 percent, which means that people moving off the domestic purposes benefit, for example, do not face as high an abatement rate as they once did, because indeed there is no abatement on their family support credits until they reach a total income of $35,000 a year.

What that also means for a person supporting a spouse and two young children is that his or her weekly income now has to reach, from 1 April, around $800 a week before that person pays any net income tax. In New Zealand, the tax-free income of a person supporting a spouse and two children after 1 April is, in effect, in excess of $40,000 a year. That is why New Zealand will have about the lowest tax wedge for the average wage of a person in that position, of any country in the world. That is real tax reduction, delivered to the people who are most in need of it.

From 1 April next year there will be regular adjustments to the rates and thresholds for the family tax credit. No longer will it continue to slip behind as inflation eats away at those rates and thresholds. Once the consumer price index reaches a 5 percent increase, those threshold increases will be triggered. So, in effect, both rates and thresholds are indexed from 1 April this year onwards. There is a massive increase also, at the same time, in childcare assistance and in out-of-school care and recreation rates.

The total effect of this package is to reduce by something like 70 percent the proportion of children living below the poverty line in New Zealand. That is a massive reduction and moves us back into the league of the northern European States, whereas we were in the league of countries like the United States, in terms of the incidence of poverty in New Zealand, when this Government took office in 1999. This is not just about a quick visit to a poor neighbourhood, jacket slung over one’s shoulder to look casual, and scattering around a few muesli bars to impress the poor and the television cameras, then running away and, after running away, deciding that one was not going to scatter around the muesli bars any more in any case because one had found out that it was not a very good idea, after all—it was tasty at first but turned out to be tasteless after that.

The fact is that this $10 a week per child tax credit was in the National Party’s election policy to be cancelled—to be taken away—in order to fund tax cuts for those on higher incomes. That is the reality of what National’s great tax cut promise was at the last election. It is a bit like Mr Key, on the TV, promising to an early childhood centre that it should have 20 hours’ free early childhood education then pointing out that, indeed, there would be equality under National—nobody would get 20 hours’ free early childhood education. It was not just about some centres deciding they wanted to be much better off and therefore not offering the free hours; nobody would get it, at all—zero, nothing, zilch, nada, to quote myself in another statement about Mr Key last week. If he has done a U-turn on that, I imagine that the next thing we know, Mr Key will be getting the television cameras to turn up at about the end of this year to watch him sitting a National Certificate of Educational Achievement examination. The question, of course, is whether he will get an “Achieved” in that examination. He certainly will not get an “Excellence”; that is for sure.

The family tax credit and the rest of the Working for Families package is about an active Government that is consciously leaning against the natural trend of our kind of society. In our kind of society, inequality tends to increase naturally. We see that here, we see it in Britain, we see it in Australia, we see it in the United States, we see it in Canada. It is a feature of many countries that we have great similarities with. It is only if the Government consciously leans against those trends, by interventions such as the Working for Families package, that we do not see relative poverty rise and we do not see the Government reinforcing the natural trends of a modern market-based economy.

That is why people on this side of the House are in politics. If there was one thing that drove most of us on this side of the House into politics, it was the issue of social justice. Social justice issues led people into this House. [Interruption] Naturally enough, we hear from a National backbencher that to do something about poverty is to express some kind of greed and envy. The greed that I see is the greed of those who, while already on high incomes, want policies that will give them more. That is what Mr David Bennett of Hamilton is arguing for in this House at the present time. I bet he did not tell all those academics from Hamilton East that he would be voting in favour of those kinds of measures when he got elected last time around for his one-term visit to this place as an electorate MP.

That is not all that happens on 1 April. On 1 April we begin 4 weeks’ annual leave for all workers. National Party members expect to have 3 weeks’ leave every time there is an adjournment in this House, but they voted against 4 weeks’ annual leave for ordinary workers who could not negotiate that for themselves because they lacked sufficient muscle or sufficient economic power. Well, from 1 April all workers qualify for 4 weeks’ annual leave. A Labour-led Government delivered that to New Zealanders. Furthermore, the minimum wage goes up on 1 April this year. It has increased by 61 percent since 1999. It has been increased every year by this Labour-led Government at a rate higher than the rate of increase in wages in general. National managed, I think, one increase to the minimum wage from 1990 to 1999, and, if memory serves me right, that was only when New Zealand First was in coalition with the National Government. Left to itself it did nothing about the minimum wage, and, indeed, cut benefits to ensure that the minimum wage could continue to fall back, in real terms, over the long term.

Again, I say that Labour does something about poverty and low wages. Labour members do not just turn up in a street and say: “Oh, I’m very sympathetic because for a couple of years I was a bit hard up myself, about 40 years ago.”, which is what Mr Key does in this particular respect.

Finally, on 1 April this year a married couple on New Zealand superannuation gets an increase of over $20 a week. Superannuation has gone up every year under Labour. Under the previous National Government, for 3 years there was no increase in New Zealand superannuation, and in the last year of that Government Mr English cut the rate of New Zealand superannuation to pay for the tax cuts he had introduced that year. He cut the rate to 60 percent of the average wage. He shakes his head. He has forgotten. He has a kind of repressed memory syndrome about the National Government from 1990 to 1999. But I can assure him that over the next 18 months we are going to give him a lot of counselling so he can unlock those repressed memories and remember what it was like.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I want to remind anyone who is listening just what an unprecedented event it is that we are dealing with here today. I have been in this House for—[Interruption] There is no record of the Government finding itself with so little legislative business that the Minister of Finance has put down his own notice of motion—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The last speaker was heard in relative silence, and I would ask for the same courtesy.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, but that was not actually true. At times it was really hard to hear the last honourable member. But I would remind all members in the House to please keep the level down.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will start again. The action that the Government has taken today is unprecedented—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders are clear about interjections. They are to be rare, witty, or to the point. Since I started speaking the interjections have been constant. I do not mind interjections, but I object to a constant barrage.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, but the previous speaker had constant interjections and there was no objection. Certainly, it is easy to hear the member. I remind members that if we had interjections only when they were rare and witty we would have none whatsoever. So would the member please continue. It is a matter of debate.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I want to bring to the attention of those who are listening what an unusual procedure this is. The Minister of Finance has never, in this Parliament, put down a notice of motion of this kind to be debated. The reason we are debating this motion is not because it is a normal debate of the House and not because it is a snap debate or a general debate; it is because the Government has the shortest, least-substantial legislative programme that any Government has had in living memory. The legislative programme fits on one page. Almost all of it has the agreement of the Opposition. We are debating this today because the Government has no vision, no plan, no energy, no legislative programme, and—more concerning for the Government—no support.

Last week Dr Cullen came out and said he wanted an urgency motion to deal with the Government’s anti-smacking bill. What happened then was again unprecedented. In full public view the minority parties pulled apart the Government majority. That was a public exposition of what is going on behind the scenes. The reason the Government has no legislative programme is because it cannot get the support of its supporting parties. When a Government does not have the support of its supporting parties it runs the risk of stopping being the Government, because the Government has to carry a majority in this House.

The Government has now been christened by the media as a “lame-duck Government”. We had a speech from the Minister of Finance, who is a lame duck, and he will be replaced by a lame duck—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Mallard.

Hon BILL ENGLISH:—Mr Mallard. What will the Government do next? It now has a “smacking bill” that it is backing, over which it has no legislative control. I would not mind betting—in fact, I think I know—

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The deputy leader of the National Party has now been speaking for 5 minutes on Government motion No. 1, which asks that the House endorse the family support tax credit increase of $10 per week per child that comes into force on 1 April 2007. But the member has not made any reference at all in his speech as to whether he supports that measure. Indeed, his speech has not centred around that motion at all. I would have thought that, now he is halfway through his speech, we could hear from him as to whether he is in favour of the motion put down by the Minister of Finance.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the member has had a long introduction. So perhaps he could address the motion.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Speaking to the point of order, I point out that the parliamentary procedure we are involved in today is almost without precedent. It is absolutely within the capacity of someone speaking, such as myself, to discuss why we are debating Government motion No. 1. In the time you have been Speaker this has never happened. In the time Jonathan Hunt was Speaker this never happened. In the time Doug Kidd was Speaker this never happened. In the time Peter Tapsell was Speaker this never happened. In the time Robin Gray was Speaker this never happened.

Madam SPEAKER: This is a point of order the member is speaking on.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Madam Speaker, are you ruling me out? Am I prevented from talking about why we have the motion?

Madam SPEAKER: I did not interrupt you when you were speaking. A point of order was raised drawing attention to the substance of the motion. I was merely putting to the member that he should at some point in his speech address that motion. Would the member please proceed.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will address the motion, but not before pointing out to the House that the reason the Government does not have any legislation of any significance on the programme is because, essentially, it has done what it came to do. There is nothing more for the Government to do. That is why Dr Cullen is now indulging himself in these speeches of high principle. Labour is now developing a martyr complex. It knows that electoral death is looming and it wants to go down feeling principled about it.

Let us come to the motion. On 1 April families will get $10 per child per week. In fact, the Working for Families package is remarkably similar to the package that National put forward in 1996. National’s package increased family support for beneficiaries and working families, and it brought in the child tax credit. It was attacked then by Dr Cullen as “a simplistic tangle of bigotry and ignorance … unholy product of National’s deeply held view that everyone on a benefit is a bludger … ill thought through and punitive.” Well, he has changed his mind.

We are not going to roll back this tranche of Working for Families. We are not going to deprive those families of the cash benefits they can get. Have they not waited so long? That is why I get irritated with Dr Cullen’s crocodile tears today. He has had 7 years of the biggest surplus New Zealand has ever seen and it took until today before he said—[Interruption] Well, 12 months ago he said that the people who had loyally voted for him every year could have it. Then there were his crocodile tears about the minimum wage. I want to ask the members opposite this question. If they think the poor and low paid are so badly done by, why is it that in the health sector they have left the lowest paid on the lowest pay? Why is it that the home-care workers and the rest home workers have had nothing, but the high-income specialists—the high-income medical specialists—have had 20 to 30 percent pay increases? Why does the member for Otaki not get up and tell us that?

The problem with this package—[Interruption] Oh, now they feel guilty about leaving the home-care workers on $11.50 and putting the specialists on $300,000. Well, I bet the home-care workers will never forget that. They will never forget it. So much for the principled martyrdom of Dr Cullen, who has gone off to draft a speech for his very last Budget.

The problem with this Working for Families package is twofold. In 1996 National’s package was intelligent, because it increased payments to families but dropped core tax rates. That meant that people’s marginal tax rates did not go up much, which meant they still had an incentive to do another hour’s overtime, because they did not face marginal tax rates of 60c and 65c. People on the Working for Families package who do another hour’s overtime lose at least 60 percent of their extra dollar, and that is what is wrong with this package.

We will not vote for this motion, because if the Government had developed an intelligent package that phased in overtime, it would have lowered core tax rates so that families were not punished by having most of what they earn in an extra hour taken off them. National will not roll back these payments, but neither will we support a Government programme that has put hundreds of thousands of middle New Zealanders who are on incomes of up to $100,000 on the highest marginal tax rates they have faced in 20 years.

But the most important thing that has happened today is that the Government has effectively ended its term as a Government. It has run out of legislation. The pot is now so dry that the Minister of Finance had to move his own motion, which has never been done, so that he could have a debate on it. Why? It was to take up time. This is March. We have almost a whole parliamentary year ahead and the Government has nothing to do. That is electoral death.

The one thing they do have to do is the smacking bill, and the member for Otaki is getting smacked in his electorate for doing that—so is the member for Northern Māori and the United Future and New Zealand First members. How will they survive the smacking bill? How can they possibly lend support to a Government when that piece of legislation is obliterating their party base? If United Future and New Zealand First want to go down with Labour, that is fine, but I would say, as a member who thinks that sometimes those parties are quite sensible: “Don’t do it. Do not go down with a Government that will drag you to certain electoral death.” I invite those parties to vote against this motion as well. This is a Government that has done what it came to do; it is time for it to go.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): The Hon Brian Donnelly and I will be splitting this particular call. New Zealand First welcomes the increase in payment of $10 per week per child that comes into force on 1 April. We welcome it for a whole number of reasons. The first is the poverty factor. Recently a number of reports have raised the issue of increased poverty affecting New Zealand families. This increase in payment will do something about it. In this House we all say that the Government should address the role of poverty, and this is part of one of the measures.

I looked at a 2006 Ministry of Social Development report on the issue and it states: “Having a low living standard limits a person’s ability to participate in wider society, curtails their quality of life, and can have negative long-term consequences across a wide range of social and economic outcomes.” The same study noted that between 2000 and 2004 there was an increase from 16 to 17 percent of families with a market income defined as having low living standards. Under this increase 360,000 families will benefit. That is a significant number. So the increase in payments from 1 April will help improve the living standards of lower-income working families and will have flow-on effects for their health and their well-being, which is something that we in this House all want. For example, $10 a week is the equivalent of additional loaves of bread or litres of milk, which for a lower-income family will definitely make all the difference.

When we look at improvements in the living standards of lower-income working families it follows on logically that we need to improve our appalling child poverty statistics. It is absolutely essential that every child in New Zealand has the fundamentals he or she is entitled to: adequate food, being able to participate fully in education—and all the factors that surround this, such as school trips, school books, and school fees—going to the doctor when their parents believe it is necessary, and being able to afford the necessary medication. The list goes on and on. For children, a good start is so essential.

The second reason we support this increase in payment is that we want people to be encouraged to move off a benefit and into paid work. It is claimed that the family tax credit is there to support families moving off a benefit and into work, and to ensure that those doing paid work are better off as a result of being in the workforce. That is a laudable aim and it is something we want to see. We can only hope that the increase in the payment, as of 1 April, does result in more people moving off a benefit and into paid work. We know that families with parents working are far better off than families where parents are at home and receiving a benefit. It is also necessary to ensure that people are better off by being in the paid workforce, and we have already heard that the increase in the minimum wage from 1 April will also help.

New Zealand First recognises the importance of the early years, and we will always support policies aimed at the optimum development of children. We say that a good start is essential and that actions speak louder than words. What we are seeing today is action, and we definitely support that.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I would just like to remind the members of the Opposition who were giving me a bit of a hard time before that I had plenty of pressure put on me in 1998 by the likes of Wyatt Creech, Don McKinnon, Jenny Shipley, Doug Graham, etc., asking me to remain as a Minister and stay with National. I did what I thought was right and I will continue to do what I believe is right in this House.

New Zealand First has always been an advocate for children, and there is no doubt that the Working for Families package has positively impacted on families and family life. I want to give the experience of my own family. My youngest daughter has a beautiful young child, and her partner works in a factory and works long hours. He is not on a high salary. This couple does not waste money. They do not go to the pub or out to the pictures. They live in a modest rental property, etc. The money that comes to them through Working for Families is absolutely critical. I want to make the point that every cent of that money that comes into their household goes on my grandchild. Believe it or not—and I did not realise this until I had grandchildren—it costs so much more money to bring up a young child these days, even just to get the basic equipment that is now required. So on behalf of my family I want to thank Labour for what it has done. It certainly has made a difference to my youngest grandchild. It is good that they will have another $10 a week after 1 April.

I do not necessarily believe that this is the answer to the problem. I think the answer to New Zealand’s problem is the fact that our wages are not high enough. We need to drive our wages up. That is why New Zealand First put into its confidence and supply agreement with the Government that we would drive the minimum wage up to $12 per hour. As Barbara Stewart mentioned, on 1 April something else will also take place—that is, the minimum wage will go up by $1, which will once again drive up wages.

I say that because, looking back, my father was an M5—married with 5 children. He would not have actually paid very much in tax, but he never, ever would have brought home more than he earned, and that is unfortunate. With the system of tax credits, etc., that we have, that problem is reduced.

New Zealand First believes that the Working for Families package is absolutely critical at this point in time for us to be able to get our families out of poverty. It is not the long-term answer; the long-term answer is getting the wages up, but we readily admit that that is not a possible solution within the next year or so. Therefore, we need the quinella of approaches to be able to achieve that purpose on behalf of New Zealand. One of the things that New Zealand First believes—and I certainly believe—is that the quality of the future we leave to our children will be determined by the quality of the children we leave to the future. We will not be able to leave quality children to the future if we are trying to drag them up in poverty. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party will be abstaining on this Government motion No. 1 because, although the Working for Families extension does provide much-needed additional assistance to at least some families on low and middle incomes, it still fails to assist those families in New Zealand who are most in need.

Firstly, I want to draw the House’s attention to the very confusing changes in terminology that have just been implemented by the Inland Revenue Department. The overall regime formerly called family assistance is renamed Working for Families tax credits. The former family support tax credit is now called the family tax credit. Just to add to the confusion, the former family tax credit—which is a different entitlement from the new family tax credit—is to be renamed the minimum family tax credit. Perhaps the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Revenue could explain to the House the reasons for these changes in terminology.

My take on them is that they are bound to cause confusion, and that the confusion will result in those people who have entitlements under the regime not receiving those entitlements. The wording of the motion itself would indicate that even Dr Cullen is uncertain of the current terminology, because the term “Family Support Tax Credit” is no longer used on the Inland Revenue Department’s website. Furthermore, the various components of the regime abate at different rates, resulting in very complex effective marginal tax rates, yet the department’s assessments just give an overall figure of entitlement, rather than a breakdown of the entitlement into its components and then details of the abatement regime for each component.

So a family with a Working for Families tax credit entitlement faces a major exercise in working out exactly how a potential change in its income will affect its entitlements. In terms of the substance of the Working for Families tax credit regime, I acknowledge that it has alleviated hardship for some families and that the increase that is the subject of this motion will likewise alleviate hardship for some families. However, the regime itself has fundamental flaws. Some of those flaws may have been able to be corrected had the Government allowed a public submission process in consideration of the legislation by a select committee, but the package was rammed through this House under Budget urgency, with no opportunity for public input on some of its more controversial aspects, such as the discriminatory in-work tax credit and the replacement of the discretionary special benefit with the new, rules-based temporary additional support.

The Green Party’s primary concern about the Working for Families tax credit regime is that the people who most need assistance from it are provided with the least assistance by it. Middle-income New Zealand families will do well from the scheme, while those on benefits—especially those receiving the temporary benefit, special benefit, or temporary additional support—will receive the least from it.

The living standards report in the Ministry of Social Development’s Social Report 2006 revealed that between 2000 and 2004, while the proportion of the population in hardship remained about the same, the number of those in severe hardship actually increased by 3 percentage points during that period. Working for Families tax credits will do little to alleviate the severe hardship of that sector of the population. Primarily, they are beneficiaries, and the in-work tax credit will not be available to them, simply because they are beneficiaries. This not only is discriminatory on the basis of employment status but also unfairly denies assistance to the sector of the population that has the greatest need.

This discrimination is indicative of the flawed ideology of this Government—and, frankly, of the previous National Government, which, I might add, introduced the in-work tax credit’s equally discriminatory predecessor: the child tax credit. It is indicative of an ideology that places little value on the unpaid work of those who choose to care full time for their children, to care for their elderly or disabled relatives, or to work voluntarily for the benefit of their communities.

When the previous National Government introduced the child tax credit, Annette King, who was then in Opposition, was reported as saying: “It is no wonder that we do not value the work that is done in our homes, because we dismiss it and give it no economic value at all. That is disgusting. To divide children into those whose parents are good parents because they work and children who are bad because their parents do not is absolutely disgusting.” I agree with the Minister, but how the worm has turned.

The in-work tax credit aside, the parts of the Working for Families tax credit regime that are available to those in the most severe hardship are offset by reductions in the special benefit or the temporary additional support, and consequently this group gains nothing from the increases in the newly named family tax credit.

Then we have the minimum family tax credit—the renamed former family tax credit. This continues the worst aspects of Roger Douglas’ original guaranteed minimum family income scheme, which was described by economist Brian Easton, when it was introduced in 1988, as “technically incompetent, fiscally explosive, and socially reactionary”. The minimum family tax credit has an effective marginal tax rate of 100 percent, effectively locking those who, for reasons of disability or lack of educational attainment, cannot work in any but the lowest-paid jobs. They are, therefore, forced into a permanent poverty trap. However much more they earn, they will have no more dollars in their hand while their earnings remain below the minimum family tax credit threshold.

There is an alternative to the work-first approach and the complex, confusing, and discriminatory mix of income support payments and tax credits that are supported by both Labour and National. Unfortunately, the Green Party is one of the only parties in this Parliament that supports this alternative. It is an income-based support system based on simplicity, sufficiency, and universality. We can start by increasing the minimum wage. There will be some increase now, but we advocate for an increase to at least $13 an hour, in contrast with Labour’s promise of $12 an hour. Who knows what National’s policy on the minimum wage is? At one stage its leader Don Brash did not want to have any kind of minimum wage, at all, and its track record on increasing the minimum wage when it was in Government was equally ridiculous. So this is just common sense, frankly. If people earn more, then they will be less reliant on State assistance, which is, in reality, a massive subsidy to employers.

The Greens would set main benefits at a level that people can actually live on—and I would be interested to know just how many members of the current Parliament have ever been beneficiaries and understand how difficult it is to live on the benefit. We would make benefits sufficient to meet all beneficiaries’ basic needs and index them to a fixed percentage of the average wage. Increases in benefit levels have progressively failed to keep up with increases in the average wage. This has been another reason for the increased reliance of beneficiaries on very complex targeted assistance, such as special benefit or temporary additional support—those ones with the 100 percent marginal tax rates.

We would also abolish the discriminatory in-work tax credit and incorporate it into a universal child benefit. Many of the families of MPs here would have been recipients of a family benefit years ago. Yet when my colleague Sue Bradford attempted to introduce a member’s bill to this House that would have brought in a very modest universal child benefit, the Labour-led Government vetoed it without its even being allowed to go to a select committee for the public to make submissions on it and for a discussion on the issue to be heard.

Despite the concerns that I have outlined, the Green members of this House acknowledge that the assistance in the Working for Families tax credit system does provide some assistance to some low and middle income families. But until we have a system that is simple, universal, and sufficient; that does not require enormous complex machinations by families to understand what they are entitled to; and that is not discriminatory on the basis of a family’s income source, we simply cannot support this motion. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātōu te Whare. My mum reckons that any legislation that comes into force on April Fool’s Day has to be a joke—and both Shane Jones and the Hon Parekura Horomia agree that my mum is always right. Mark Twain also made the comment that April Fool’s Day is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on the other 364 days. So naturally, when we saw this Government motion No. 1 suddenly pop up on the Order Paper, we wondered whether Dr Cullen had been working overtime to make sure that his joke got online by this Sunday—except that it is not a very funny joke.

The Māori Party supports anything that will help families in need, and to put more money into the pockets of families with children to support is a worthwhile notion. The problem is that this initiative comes to the House hidden beneath a whole stash of complicated tax and social welfare legislation that most Kiwis simply cannot even understand, let alone get benefit from. This motion follows hot on the heels of the KiwiSaver Bill, the taxation of portfolio investment entities, the introduction of foreign tax regimes, the establishment of social security reforms, and a 2,700-page Income Tax Bill that rewrites income tax legislation. The hilarious explanatory note of that bill states that the objective is to reduce compliance costs by producing tax legislation that is clear, uses plain language, and is structurally consistent. Yeah, right!

The truth is that out in the real world families are already finding the criteria and requirements for family tax credits to be too confusing. Yet now they are being asked to wade through a quagmire of new legislation and compliance terminology, and get up to speed with a whole new vocabulary, including family support, tax credit, child tax credit, family assistance credit, family plus family credit abatement, in-work payment, family support, family tax credit, parental tax credit, social assistance payment, and family scheme income. It is not as if any low-income worker or beneficiary in my electorate—or any other electorate, for that matter—will be able to understand any of that.

The hardest thing is that this gets even worse. If we log on to the Inland Revenue Department website, we see that from now on payments will be called Working for Families tax credits, and that the department is also changing the names of the payments that make up those Working for Families tax credits. So people who thought they had sussed out Working for Families will now have to go back to school and start all over again, because what was once called family support is now called family tax credit, what was once called in-work payment is now called in-work tax credit, and what was once called family tax credit is now called minimum family tax credit. How ridiculous is all of that? It kind of makes one want to know what poverty will be called from now on—possibly “a negative financial tax credit”, or some other foolish phrase.

But wait for it; it gets even worse. There are now different truths about how much the family support tax credit—I think that is what it is called, rather than a family tax credit—actually is, and for whom. There are now different names and different amounts if one’s eldest dependent child is aged 16 to 18; if one’s dependent children, other than one’s eldest, are aged from 16 to 18; and if one’s dependent children, other than the eldest, are aged from 13 to 15. It goes on and on. I would like to try to summarise what this motion will mean for all the real people out there—I am talking about the people for whom this is supposed to be of help.

The Government has changed the name from family support to family tax credit. I know a name is supposed to be just a name, but it would have helped if the Government had talked to those who will be most affected—real families—to see whether it makes any sense to them, or even whether they understand what the changes will mean. It is not just a matter of a name change; the Government’s proposal actually adds another complicating layer of confusion to an area that is already confusing. People had become used to family support, which has been in place for some time, and they had finally worked out how it applied to every child, regardless of whether the parents were in paid work. However, the family tax credit used to refer to payments for children whose parents were in work. But this will now be the term for family support, because family tax credit has now become the minimum family tax credit. If that is confusing for you, Madam Assistant Speaker, or anybody else in this House, we really have to guess what that will mean for the people out there on the street.

Another obvious outcome of the confusion is that families will find it more confusing to apply for, and even more difficult to get. The whole tax credit system is marketed towards working families, but the newly termed family tax credit, which used to be family support, actually applies to all families. People who were entitled to one benefit or another will now miss out because they will not understand what benefit they should be getting. This means that people who know that Working for Families means “Beneficiaries not Welcome” will be cut out from this new model because they will not know that they are entitled to a tax credit. We already know that whenever complicated new beneficiary laws are introduced Māori are the group most likely to miss out, because they simply do not know whether they should be getting it.

Another important outcome of the confusion is that by using a name like family tax credit, which meant one thing but now means another, it becomes very difficult to get any coherent analysis of the changes for beneficiaries during that whole transition period. The Government has bracketed together three separate parts—minimum family tax credit, which used to be family tax credit; in-work tax credit, which used to be in-work payment; and family tax credit, which used to be family support—and lumped them all together into one Working for Families tax credit. That means that families do not know the values of the separate parts, and that they will not be able to work out what they should get. So those families will miss out on benefits that they had previously received because they will no longer know how to apply for them.

The point about this whole April Fool’s Day motion is that instead of simplifying an already complex area, the Government’s proposals will simply make it even harder to understand. The real joke is that those in greatest need—the beneficiaries who will be bypassed by this legislation—will be even worse off after 1 April than they were before. If that is the joke, then the comedian deserves to be shot. Kia ora tātou.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to say that we will be endorsing, as a party, the increase to the family support tax credit of $10 per child per week, which will come into force on 1 April 2007. To remove the confusion in the mind of the previous speaker, Hone Harawira, I make it clear that whether people come from a benefit family or a working family, they will, if they qualify, receive on 1 April 2007 another $10 in the hand if they have one child, $20 in the hand if they have two children, $50 in the hand if they have five children, and so forth.

Michael Cullen, in his speech, mentioned that this was an expression of social justice, and that is exactly right. This is a way of ensuring that no one in New Zealand with dependent children falls below the poverty level. As I will mention later in my speech, this Working for Families package and the $10-a-week increase goes a long way towards achieving that goal.

The description “social justice” brought to mind the fact that we could also use Michael Joseph Savage’s expression and say that this is simply applied Christianity, because the whole idea of caring for one’s neighbour and of ensuring that a community supports its most vulnerable members—its poorest members—is indeed a core gospel value.

In my first year in Parliament I remember speaking with the Minister of Finance about the need for the Government to provide tax relief for families with dependent children. I mentioned to Michael Cullen that people earning even, say, $50,000 a year with five dependent children were certainly not well off. In fact, people on that rate with five dependent children would be struggling and finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. I know that, because a number of families I am in contact with are in that situation.

Subsequently, therefore, in its Budget bids for both 2003 and 2004 United Future suggested to the Government that it should bring in a tax credit system for families that had three particular design features. The first of those was that there should be specific recognition of the number of children in the family. That suggestion has been picked up on. The second was that there should be a clear gap between working families and benefit families, both to incentivise work and to recognise the extra costs that arise when people enter the workforce. That has been picked up, as well. The third was to ensure that the family support system in New Zealand moved closer to—and was therefore more competitive with—that which exists in Australia. That has also been picked up in the Working for Families package. Therefore, we as a party were delighted when the Government announced in the 2004 Budget that it would be introducing this Working for Families package, and we were equally supportive when, just prior to the 2005 elections, it decided that it would introduce this extra $10 per week per child, which is to come into force from 1 April 2007.

This will be of fantastic assistance to 360,000 families in New Zealand who have dependent children. I hear so many favourable comments and reports from those young families—whether they have preschool or school-age children—who are just delighted with the extra financial assistance they are receiving under this package. They tell me that it has made a huge difference to their household incomes, and sufficient household income, for United Future, is a core policy goal. It is of central interest to us, because we believe that a family’s net income after tax needs to be sufficient for that family to meet its basic household needs—be they food, clothing, accommodation, housing, education, health, or transport. Those are the minimum things we want every single family in New Zealand to be able to afford to a reasonable level.

Our vision for New Zealand does not include child poverty. When I came into Parliament, 28 percent of all New Zealand families were, according to most measurements, living in poverty. Almost one out of every three of our children were in that situation. By 1 April 2008 that number of children will be down into single-digit territory—the best estimate I have heard is about 7 percent or less. In simple terms, it means that basically through this excellent package we have shifted about 21 percent of our children from poverty to above the poverty line.

I would have thought that that was something every party in this Parliament would recognise as a core Kiwi value and would support. I must say I was very disappointed that when Bill English was making his speech, he said that National would not roll back this $10 a week but—when he finally got to it—he said that his party was not going to endorse this motion. National will vote against this motion—that is, National is against this extra $10 a week per child. I am very, very disappointed, frankly, to hear that, because I would have thought that under the more pragmatic leadership that John Key has introduced to that party, National members might just say: “Hey—are we, in 2008, going to take this money back off people, or not?”. Obviously, they have decided they will. From my point of view that will be a backward step, because I would not mind working with National after 2008 if that is what the electorate decides. But, I tell you what, if I am, we as a party will not be going along with taking this money back from people who by then will have built it into their family budgets, the repayment of their mortgages, and all those other costs. It would be just crazy to take it away.

What we do need to do is overlay this package with income splitting. I think Metiria Turei talked about home-care people, and so did Bill English. Income splitting is the way we can recognise the tremendous role that a stay-at-home parent not on an income plays in the life of this nation. As I think Maurice Williamson said during the smacking debate, bringing up kids is the most difficult and the most important job in the world, and it is time we gave some tangible recognition to people who take time out of the workforce to do that fundamentally important work. Income splitting does that; it also addresses the effect of high marginal tax rates for people. The examples that National members have given are of those very high effective marginal tax rates normally involving single-income families. If we overlay income splitting on those, we would find that the problem more or less disappears.

So that really is the way that United Future believes we need to move post-2008. Quite early in 2008, well before the election, the Minister of Revenue will be bringing out a discussion document on income splitting, so that New Zealanders will have an opportunity to have some input into that. We will be asking for public submissions. I think, also, that that will really inform New Zealanders of the way that could transform household income. As I mentioned earlier, it is a core value of United Future. We want to see every family in the country having a core income that could enable them to provide fittingly for themselves and for their dependants.

I want to mention just one other issue, in the last couple of minutes I have. National labels this package as welfare and the Government labels this package as tax credits. United Future is in the centre. We say that in fact there are—I will get the numbers right—around 196,000 families who will not receive welfare through this package, but who will receive a reduction in their income tax. They will pay the same amount, I know, but they will get a credit back. So, effectively, there is a bit of churn, which is undesirable in some ways. But those 196,000 families will actually be getting tax relief through this package. Then a further 164,000 families will receive an increase in their benefits. It is quite correct for those 164,000 families to say that they are welfare recipients. That is their status now, and it will be after this extra $10 goes through. But for 196,000 families it is actually a tax credit, and should be described as such.

Accordingly, it is United Future’s position that we should actually call this package a tax reduction and family income package. That describes exactly what it does. It reduces taxes for 196,000 families, and gives additional income to a total of 360,000 families. In United Future’s book, that has to be a good thing for our society. It increases social cohesion. It is social justice in action; it is applied Christianity. Thank you.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I will begin by reading a letter that I will ask for leave to table at the end of my comments. It is a letter from someone called Jenny to the Prime Minister, received just last month. I will read only excerpts from it. “Dear Prime Minister, I just want to say I am forever grateful to your Government for that package. Working for Families has meant the difference to me and my son in being able to eat decent food, and not having to stress any more about when I can juggle the budget in order to buy food. This might not seem much to someone who has never had to struggle”—[Interruption]; yes, I am not surprised that National members do not like hearing this—“but I can tell you from me it is huge. Thank you so much for looking after the families in this country. I really appreciate it. Kia kaha, and please carry on for a fourth term. I think you and your party are fantastic.”—signed, “Jenny”.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Signed, “Your loving daughter.”

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I did not actually write it, I tell Mr Williamson, but I have to say that not many people out there in New Zealand are writing letters to the National Party about its attitude to this policy. As I said, I will ask my colleagues for leave to table that letter at the end of my comments.

So what is the Working for Families package that Jenny is so appreciative of? Well, it is targeted tax credits, mostly, and it is targeted tax credits that are directed towards Kiwi families to help them raise their children. As of 1 April, it will be affecting almost three in four of all New Zealand families with dependent children and, as speakers before me have commented, that is around 360,000 families, New Zealand families. What is it costing? It is an investment, really, of $1.6 billion per year, to help families raise their children. This year is the only year it will cost $1.6 billion, because, of course, one of its many advantages is that these payments are indexed. So next year it will cost more, and the year after it will cost more than that. What better contribution could we make to the future of this country?

So a family with two teenage children aged, say, 11 and 16—a family earning around $67,000 in total and paying $350 per week on its mortgage—from 1 April will get an extra $88 a week in the hand from family tax credits. In fact, almost all families that have children and earn under $70,000 a year are eligible for these tax credits. Many families, depending on the number of children they have, that may be earning jointly between $70,000 and $100,000 are also eligible. So I take the opportunity to encourage people to make sure they check their eligibility.

Families earning less will get more. That is a bit different from the flat-tax promise that the National Party had on the table at the last election. Its promise was that people earning more would get more, and those attitudes have not changed. But they are not Labour Party attitudes. Our policy is about targeting money to people on lower incomes—the people who have the greatest needs. One of the key factors of this policy is the fact that Dr Cullen referred to earlier, and I will repeat it, that families that have children and earn less than $35,000 a year will effectively be paying no tax at all from 2008. We believe that is the most effective way to target and support our families and children. It is also an approach that is common internationally.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What marginal rate will they pay?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The only thing in this House that is marginal is Dr Smith and his policies.

This is the most effective way to target and support New Zealand families and children. It is also a tax credit approach that is widespread in the OECD.

Before I come back to some of the impacts of the other 1 April changes, I would like to share with the House the reasons so many people are supportive of this policy direction. The first couple I want to talk about are Josephine and William. I can tell Mr Harawira that they live in Northland.

Hone Harawira: They work in my kura.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: They do, indeed. Josephine and William have four children, aged 3, 5, 11, and 12. They do indeed work at the kura in Kaitāia the member referred to, where Josephine is the receptionist and William is the caretaker. Josephine works 30 hours a week and William works 20 hours a week. Together they earn $610 per week. They are currently receiving the following amount in extra assistance from Working for Families. The accommodation supplement sees them receiving $42 per week. Their childcare allowance amounts to $66.20 per week. Their family tax credit is $203 per week, and their in-work tax credit is another $60 per week. On 1 April they will be getting an extra $40 a week in family tax credits. So the total amount that Josephine and William will be getting from Working for Families is $411.20 per week. I say to the member that I bet that Josephine and William do not think that $411.20 a week is an April Fool joke. I bet that Josephine and William do not think they are worse off than they would have been if a National Government had given them the $10 that National promised them at the last election.

I would like to move down the country to Auckland. Aveael has one son, aged 2. Whilst on the domestic purposes benefit she used the training incentive allowance to help her train as a lawyer. She is now practising in a small law firm in Auckland, earning $576.92 per week. She is currently receiving the following assistance from the Working for Families package. She is getting $125 of accommodation supplement. She is getting $120 for 45 hours of childcare allowance. She has a family tax credit of $72, and she is receiving a $58 in-work credit. She will also get the extra $10 a week of family tax credits on 1 April. So the total amount of Working for Families money that she receives will be $385 per week. I bet your boots that Aveael does not think the Working for Families increase is a 1 April joke. I bet your boots that Aveael knows she is a lot better off on targeted tax credits of this sort than she would have been with the $10 tax cut that National offered her at the last election.

I also want to talk about Raewyn and Bruce. Raewyn and Bruce have three children aged 9, 6, and 3. Raewyn works part-time as an early childhood teacher and Bruce is a youth pastor at the Papatoetoe Baptist Church. They live in South Auckland. They are currently receiving the following support. They get a childcare allowance of $30, a family tax credit of $36, and an in-work tax credit of $60, and having three children means they will get an extra $30 a week of family tax credits on 1 April. So the total family tax credit package that Raewyn and Bruce receive will be $156, which is just a tad more useful to them than the $10 the National Party promised them at the last election.

Let us just have a look at what the National Party has said about this initiative. John Key said: “National doesn’t support the current Government’s ‘Working for Families’ package …”. Well, that is obviously news to his co-leader, Bill English, who, just half an hour ago, said that National would not roll back these social support initiatives. What another wonderful example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. What else does the so-called leader of the party say? John Key said: “Working for Families also imposes high effective marginal tax rates on families. These are a disincentive to work overtime and at weekends, and for partners to seek part-time work.”

Well, Mr Key should tell that to Josephine and William, Aveael, Raewyn and Bruce, and to Natasha, whom I have not had time to describe to the House. John Key continues: “Policies that turn every second family with children into State dependents might be a result the Labour Party is comfortable with, but, simply put, National is not. National doesn’t support this policy.” What National supports is flat-tax cuts so that its mates, like people sitting in this Chamber, get $150 or $200 a week in tax cuts, but working New Zealanders get $10 a week.

I do not know about the National Party, but working New Zealanders are not stupid. They know the huge gains that are visible and that will become even greater gains as part of these Government initiatives.

Just in case people are not sure what the National Party thinks about anything—and no one would be surprised at that—let me repeat a quote I have used before in the House. It is from an interview with the Leader of the Opposition published in a magazine earlier in the year. This is a quote from John Key: “… while I’ve used a slightly softer tone in the last few weeks than maybe Don did … fundamentally we” —the National Party—“are still going in exactly the same direction with values that line up with where we think New Zealand is heading.” What can New Zealanders expect? With this Government in power they can expect this package to continue.

TIM GROSER (National): Two quite separate issues face this House in relation to the motion. One is a substantive question about tax policy design and the use of tax credits—I will come to that presently—and the other is an overtly political question that is raised by this extraordinary move to put on notice the motion that is before us today. On the substantive question, I want to address not the misrepresentation of National’s views we have just heard from the Labour Party but Mr Copeland’s obvious concern as he feels the squeeze that no doubt all third parties are feeling when this Government’s popularity slowly wanes and he looks towards a political future, perhaps with National. I say to Mr Copeland that he should not be concerned. He should listen explicitly to what my deputy leader, the Hon Bill English, has said. We have used tax credits as part of a system of tax policy. We recognise that families have special needs. We will unquestionably use tax credits for families in some way in the future. That is not the question at issue.

But what this debate and those simplistic answers from grateful Labour Party supporters illustrate is that the Government has not got its head around the truly important issues of the detail of policy design. It may well be that Government members do not really comprehend how effective marginal tax rates will work in practice. It may well be that the large majority of New Zealand taxpayers would not understand the term “effective marginal tax rate”, but, I tell you what, in due course they will understand how it cuts in at middle-income levels, without any question whatsoever. When two partners have a conversation about whether one of them should take a job, under certain scenarios it may absolutely follow, from the way in which this tax policy structure has been put forward, that they may collect only 30c in the dollar. That is when middle-income New Zealanders will understand—without necessarily knowing the term for it—what effective marginal tax rate policy actually means, and what bad and sloppy design of tax policy actually means for them in terms of their future. That is coming around the pike. But on the underlying issue raised by Mr Copeland, I say that, yes, National understands that families have special needs. We will cater for those special needs. We will use tax credits, as we have in the past, but in a more coherent way than this current package represents.

The second issue is a political issue and it is this extraordinary motion. We can look at it in two ways. One way is to look at it in the way that Mr English did when he opened up debate from the National Opposition, which was to put it in the context of this Government. We can look at the Order Paper as a signal of third term - itis, and as a signal of a Government that really no longer has anything useful to say to the New Zealand people. Looking down the list of issues—all of them worthy—on the Order Paper we see the Oaths Modernisation Bill, Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill, and we must not forget the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. All of the bills are worthy in their own right but, frankly, 10 or 15 years from now when we look back, these bills will be seen as irrelevant scribbling in the margins of New Zealand political history. They will perhaps be remembered only by some unfortunate MA thesis writer doing her or his thesis in political studies or history, and trying to explain why the Labour Party did not succeed in attaining a fourth term because it ran out of steam. I suspect that they are about the only people who will be interested in this essentially trivial agenda the Government is trying to convince the New Zealand people addresses the real issues facing New Zealand. It is for that strategic reason that the National Party, although reaffirming the proper role of tax credits for families in the system, will oppose the political purpose behind this motion, which is to conceal the reality that the Government has lost the plot. It has run out of steam. It no longer knows what to do with the privilege of running the country. For that reason, we will oppose the motion.

Let us look beyond that, to the context of what we really would expect the Government to be doing, and what we really would expect if the Government were trying to put forward a coherent view that would tackle the real long-term structural issues facing this country, including the issue of comprehensive tax reform. We know that this Government has ridden on the coat-tails of hard decisions taken earlier, which created a tripling of New Zealand’s average growth rate. [Interruption] Members opposite do not want to hear that, because they have somehow amazingly convinced themselves that New Zealand’s improved economic fortunes began on the day Labour was elected to Government for the first time. The doubling of New Zealand’s per capita income, and the tripling of New Zealand’s real GDP long-term growth rate, are consequences of people taking real decisions to stabilise the macroeconomic policy framework, to reduce unemployment from a high of 11 percent—23 percent for the Māori population—in the early 1990s, and actually to come to grips with the fundamental issues facing this country. The Government has ridden on the coat-tails of some successful but hard-won policy change.

Its first response has been, then, to introduce a welter of blather about knowledge wave economies and the—now to be late lamented—growth and innovation framework. Now it is about economic transformation. Essentially, that is the same thing; it is to talk, talk, talk the language of economic change, but just to fix political problems as they arise. This is so ably demonstrated by the particular motion before us today. We are seeing the wrapping of New Zealand in a blanket of mediocrity, which is not addressing the long-term fundamental issues facing this country.

It is not addressing the reality that we have, for example, a revolving-door policy on migration by which roughly 72,000 people—on the basis of the last annual statistics I have in my head—came through. They have moved to New Zealand to become New Zealand citizens—and we welcome them—but we have had about exactly the same number moving out of the country. These people are not moving out because they are looking for higher unemployment benefits or better tax credit schemes; they are moving out because they no longer fundamentally believe that the New Zealand economy can offer them and their families the best route to personal advancement.

Somewhat under half of the one million New Zealanders who live overseas, live in Australia. They are automatically disqualified from the unemployment benefit for a stand-down period, but that does not stop them from getting off their back seat and moving across the Tasman to take advantage of the higher level of real wages that is available there for them. We have a situation even at the middle level of the workforce. I remember a figure being given for fork-lift drivers’ earnings in 2005, converted to Australian dollars, and applying then. The average fork-lift driver in New Zealand was earning A$10 less than his or her counterpart in Australia. New Zealanders are moving to Australia fundamentally because our productivity growth rate has slowed down.

We have heard from various speakers today the continued plea for higher minimum wages. Minimum wages address—and this is arguable—an equity issue. They will actually do nothing in the long term to address the real issue facing this country, which is the need for higher real wages. The only route to higher real wages is through higher sustained productivity. The big news in the last month—admittedly it might be to a minority taste but, again, people will work out for themselves what it means when they see their wage packets 10 years from now—is the slow-down in productivity growth.

During question time, I thought Dr Cullen was very ill-advised to correct our questioner who made the point that labour productivity of growth rates were the slowest since statistics were first recorded in 1988. Dr Cullen said: “The figure the member cites is labour productivity, not total factor productivity”. Some people use the term “total factor productivity growth”. The answer there is even worse. The position in respect of labour productivity slow-down—to 0.4 percent in the latest statistics that are available—was accompanied by an increase in capital per worker. The consequence, I say to Dr Cullen, is that the really important measure of multifactor productivity—and I agree that this finally is the really important measure—actually declined, from memory, by somewhat over 1 percent compared with a long-term positive increase in multifactor productivity of around 1.5 percent. This is not some fine academic point. In the long run, our ability to sustain higher productivity growth will be the difference between New Zealand moving forward and its becoming a backwater.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak on this motion. Mr Tim Groser, who has just taken his seat, is absolutely right when he says this is an extraordinary motion. The timing of this motion is absolutely no coincidence. There is very little, if anything, of any consequence on the Order Paper. The Government is presented with a runaway public debate that Labour finds itself completely on the wrong side of. Today’s debate on family tax credits is just another attempt to distract Kiwis from the unpopular and undemocratic anti-smacking debate, which has Labour in real trouble with families and with some of its own caucus. This is an attempt by the Labour Government to say it cares about families. Many people could be forgiven for saying: “Yeah, right!”. This minority Labour Government says that it cares about families, that we should not let anyone smack their children, and that it knows best how to raise children. Labour says it knows what is best for families, so people should just listen to it.

Why has this motion come before the House today? It is because the minority Labour Government is in real trouble with Kiwi families. Helen Clark has lost her gamble of pushing through the unpopular anti-smacking bill under urgency. Her response and that of the rest of the Labour Government—those members who are chipping away across the other side of the Chamber, with nothing valuable to do except to hit, hit, hit other members of this House—is to try to buy off voters with their own money. Today’s debate in Parliament on this motion is just a cynical reaction to a poll-driven crisis.

A fair Government would let all workers keep more of what they earn. But this Government plays at being Robin Hood, while taking so much of what Kiwis earn that it would make the Sheriff of Nottingham blush. All Kiwis should pay less tax; that is what they want. A low, flat-tax rate would let people keep what they earn and let them take control over their own decisions.

I have a number of points to make about this motion, and I will go through them one by one. Firstly, ACT believes that lower, flat taxes are the only fair form of taxation. Mr Benson-Pope spoke in this House earlier and said the National Party is the only party that supports a flat-tax rate. Actually, he was wrong; he forgot to do his homework before he came here. The National Party—quite rightly—did want to lower tax rates at the last election, and I believe it still does want to do so, but it was the ACT party that wanted a flat-tax rate. So Mr Benson-Pope should do his homework next time before he comes down to debate in this House. People should be able to keep what they earn and to take control of their own decisions.

Secondly, I say incentives matter to people. Incentives make a difference to the way people behave, so we need to get marginal tax rates down. High marginal tax rates discourage entrepreneurship, they discourage savings, and they discourage investment in work.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Labour doesn’t understand that.

HEATHER ROY: That is right. It is way over the heads of those people over there. They do not understand that, which is why we have this ridiculous motion here today. High marginal tax rates encourage tax avoidance and tax evasion, and we should not forget that. A taxpayer’s marginal tax rate is crucial, because it is what we get to keep of any extra income generated that determines whether we go to the trouble to earn money in the first place. High marginal tax rates are notorious for their destructive effects, particularly on families who are doing their best to earn, provide for their children, and just get on with their business.

Working for Families is, of course, nothing more than a meaningless slogan of the Labour Party for taking the hard-earned cash of New Zealand workers and then making them feel grateful and say they thank the wonderful Government very much when they get a bit of that cash back. What a caring Government we have! Working for Families is nothing more than a tragic example of middle-class welfare and income churning. When it was first put forward, I—had I been the sole breadwinner in my family with five children and on a backbench MP’s salary—would have been eligible for Working for Families. I would have received $22 a week for my family. I do not need that. I go out and earn for my family; I earn plenty for my family. That shows the ridiculousness of that package. Working for Families has encouraged middle-class welfare and income churning. The Centre for Independent Studies has just released a study on the appalling effects of churning on the New Zealand economy—[Interruption]—and obviously that member over there on the Government benches has failed to read it, but I doubt whether he would have understood it if he had read it in the first place.

The public spending of money is inevitably less efficient than letting individuals spend it on themselves. I have several points under here, too. Firstly, there are administrative costs. Transferring money on the scale that Working for Families does is like using a leaky bucket, because it requires a large bureaucracy to collect the tax, to churn it through the system, and then to redistribute it to all of us. In order to cope with that extra spending, the number of people employed in the public service has had to increase by 27 percent since 1999. There has been an increase of 27 percent since 1999. Secondly, there is the economic cost of high taxation, which should not be forgotten. Taxation affects the behaviour of individuals and alters their decisions on things like employment and investment. It goes back to the incentives I was talking about previously. Those dead-weight losses are a major handbrake on economic growth. Economic growth is around 1.4 percent at the moment, compared with the 2.9 percent average for the OECD countries. We are said to be rich, but we are not even treading water at the moment—we are moving backwards. Equity was mentioned by the previous speaker, Tim Groser, and I entirely agree with his comments. Churned spending does nothing for the poor and the disadvantaged in our society—not a thing. By definition, the spending goes straight back to the person who paid the tax.

This is an extraordinary motion, and this has been an interesting debate. Metiria Turei and Hone Harawira both made some very interesting and valid points in their speeches. They both pointed out that there have been a vast number of complicated changes to the terminology used by the Inland Revenue Department around Working for Families. The Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen, has even managed to use outdated terminology in this motion. We now have Working for Families tax credits, which were formerly described as family assistance. We have the minimum family tax credit and we have the family tax credit, which was previously family support. The list goes on and on.

But that is typical of this Government. Its members say the Working for Families package should be really complicated, with a lot of really complicated terminology put into it, so that they can confuse people. Government members think that if nobody has any idea what is going on, then perhaps people will not even bother to find out whether they are eligible for the tax credits, the family assistance, or the family support—whatever it is that we are calling it today. Government members think that if they confuse people, then maybe they will not bother to find out about whether they are eligible. The changes are just an Orwellian ploy from Dr Cullen to rename all benefits as tax credits. It makes them sound a bit like tax cuts really, does it not? But no, they are called tax credits because Dr Cullen’s focus groups have told him that those words sound better than the word “benefits” to the general population.

I have a message for Dr Cullen. New Zealanders want tax cuts. New Zealanders want tax cuts; they do not want benefits. People do not like to be dependent on the State for their income, and they made that perfectly clear at the last election. It would be far easier and much fairer if we had a single rate of taxation for all New Zealanders, so should we not be promoting that? For those reasons, ACT will be opposing this motion.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour): This morning at 7 o’clock I was in Napier at a breakfast attended by about 120 builders—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: One hundred and fifty.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: —150 builders from Napier. We were attending a breakfast hosted by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. Three significant things emerged from that breakfast.

Hon Member: Did they know who you were?

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: No one asked where “Candy Floss” was, I say to members. Three things emerged from that breakfast. One was that there was a sense of well-being and satisfaction with the Government’s apprenticeship training scheme. There was considerable pride that this Government had reinstituted apprenticeship training schemes. The builders there were very defensive of the integrity of that scheme, but that is not what I want to talk about.

The second thing that emerged from that breakfast was that the 150 builders are enjoying a prosperous, successful, stable economy. We had first-class tradespeople and first-class businessmen who could plan for their futures. They could employ staff, they could seek to employ qualified staff, and they could look ahead 10 to 15 years.

I spoke to a builder who had moved his business from Auckland to Napier to build prestigious homes and who specialises in coastal and elevated properties. This is a builder who is employing a number of people with considerable pride and confidence that under the economy of Dr Michael Cullen he has a future in Napier as a very successful businessman. But that is not what I want to speak about.

The third thing I want to speak about is that during this breakfast it became immediately apparent that each one of those builders, who employs staff and is confident of his or her future in Napier because of the economy of Dr Michael Cullen and this Government, is very delighted that the family in Mārewa with two adults, and four children aged between about 3 and 12 or 13, are getting another $10 a week from 1 April, bringing their total tax relief to $303 a week. This will put money in the pockets of families, and will enable the builders and the real estate agents, the land agents and the travel agents, and all those who contribute nothing but take commission from the economy, to take a bigger bite with greater satisfaction.

The family in Mārewa that receives $303 a week from tax relief, under the marginal tax deductions of Tim Groser or Heather Roy would have been $293 worse off. That would be $293 out of the economy, which those builders were looking forward to putting towards building a prosperous future. So the 150 builders at the breakfast this morning had a spirited range of questions for my friend the Minister for Building Issues, Clayton Cosgrove. The questions were spirited, but underlying them was a confidence, a satisfaction, that this is a Government that provides a stable economy, low unemployment, and puts money back into the pockets of those who will spend it in the economy that these builders work in. The families, the mums and dads with children, can now afford to upgrade the quality of their house. They can afford to make improvements to their homes in Mārewa, and can afford to look forward to a sound future. That is why this is a debate of high principle, as outlined—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Ha, ha!

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: Don’t you laugh.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member, by using “you”, is bringing me into the debate.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. You were not laughing, but you should have been. Maurice Williamson was laughing.

Hon Maurice Williamson: What is this member doing speaking, if it’s a high-principled debate?

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: The high principle was introduced by Mr Bill English, who introduced the Opposition attack in this debate. There was an irony about the “high principle” reference, because Mr Bill English accused Dr Cullen of coming to this Chamber to waste time and speak about high principles, on what he said was a wasteful motion. It is ironic that he should criticise our Minister of Finance for addressing matters of high principle, but it is increasingly ironic that the debate that is so heavily criticised by the National Party is about putting more money into the pockets of those who count—the mums and dads with children. This extra money enables normal families to buy an extra litre of milk, an extra loaf of bread, and to keep one parent at home, if he or she decides, to help with raising the children.

In February this year I was at the Eastern Institute of Technology orientation in Napier. This is one of this country’s leading technical training institutions. At that orientation I was approached by a number of people, but I want to mention two. One was Sue, who came to me and said: “Russell, I want you to thank Dr Cullen for enabling me to study for my nursing degree, because no longer do we both in our household need to work in order to raise our children. With Working for Families, I can afford to enter into full-time study.” She said: “If it was not for Working for Families, I would not be at the EIT orientation, speaking to you today.” She was thankful and grateful.

But the other matter was also interesting. I was approached by another lady, whose name I will not mention, who told me that she and her husband had moved back to New Zealand from Canada where they had been living for 15 years. The Government’s Working for Families package meant they could move back to Napier and, with interest-free student loans, she could embark upon a long-postponed course of study. She said to me: “Would you please thank your Government, Helen Clark, and Dr Cullen”—

Hon Maurice Williamson: I’m sure she did!

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: She did, indeed. I want to tell the member that on Saturday I was at Boundary Stream, celebrating 10 years of a mainland island. A scientist came up to me and said: “Would you tell Helen Clark how well she’s done for us in the United States.” I did not know this man at the time, but he said to me: “Would you tell Helen Clark how well she has done in the United States.” Napier is a town that is proud to have a Prime Minister such as Helen Clark.

But I return to the debate, and to the family that moved back to New Zealand from Canada so that the wife could take advantage of our interest-free student loans and our Working for Families package, and engage in a long-postponed course of study at the Eastern Institute of Technology. This is the real working side of Working for Families. We have had the patronising approach and productivity arguments from the inherited voice of the Werther’s Originals TV ad, Tim Groser.

There was a time 30 years ago when that same Tim Groser stood on a platform at Victoria University and made a case for zero GDP growth. Back in his student days, he argued that the biggest evil in this country was having increasing GDP growth. Boy, have not times changed! The voice has not, but the thought processes have. Are they an improvement? No, they are not.

I want to move on to talk about the families in Napier that can now afford to go out and buy an extra bottle of milk and an extra loaf of bread, and can afford for one parent to stay at home, so that children have somewhere to go. I want to talk about the kids in our area of Napier who are now 14, 15, 16, and 17. These are the kids who sometimes cause problems to the police. Why? Because there is a breakdown in parental structure and control.

Those children were born immediately after the Ruth Richardson “mother of all Budgets”. Those children are of the time of the slashes to benefits. Those children are of the time of high unemployment. Those children are of the time of the breakdown in families because of the stresses of low incomes into the family household. Today, those young teenagers have no structures, they have no need to return home at an appointed time at night, after attending a noisy party, because their parents have forsaken the control from the structures that were eroded by the vicious attack by the principles that Heather Roy referred to, reflected in Ruth Richardson’s “mother of all Budgets” back in 1991.

The party opposing this motion is the party that wants tax cuts. The parties supporting this motion are the ones that want healthy families. They want families with healthy incomes, and families that have time to plan their social environments, as well as their working environments. The 150 builders at the breakfast in Napier this morning were all very confident about their futures. Not one of them asked my friend the Minister for Building Issues how they would be in 5 years’ time. They want to train new employees. They want to train new carpenters. They want to move their businesses forward, knowing that it is going to happen. They were talking with confidence of 10 to 15 years. This is a Government that brings in policies such as Working for Families, and redirects the money, by way of tax credit, to where it counts—to the mums and dads of Mārewa, Onekawa, Maraenui, Taradale, and Greenmeadows who go out to work and also raise their children. I support this motion.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): All I can say, after listening to that speech, is how perverse the voters of Napier must be. We have just heard from Russell Fairbrother about how much the voters of Napier think this is a great Government. He said that everywhere he goes—to the Eastern Institute of Technology, or to the breakfast for 150 builders—that is what everyone thinks. Well, what happened at the last election? Napier was the safest Labour seat in the country—a seat that Labour had never lost, for any reason—and a seat that good old Geoff Braybrooke used to hang on to by a majority of 15,000 to 20,000, and that member lost it. That member lost Labour’s safest seat. I have to say that if I ever lose my seat, which is a similar Tory safe seat, I will be so ashamed that I will walk on that day. That member comes into the House and says that everybody he talks to is in support of the Government, so the loss of the seat can only have been a personal vote against him. It could only have been the result of a sheer abhorrence of the individual member, if everybody in Napier thought things were going so swimmingly.

I want to say today that my “gast” is completely “flabbered”. I am flabbergasted. I have been in this House for as long as you, Mr Assistant Speaker—for 20 years—and I have never seen an Order Paper have as its No. 1 item a self-congratulatory notice of motion about how well the Government is doing. I want the people who are listening to this debate today to know that this debate is not about passing any family tax credit provision, Working for Families provision, or any other taxation legislation. We are not doing that today. Any members of my adoring drive time audience in Auckland who listen in to the radio regularly need to know that this debate is not about a bill. It will not matter whether people vote for or against the motion, because the regimes have all been put in place after previous debate in this House and through legislative change. No, for the first time, in my knowledge of this Parliament, we have a Government that is so bereft of any ideas that it has come up with a motion to congratulate itself.

I could not believe that, so I got out the Standing Orders. There is a very good section at the back that states the time each debate can take. I thought that that would be interesting to read, because I did not know how long a Government motion debating timeslot was—how long each member could take, and what the maximum time for the debate was. I know what the timeslots are for the general debate and for the first reading of a bill, but I did not know about those for a motion. As I went through pages 119, 120, and 121 of the Standing Orders, I read about every sort of debate we can think of that this House normally has. I read about how many minutes each speaker gets—the first speaker gets this many, then subsequent speakers get that many—and about the limit for the debate. But I could not find the speaking time for a Government motion.

So I asked the Clerk. David McGee knows these things; he knows everything. He said that if I looked at the section entitled “General procedures”, I would find a heading “Debates not otherwise provided for”. That is what this is today: a debate not otherwise provided for. That is how important this debate is. That indicates how many debates like this that there have been in the past. We have to look under the heading, which I should have spotted, “Debates not otherwise provided for”.

What is going on here? I was a Minister in a National Government for 9 years, and I tell members that the hardest thing I did during those 9 years was to go to the legislative committee every week—the Hon Lockwood Smith will remember doing this—and fight like stink to try to get some of our legislation into the House. There was so much legislation, and there were so many bills in the backlog, that Don McKinnon, who used to be in charge of that committee, used to say he knew I wanted to bring my maritime transport bill into the House. He would say he was sorry, but I could not do so, because there was no slot available. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith would have rued the day too when he was trying desperately to get legislation into the House. What does a legislative committee meeting look like now? Do the members have a cup of tea and some biscuits? I bet there is not even a legislative committee now, or, if there is, that the committee sits around and has a chardonnay and something to eat.

A self-congratulatory Government notice of motion has got to the top of the A4 page that is all that is left of the Order Paper. Clayton Cosgrove will know how important some of the stuff is that is left on the Order Paper. I should hang on, though, because one of the items left on the Order Paper is Government notice of motion No. 2. So not only do we have this precedent but it will be repeated in the form of another self-congratulatory motion at some stage in the future. There are other things on the Order Paper, like the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill. I understand that that is a very important bill. I know that most of the people in Pakuranga run down the street, trying to touch the hem of my garment and asking me to please make sure that the Government gets the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill passed through. But not one person has ever in my life asked me to please get the Government to move a motion in the House that is self-congratulatory about something it has already done.

Let us think of an analogy to this motion. Let us think about a sporting analogy. How would we feel if the Warriors, after they won a match, had a separate day when all they did was to give speeches about how well they had played the day before?

Hon Mark Gosche: That would be good.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Mark Gosche says that that would be good. No sportspeople in their right mind would spend a whole day telling everybody how good they were. They would get back to the training room and the weight room, and get ready for the next match, because, as in any other field of human endeavour, one is only as good as one’s last match. But that is not the case with regard to this Government. It has nothing left. That is what I want the honourable listeners to know about this Government motion. We have an Order Paper with nothing on it and a Government that has totally lost its direction, and now the only thing the Government can do is to move, as the No. 1 item on the agenda, an unprecedented motion that says how good it is.

I can see this becoming very much a trend. I think we should have motions to celebrate the second anniversary of such things, and the third anniversary. Then we could bring in a whole lot of other things. We could celebrate the anniversary of the leaking of the local loop unbundling papers, and have a motion in another year’s time to celebrate the 2-year anniversary of that. How bizarre will it become? Members in this House are all paid high salaries, the running of this place costs a fortune, and we are here using up those salaries and the time of this House to pass a Government motion. Let me read it for people; let me show them how vitally important it is. The motion stands in the name of the Minister of Finance, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. It states: “That this House endorses”—

Sue Moroney: What’s your policy?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No, I say to Sue Moroney, it does not say: “What’s your policy?”. She should read it. It states: “That this House endorses the Family Support Tax Credit increase of $10.00 per week per child that comes into force on 1 April 2007.” In other words, that increase is done and dusted; it is coming in no matter what happens.

We should be debating the issues that this House should be focused on. The Minister of Health is in the House; we should be hearing from him as to whether he is prepared ever to let Dr Tony Bierre, after what was found out about his behaviour, near a contract again in respect of the Auckland District Health Board. At question time the Minister would not answer that. We should be using this time in the House to scrutinise people like Damien O’Connor about the corruption in the Department of Corrections, and so on. But we have a Government that is all about care, with no responsibility and absolutely no blame. That is what is going on in this regime. Now there is a smokescreen. Now the Government, when it gets into real trouble, moves a motion like Government motion No. 1 on the Order Paper and has it debated.

I hope the news media absolutely cane the do-nothing Government, because in the past if any self-respecting executive had come to this place with an Order Paper as thin as this one, with nothing left, the conclusion would be that the Government had run completely out of steam and had nowhere to go from there, and that it was time to get the Government out. That is very clearly what this motion says to the country. It says the Government has nothing left but the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill and another notice of motion that is on the way to fill up the agenda even more. A 4-week adjournment is coming up, when Labour members will all be off on their 4 weeks a year—

Darren Hughes: It’s 3 weeks.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Actually, I say to Mr Hughes that if an adjournment goes from a Thursday through to a Tuesday and has 3 weeks in the middle, he will find, if he adds it up, that it comes closer to 4 weeks than to 3 weeks.

Darren Hughes: We start on Monday here.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Oh, yes. The member says he starts the holiday on Monday. The member started on his holiday at about Christmas time, and he will not go back to work until the following Christmas.

This motion is an absolute outrage. I have never seen one like it before, and I cannot believe this Government has moved it.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I think we have just heard excuse No. 500 as to why National made no investment in infrastructure in the whole decade it was in power. Maurice Williamson just told us that he did nothing while he was the Minister of Transport because he could not get his legislation on the Order Paper. That must be the best excuse I have heard yet as to why National did absolutely nothing about the state of our roads and our public transport in the whole decade it was in power. But now I know.

Why does National not like this debate? Every single member of the National Party who has participated in this debate has said that he or she does not want to be debating this issue. The clear reason why those members do not want to debate this issue is that this debate gives a clear demonstration of which parties support families and which parties do not. Come election time, everyone says they support families. When people want families to vote for them, suddenly everyone is in support of families. But this is the debate that will really flush it out. Which parties actually vote for those types of policies that are of good, practical use to families, and which parties do not? I know that the National Party is not supporting this motion. I do not know what the National Party has against families, but just as it will not support the 20 hours’ free childhood education policy, it will not support this motion. What has the National Party got against families?

But to understand why we are debating this motion we need to go back a little bit, because there is a context all around this. We could not be debating this motion at all if we did not have the successful economy that has been built around the term of this Labour Government. We do have that very successful economy, and what we are debating now is the motion that says that some of that economic benefit will go to working families.

I remind people in this House who may have forgotten, because it may be some time since they have been involved in that period of time when they raised young children, that all New Zealanders who have been involved in this process do know that raising a family is the time of most financial pressure in our lives. As we move through that whole age demographic, raising a family has to place the most financial pressure on a person over the course of his or her lifetime. This measure will ensure that we can take that financial pressure off families, because with the complexity of raising children these days, families need as much pressure taken off them as possible. This measure actually reflects not just slogans and not just feel-good messages about families; it is good, practical support that this Labour-led Government is bringing in for working families.

The best thing about it is that the extension of the Working for Families package gives families options. Those members opposite who want to argue that somehow this Government is forcing issues upon families really have difficulty debating this particular motion, because this measure gives families lots of options. It gives them the option to increase their income as working families. But if they wish to do so, they could use this package to maintain their income and reduce their working hours and therefore spend more time with their children, and that is good news for families.

But it is not the only good news for families that is coming up on 1 April. Another initiative by this Government that will ensure that families can spend more time with their children is the 4 weeks’ paid annual leave as a protection for all workers. This is a great initiative for families. It means not only that workers will have more time for rest and recreation but that those families who do have young children, or even older children, can spend much more time during school holidays with their children—again, another very family-friendly initiative from the Labour-led Government.

Another time of financial pressure that springs to mind for me, if we look over our lifespans—and again on 1 April this area will be further alleviated—is the period of time when people are in retirement and reliant on New Zealand superannuation for their income. On 1 April the rate of superannuation is increasing, and that is good news for older families.

The effect of these impacts—all these different initiatives—coming from, yes, a very busy Government, despite what Maurice Williamson just tried to say in squaring off for his lack of performance when he was last in Government, is bringing in an absolute wrap-around effect. It gives a combined effect that is a significant improvement to people’s lives. I want to tell members about a couple of real people—real-life instances I have come across recently that demonstrate this wrap-around effect that a number of different policies will have, come 1 April.

I want to tell members about a woman I talked to at a meeting in Cambridge last night. She talked to me about the effects of the policies that are coming in on 1 April from this Labour-led Government, for her family. She said that her son and his family benefited greatly from the Working for Families package. The new initiative will make a real difference to the income of their family and therefore take significant financial pressure off. She then went on to tell me how she was a recipient of the rates rebate scheme brought in by the Labour-led Government. She then went on further to say how both her and her sister were going to also enjoy the increase in superannuation—again coming in on 1 April.

So that is just one example of the combined wrap-around effect that Labour-led Government policies have in making a very real difference; it is not a bumper sticker slogan, not shallow promises, but good, practical effects for people in their everyday lives.

I give yet another example: just last week I was on a worksite in Matamata at a place called Metso Minerals, which employs around 140 staff. For a town the size of Matamata, that is a very large workplace, indeed. When I met with the staff and talked to them about some of the initiatives coming up, they thought it was almost too good to be true. They checked with me: “Is this really going to happen? Is this really what we’re going to get?”. I could give them in writing, and verbally, the information that confirmed it for them. The Working for Families package for those people was going to make a significant difference.

I listened with interest to Dr Cullen speaking earlier today in this debate about a person with a spouse and two children. As at 1 April that person can now earn up to $40,000 before paying any tax. Is that not a great thing? I was able to talk to the people at Metso Minerals about the fact that come 1 April they would, through a Labour-led Government initiative, get a 4th week of annual leave. They said: “But surely that can’t be paid leave?”. I said: “In fact, it is. This is from the Government. Your employer will pay you for a 4th week of annual leave, and that is even better for the time you can spend with your families.” They are, of course, looking forward to July because they were also very interested to hear about the KiwiSaver scheme that is coming up, and that will have a real impact in that workplace. These are examples of the types of people who would suffer if National ever got a chance to run this country.

I just want to refer back to Bill English’s speech earlier, where he had the audacity, the absolute audacity, to take this Government to task about what caregivers in the health sector are paid. For goodness’ sake! By the time Bill English had finished as the Minister of Health, the wages had gone backwards in the 1990s. Caregivers in the health sector had lost income. I know this because I was a union organiser in the aged-care sector at the time. I had to deal with the consequences of the Employment Contracts Act being enacted by the National Government, and penal rates being stripped off those aged-care workers, primarily middle-aged women working in the weekends, having their incomes slashed. The audacity of Bill English to say that it is wrong for this Labour Government to keep increasing the minimum wage so that those wages can be increased! I am very pleased to stand up in support of this motion. Thank you.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): The media are starting to refer to this Labour Government, the Clark-Cullen Government, as a lame duck. It is a dead duck. In 23 years in this Parliament, I do not remember a Government that has absolutely so little business to conduct in this Parliament that it debates a motion at the top of its Order Paper. I never ever remember a Government announce that it would seek urgency to pass legislation in the way that the Clark-Cullen Government said it would do in order to pass its anti-smacking legislation—and then it could not even raise the votes needed to get urgency. This Government is a dead duck. A Government that can no longer govern should get out and let the people elect a Government that can govern.

We are debating this motion whereby Labour is celebrating its family support tax credit increase. I want to test this lame-duck Government, to see whether it actually understands the policy it is debating. I will run a test now, to see whether there is even a single Labour member in the House who can answer some questions about this policy. The first thing I want to ask those members is this. If a woman, or a man, is trying to get off the domestic purposes benefit and we take that person over an income range of from $5,000 of earned income a year up to $100,000—by that time, that person has gone right off the domestic purposes benefit—[Interruption] I ask Darren Hughes, a Labour Party whip, whether the tax that that person on the domestic purposes benefit would pay on the next dollar he or she earns, in the entire income range of from $5,000 a year to $100,000 a year of income, will ever fall below 50 percent.

Can any Labour member answer that question? Would the tax that that person—a person with three dependent children, going off the domestic purposes benefit—has to pay on the next dollar he or she earns, in the income range between $5,000 a year and $100,000 a year, be less than 50 percent? Is there any income where that person would pay less than 50 percent in tax on the next dollar he or she earns? Does any Labour member know the answer to that? Not one of those members can tell us the answer. In fact, the answer is that, yes, there is an income range where such people would actually pay less than 50 percent on the next dollar they earn.

Let me ask the Labour members the next question. Over what income range would the tax paid on the next dollar earned by a person with three dependent children—a person who is trying to work his or her way off the domestic purposes benefit—be below 50 percent? Can any Labour member tell me that? We are debating Labour’s policy; it is those members’ policy. Surely, one Labour member understands the policy. Over what income range would a person who is working his or her way off the domestic purposes benefit pay less than 50 percent in tax on the next dollar earned? Can one Labour member tell me that? Can even a Minister tell me? Can Pete Hodgson, a Minister in the Labour Government, tell us the answer to that? Not one Labour member can tell us. They do not have the faintest idea of how their policy actually works, and they have the audacity to waste the time of this House by debating and celebrating something, without knowing how it works.

Let me tell Labour members how their policy works. I have here a graph. The data on it is provided by the Inland Revenue Department—the Government’s Inland Revenue Department. The question I asked members opposite was to tell me how much tax a person who is working his or her way off the domestic purposes benefit would pay on the next dollar he or she earned, over $5,000 intervals, on incomes of from $5,000 a year to $100,000 a year. The graph shows that indeed there is an income range within which such people would pay under 50 percent in tax on the next dollar they earn. Do members know what that income range is? It is from $30,000 a year to $40,000 a year of income—and that income range only. In every other income range from $5,000 a year to $100,000 a year of earned income, a person with three dependent children, who is trying to work his or her way off the domestic purposes benefit, pays more than 50 percent in tax on the next dollar he or she earns. And Labour says that is great!

If we listen to those Government members, we hear only dead silence now. Not one of them understands how the policy works. Do those members understand that the tax the lowest-income people—people whom they claim to care about; people with three dependent children—pay as they try to work their way off the domestic purposes benefit is over 90c in the dollar? We have heard examples given by David Benson-Pope this afternoon, so let me give him an example. People who are trying to work their way off the domestic purposes benefit today may earn $10,000 a year through their own work while still being on that benefit. They are trying to earn more for their family. If they work another 20 hours a week at $15 an hour—and, of course, their increased earnings are $15,000; they go from $10,000 to $25,000 of earned income over the year—does any Labour member know how much those low-income families with three dependent children, working their way off the domestic purposes benefit, get to keep? Of that extra $15,000 of income, they get to keep $1,694.

Labour celebrates that; it says that is great for low-income families. It says it cares about them. Those people work for an extra 20 hours a week at $15 an hour, and they get to keep $1,694 a year. In other words, of every extra dollar they earn, the Government takes 92c and those families get to keep 8c. And Labour celebrates that; Labour thinks that is wonderful. This data is all from the Inland Revenue Department, using the figures after the changes that take effect on 1 April are put in place. And Labour celebrates that.

Labour’s Working for Families policy was a bribe to middle-income New Zealand at the last election—a disgraceful bribe in order to win votes. It does not do a damn thing for low-income families; they continue to suffer under this Labour Government. The marginal tax rates that most people with families face on the next dollar they earn are in fact over 60 percent, on incomes of from $5,000 a year through to $100,000 a year. If those families have three children, the marginal tax rate they face on the next dollar they earn is 60-plus percent, except for when they are on incomes within that $10,000 income gap between $30,000 a year and $40,000 a year.

It is little wonder that 22,000 New Zealanders have taken off to Australia in the last 12 months. That is 30 percent more than those who left just 2 years ago. The exodus to Australia is growing, because under this Labour Government’s policies, people feel trapped. They have no hope when they earn an extra dollar and the Government takes 92c in tax out of that extra dollar earned. Where is the hope for low-income New Zealand families? They leave the country and go to Australia. They get out, and this Labour Government, bereft of policy and bereft of legislation, should get out too. It is time the public elected a decent Government.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance): After that vein-popping dissertation from Dr Lockwood Smith, we were not sure whether the member had burst, or was about to burst, some organ in his system. He got so worked up. I am not getting off the subject, but for a moment I ask whether members recall that wonderful television series called Dad’s Army? Members might be able to assist me, because I cannot quite recall the name of the old fellow who had gone out to the African wars, or whatever, who had this wonderful saying. He used to say to Captain Mainwaring: “They don’t like it up ’em—the old cold steel, do they? They don’t like the old cold steel up ’em.” Well, today, in political terms, what this motion has done to that party on the other side is to put the cold steel into them.

I predict that that great genius Lockwood Smith will probably take a point of order, just as he does every time I bring this up, because he hates it—just as Darren Hughes predicted that the first three lines of his speech would be to quote his 23 years’ lineage in this House. He said he had never before in his 23 years seen this, that, and the other. That is the man who asks what low-income households should celebrate. I will tell members what they should celebrate. They should celebrate their 9,000 sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters who are in apprenticeships today, for instance—apprenticeships that that member gutted in 1992 when the National Government abolished the Apprenticeship Act. He is the member who stands before the House and denies—as he does every time I make this speech, and I wonder whether he will again, because he has never won the point of order when he has made it—that the Apprenticeship Act got abolished and dealt to by him. Not only that; he is proud of it.

What those 9,000 young people should celebrate today is what we have done to give them a chance and a career in trade training. I was with Russell Fairbrother at the builders’ breakfast this morning. There were 150 builders there, many of whom have young people working for them and have taken advantage of a modern apprenticeship system that that other crowd sold them out on. Well, that silly member over there, who should be on heart pills or something else, would know if he read the statistics that on the East Coast of the North Island today there are carpenters—young people who are straight out of their time—who are earning $57,000 a year. What did they get under that member’s Government? Zip! They got nothing, except an abolished Apprenticeship Act, which he is proud of. I say to that member that the old, cold steel is waiting for him. He may enjoy it, of course, but it is waiting for him.

This Government motion No. 1 makes a stark challenge to the National Party because if we look at the figures, we see that 350,000-plus families out there who were earning, on average, $88 per week in tax credits before this now earn $98 per week. I am told that Dr Bollard said to the Finance and Expenditure Committee—which I think Dr Smith is still a member of, nominally—that before this $10-a-week increase with the Working for Families package, there had been an increase in average real wages of 6 percent. Members should mark that.

Unemployment is down to 3-plus percent—to 3.4 percent or 3.6 percent. Three hundred thousand jobs have been created in the 7½ years that this Government has been in office, compared with Dr Smith’s great 23 years in the House. What a history that is! In June 1999, before that member was routed by the people, his response to unemployment was the “mother of all Budgets”. To quote Mrs Shipley at the time, National’s response to getting unemployment down was: “The Government believes our goal of reducing unemployment must now be matched by clear programmes that attempt to reverse the growing trend of domestic purposes, sickness, invalids, and accident compensation claimants.” In English, that means that the “mother of all Budgets”, which she cut. So those members’ answer to unemployment was to slash benefits.

What did it do? In June 1999—when that genius was still a Minister after his 23-year record in the House—unemployment was 7 percent. What is it today? It is 3.4 percent—the second-lowest in the OECD. How many jobs did that genius create over 9 years in office?

Darren Hughes: Zip.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Zip. How many jobs have been created today under a Labour Government of 7½ years? We have created 300,000 jobs. I would tell the member to stick that in his pipe and smoke it.

I welcome debating that member’s 23 years of lineage in this House against the 7½ years that we have spent creating jobs, creating wealth, creating growth in the economy, giving young people a chance, and giving students a chance with interest-free loans—which he hates, of course, because he brought in the botched student loan system. He hates the fact that a student might get a degree and have a decent shot in life without finishing that degree with a mortgage but without a house. The member, of course, got his PhD in animal husbandry, I think—whatever that is. Some member might be able to assist me in defining what that means.

Of course, the member got his degree under the old system, but he does not give a rat’s for what young people might have to go through today—and the facts speak for themselves. I often say in speeches in this House that we cannot treat people and our communities as if they are stupid. Every day that mob over there gets up and tries to seduce people with its 23-year record in the House. Members opposite have a so-called record of achievement, such as their 9 years of huge unemployment, of benefit cuts, of cutting the pension, and of abolishing apprenticeships—what a wonderful record that member has in his 23 years in this House. What a superb human being he is! In fact, we should go and buy the Hansard and send it out. What an incredible record that member has!

I remember when the students came. They did not give him the custard pie. I was the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the time, and the students came in to thank him. They gave him a cake, I think, at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and he did a runner, of course. He did a runner, and the students chased him down the corridor with a cake—the debt cake, I think it was, thanking him for the debt that they had been saddled with. What a great legacy this PhD in animal husbandry has. I say to that member that a heck of a lot of people out there would welcome the fact that we are dealing to child poverty.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not mind the personal abuse at all, but maybe the member should get his facts a little bit straight. If he is interested, my PhD is actually in physiology. It is in intestinal physiology, and I won a Commonwealth scholarship—as did Dr Michael Cullen—to study for my PhD.

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

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker; I am gratified. I did not quite know, and I yield to the member’s intestinal physiology. I think that it has something to do with guts—which is something that that party over there never had a lot of. That crew over there never had a lot of intestinal physiology, or guts. But of course, those members get up every day in this House and try to rewrite history.

I say today that on 1 April we will give families back a tax credit. We had Heather Roy over there—“Private Roy”, or whatever they called her, back in the trenches with Captain Mainwaring and the boys, and Rodney Hide—say that, hang on, we should not give people their money back. Then she said that we should give people back their money, and she could not quite work it out. The difference between the parties is this. It is the difference between the flat tax and the flat-earth merchants in ACT and the members in the National Party who wanted to borrow $3.5 billion, then cut another $3.5 billion out of our public services to give people a tax cut.

Let us remind people of what they would have got under Dr Lockwood Smith’s intestinal Government—if it had ever got in. We, in this House, would have got around $98 a week, and three out of four people, I think it was, would have got around $20 a week. So my constituents in Oxford and in Kaiapoi—those working families; those lower-income people, and even those middle-income people—would have received just that. A family with three or four kids on $50,000 a year—which is not a big salary if one has kids these days, given the expenses involved—would have got that. But even middle-income people would have got a whole $20 a week. Dr Smith could have gone and done another PhD. He would not have needed a scholarship in intestinal physiology; he would have been able to use his $100 a week that John Key would have given him—while everybody else got $20—to go and do it, and to pay for it himself. He would have had a bit of lose change over to go and buy a few sausages down at the butcher.

I say that that is the difference between the parties. We believe in targeted tax credits. We believe in taking the money in. Under our system today, Dr Smith and I do not get any more dough. I know that it irks him. I know that he could probably spend it on intestinal research; I know he could. And I am sure that I could probably spend $100 extra a week, but I do not think that I deserve it, and I do not think that he deserves it. I do not think that anybody who is in the top income bracket—the top 5 percent—deserves it, but I do believe that three out of four New Zealanders deserve, on average, the $88 or $100 a week that they will get under this package. I do believe that the lost and lonely, who are now being helped with in-work payments to encourage them to get into jobs and stay in jobs, will welcome this when they compare the hollow promises from the hollow men who sit opposite, pontificate, and—in their 23-year record in this House—try constantly to rewrite history.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): I rise to speak calmly and intelligently about Government motion No. 1, unlike the previous speaker, who is obviously very, very angry. I can understand why he is very, very angry, because today, I believe, he visited Napier, which was the home of a Labour seat for 54-odd years. It was taken from Labour—earned from Labour—by my good colleague Mr Chris Tremain. I can further see why the member is angry. It is because, I guess, when he flew up from Wellington he flew over the Wairarapa. He flew over what was another Labour seat that was won by Mr John Hayes, a good candidate for National. Mr Cosgrove would have been remembering that these seats were all won in the 2005 election, when these extra tranches for Working for Families were on the pledge card. So as the plane flew over the Wairarapa, the angry member—who I presume spoke sense somewhere along the way in his speech, but I honestly missed it—flew over Tukituki. Well, that is the seat that I won, which I took from a Labour Minister. It had been a Labour seat for quite some time and, again, I can just see Mr Clayton Cosgrove’s anger rising as he travelled up the country. Then he landed at Hawke’s Bay airport at Napier. As he got off the plane and Mr Fairbrother greeted him, people probably looked away because no one was really quite sure who that gentleman was, given he was the MP who turned about an 11,000 majority into a vote of 15,000 against himself and against the Labour Party. So no wonder the previous speaker was so angry and frustrated.

I was also interested in the analogy that he was making about It Ain’t Half Hot Mum, because it reminded me of where the current Government is. It is a bit like Dad’s Army, because I can just hear the cry of “Don’t panic, don’t panic!” from Dr Cullen at the moment as he looks at the polls. Those members look around and try not to panic in the face of the obvious catastrophe coming towards them.

I have asked a few seasoned colleagues who have been in the House a bit longer than I have why we are debating this motion. I asked those colleagues whether the Hon Michael Cullen put up the first tranche of Working for Families in the House as a debatable motion. The answer was no. Did Labour put up the student loans package as a debatable motion in the House? No. So we went through the other bits and pieces on the infamous pledge card, and not one of them has been debated in the House as a motion. So I cannot quite understand why the most important thing facing this Government that needs to be debated in the House is a bit of self-gratification from a policy on a pledge card that was dubious anyway. Obviously, Labour is stalling for time, which is quite unusual, because a few days ago it was running for time to try to get urgency as it whipped into action on the anti-smacking bill in order to vote for it.

When the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, who was first up, spoke to this motion, it was very interesting to watch all the list MPs on the Labour side furiously clapping away—working on their list-ranking speeches, I guess. Those members seem to forget that around 60 percent of New Zealanders actually voted against this package. The party vote for Labour was nudging 40.5 percent. So around 60 percent actually voted against it. They were right to vote against its implementation and the way it has been executed. The way it works flies in the face of the good, solid Kiwi way, which is about rewards for hard work. It is about merit pay—work harder and earn harder to be rewarded.

We need to be clear. This policy drives net family income. It virtually ignores gross family incomes because of the high marginal tax and the way the rebate system works. So another way to read that is that this policy controls net family income. There is nothing that good old-fashioned socialists—like the ones we have running the show at the moment on the other side of the House—like more than control. They want to control the net incomes of New Zealanders. They therefore want to control which way they swing and which way they vote, and, as we have recently seen, they also want to control how we bring up our children.

I work endlessly in my electorate and in this House to raise incomes for families and for all New Zealanders, and to help them to achieve their aspirations, to live their dreams, and to set their sights wherever they want to be—it is patently obvious that I am fully in favour of this. I am all about empowering families; actually, I am all about empowering all New Zealanders. I want all New Zealanders to hold on to more of what they earn. I want all New Zealanders to do their best as they see fit for themselves and their families. Again, the way this current mechanism has been put in place is all about control. I want New Zealanders to be able to choose to save, if at that time of their lives that is what they choose to do. I also want them to be able to enjoy their income, if that is what they choose to do, and I also want them to have the freedom to add value to our economy. In short, I trust New Zealanders, and National trusts New Zealanders, to make the best decisions about themselves, at whatever time of life they are in.

Nothing demonstrates more clearly the differences between Labour and National than the way Labour has implemented this policy. This policy is about control; everything this Government is about is control, be it in respect of smacking, what one watches on TV, or what one’s net income is. This was a flagship pledge on the infamous pledge card at the last election. It was one of those slogans on the pledge card, which, sadly, the taxpayer had to fund and pay for. It was also—disgustingly, quite frankly—made legal by retrospective legislation that was pushed under urgency late last year. Incidentally, as I was writing a few notes, I was wondering whether that $800,000 had been paid back—there are about 95 days to go—and I am looking forward to the receipts being tabled in Parliament.

Many studies in the last couple of years and in recent months have shown that there is a growing underclass in New Zealand and a growing poverty gap. Those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder have suffered more than ever over the last 6 or 7 years. In fact, the National leader, John Key, raised this issue in a recent speech, and Prime Minister Helen Clark denied it. She said he was talking nonsense. In fact, New Zealanders acknowledged it, and they thanked Mr John Key for raising the issue, confronting it, and starting to offer solutions.

I guess the celebration of this motion by Labour begs the question as to why on earth $10 a week is necessary in the first place. Why is it needed? Besides the other points I have talked about—control and buying votes—I ask why on earth this is necessary. Well, it is very simple, actually. Billions and billions of extra funds and extra individual wages and salaries have been taken from the private sector in the form of extra taxation by this Government over the last 8 years—amounting to something like $60 billion that will be wandering through the Inland Revenue Department accounts this year. That is why Labour decided that it needed to give families another $10 per week. Can members not see the obvious—that the money should not be taken in the first place? The Cullen experiment of the past 8 years has failed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7 states that a member cannot be referred to by one name—it is the full name or the title.

CRAIG FOSS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for putting me right. The experiment by the Hon Michael Cullen over the last 8 years has failed. The inflationary pigeons have come home to roost—they are coming right now. Wallets are empty, and purses are empty. At the end of the week, after paying the bills, the only things left in those wallets and purses are numerous credit card receipts, and, suddenly, the equity in one’s house starts to get eaten again.

The experiment has failed. Costs are through the roof. Rates and electricity are through the roof. Voluntary school fees are through the roof. Interest rates are through the roof. Inflation is through the roof; the inflation rate is now based at 3 percent, where once it was virtually illegal to go north of 2 percent. Under Dr Cullen’s experiment, in respect of almost all economic measures over the last 5 or 6 years New Zealand has at best stood still, and in most cases it has gone backwards. One thing that has also gone through the roof is the currency. The currency, at 71-odd cents, is absolutely killing New Zealand. Funnily enough, New Zealand exporters are currently in Export Year.

There is absolutely no hope of New Zealand climbing up the OECD ladder if productivity does not improve. As statistics that came out last week showed, New Zealand’s productivity is sliding, it is disgraceful, and it is the worst we have seen in 19 years. In fact, the only increase in labour productivity is people working longer hours for virtually the same money. Quite how Labour faces up to its union mates to explain that one I do not know, but I guess Mr Andrew Little’s list ranking is probably improving by the day, the quieter he stays on this.

Inflation is absolutely, totally corrosive to New Zealand. The inflation rate we now have is the product of the fiscal spend-up and Labour’s taking more than it needed to in the first place by way of Dr Cullen’s experiment. Those who are damaged the most by sliding productivity and high inflation are actually those whom Labour claims to support. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

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

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House endorses the Family Support Tax Credit increase of $10.00 per week per child that comes into force on 1 April 2007.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2.

Abstentions 6

Green Party 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In order to maintain public confidence in the role of justices of the peace—or JPs—in a system preserving the good name of the office, the Government introduced the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill to reform three areas: training, discipline, and retirement. The bill establishes a modern framework for a long-established and venerable community institution. The bill is divided into two parts. The first part relates to the training of newly appointed JPs, and the authorisation to use the designation “JP (retired)”. The second part provides an appropriate and clear disciplinary process for JPs.

At this point—and I am sure that Simon Power, a member of the Law and Order Committee, will join with me—I congratulate and thank not only all the JPs that serve our community but also the immediate past President of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations, Gavin Kerr, who, from the point of view of the royal federation, shepherded through this bill. I note that he has been honoured in this year’s Honours List, and I think he will receive his honour in the next 24 or 48 hours. I thank him, together with Alan Hart, the royal federation’s registrar, and, of course, the incoming president, John Falconer. I also thank the Law and Order Committee, especially its chair, Martin Gallagher, and its members—Ron Mark, Simon Power, and others—who have shepherded this bill through the House. The bill, by its nature, is pretty bipartisan and non-controversial, and I thank those members and those parties for their support.

The main amendments include the following: clarifying that initial training will occur prior to appointment; introducing a requirement that justices complete compulsory judicial training before exercising a judicial function, such as presiding in a court; clarifying the suspension period in working days; defining the secretary as the Secretary for Justice, as mentioned in the bill; changing the age when a justice may apply for exemption from performing judicial functions from 68 years to 70 years; and introducing a distinction in the legislation between the act of retiring and resigning.

The committee also considered introducing into the bill a provision for limited tenure for JPs. Although I understand the motivations for the committee to consider fixed-term appointments for JPs, with a review before reappointment, I have to say that I am happy to see that that was not pursued. Limited tenure would be an expensive business to establish and to administer. I am confident that the issues justifying such a system will be dealt with effectively through the disciplinary provisions in the bill, and through the administrative guidelines being developed outside the legislation.

The committee also discussed the issue of remuneration for JPs, but as noted by the committee itself, this bill is not the appropriate vehicle by which to approach this issue. Recognising the contributions of JPs in the New Zealand court system is a topic being explored by Ministry of Justice officials and by the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations, outside of the legislation.

I am confident that this bill will enhance public confidence in the role of JPs. The introduction of compulsory initial training before appointment, and the provision of an effective disciplinary process, will improve the quality and consistency of the work carried out by our JPs. These measures also indicate the high standard of behaviour that is expected of JPs as respected members of our community. The disciplinary provisions in the current Justices of the Peace Act are over 50 years old, and they allow for a JP to be removed from office in only the most serious of cases. The bill enhances the disciplinary regime by specifying the grounds for removal or suspension of a JP, and the process that must be followed to secure removal or suspension. A lower level set of disciplinary measures in the bill will ensure that JPs who are not performing to an acceptable level, but whose actions do not warrant removal from office, can receive an official written rebuke, and can be required to attend suitable training or receive counselling. I consider that specifying the disciplinary regime in the legislation provides a consistent, fair, and transparent basis for decision making.

Justices of the Peace have a proud history of service to our country. This Government—and, I know, all members of this House—commend the significant amount of time and effort that justices of the peace volunteer in the performance of their duties. As Associate Minister of Justice responsible for this part of the justice portfolio, and as one who has travelled around New Zealand—with the privilege of visiting with JPs from Dunedin, to Invercargill, to Auckland, and of attending the conference of JPs this year in Napier—I am mindful of the huge amount of voluntary time and effort that these people put in. They are not paid; they are volunteers. Many very senior members of our community, by their very nature, want to give something back to their communities after finishing long and honourable careers.

Before concluding, I again pay tribute to Gavin Kerr, the immediate past president of the royal federation. That gentleman is an innovator. He has been a JP for many, many years and has contributed a huge amount to our communities. When he came in last year as president, he set the organisation on a path not only to provide support to push through this bill but also to push best practice. Simon Power and others will be aware—as we go through and do a stocktake in order to get best practice in some of the customs and practices that are outside the legislation, and in the systems that have developed—that Gavin Kerr has championed that process. We will go out for consultation with a document that has been agreed to by the royal federation and the ministry, in order to consult with JP branches and associations, in order to get unanimity, and in order to get consistency of these customs and practices and best practice performance. That consultation is supported, I know, by Gavin Kerr.

Equally, I commend Alan Hart, a long-time registrar of the royal federation—the ballast, if you like, in the administration, in the organisation—and also John Falconer for the zest and vigour that he exhibited at the royal federation conference as the incoming president of the federation. He wants to continue the work, along with Gavin Kerr, who will remain an integral part of these reforms as they flow through. As a way of recognising the commitment of long-serving JPs, it is also noteworthy that the bill allows former JPs who have served for at least 10 years to apply to use the title “JP (retired)”. If someone has contributed for 10 years, and wants to keep the honorific but feels he or she wants to take a step back, I believe that that person has earned it.

I commend the bill to the House as an important and necessary step in modernising the roles of justices of the peace, so that the New Zealand public may continue to have confidence in this office, and so that the good name of the office can be upheld.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): In the 47 seconds I have before the dinner break, I will start by congratulating the Associate Minister of Justice, Clayton Cosgrove, on shepherding the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill through the process to get it to its second reading. I also take this opportunity to congratulate Martin Gallagher, who chaired the Law and Order Committee, and who did a good job, actually, of managing what at first appeared to be a simple and straightforward matter. But as we, as a select committee, spent more time in getting into the issues, we discovered that the opportunity may have been ripe for a wider overhaul in this area.

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

SIMON POWER: Before the break I was congratulating Martin Gallagher on his work as the chair of the Law and Order Committee. I will not do that again, because it would then appear twice in Hansard, and that would be less than satisfactory.

I think that when the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill arrived at the select committee the Associate Minister, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, had formed the view that it was a speedy matter and simply one of form to put in place legislation that reflected the wishes and desires of the Justices’ Associations, and that the matter would be straightforward. Of course, once the matter reached Martin Gallagher’s powerful Law and Order Committee, it became a bill that Parliament was concerned with, not just the Minister. At that point the select committee spent some time considering one or two other matters outside what would, I guess, technically be called the original scope of the bill.

The officials who sat in on this process were not—well, they did not say so, but it was pretty evident—overly thrilled with this approach, but the point was that we had to take the opportunity to consider one or two things. One of those was something that the JPs had sought from the Government and was contained in the legislation to a point, and that was compulsory training prior to a warrant being issued. Many MPs who have recommended JPs over the years will have been disappointed on the odd occasion when a nominee did not carry out the duties of a JP in the way that the local constituency electorate MP thought the JP may have done at the point the recommendation was signed off.

At that point we, as a committee, agreed with the Justices’ Associations that undergoing and passing training should be a requirement before a warrant was executed. Of course, that is not the case now, whereby a warrant is executed, then, if JPs are so inclined, they move towards a training regime that may or may not include court or judicial training—something that I personally believe all JPs should do. In fact, in my electorate I have adopted the practice of not signing a nomination for a JP unless that person gives me an undertaking, face to face, that he or she will undergo judicial training and at some point—maybe not immediately—take a seat on the bench and make a contribution from time to time in the District Court or, most often of course, on hearings relating to bail applications, depositions in some cases, and the like.

Of far more interest to the committee—and it was not without controversy—was the issue of limited tenure. We carefully considered whether to include in the bill provisions limiting the tenure of JPs to a 10-year period. In the end the committee decided against this, but it decided to consider putting in place a practising certificate, the idea being that those who were actively engaged in the process of providing services as a JP would simply renew their practising certificate after a 10-year period, for a nominal fee—or, if not a fee, a cost picked up by the Government of the day—and proceed about their business. But for those who held the designation of a justice of the peace but were not actively engaged in their community or actively using the powers or rights of their warrant, the Justices’ Associations—or a body delegated by it to look at these matters—would at that point be able to sit down with the candidate and say: “Well, you”—

Hone Harawira: You’re out of here!

SIMON POWER: Not quite, but the point is that they could sit down with a candidate and say: “What have you, as a justice of the peace, been up to for the last 5 or 6 years? We don’t seem to have an extensive record of your community activity, of your sitting on the bench and executing a ministerial warrant from time to time, and we’re really wondering what you have been up to.”

This particular proposal was rejected by the committee, but not without some debate. In fact, the chairman, who at that point was well in control of proceedings, asked whether the Justices’ Associations could return before the committee for a second time to talk to us about whether the issue of limited tenure would be one they were attracted to. Without dobbing in the Justices’ Associations on this issue, it is worth saying that at some point in the future the committee would like to see this matter looked at again. I think that in 5 or 10 years, when this legislation is still in place and the National Government is in its second or third term, it would be useful to sit down and say: “Well, do we need to consider whether limited tenure for justices of the peace is a worthwhile thing?”.

In any appointment that contains a ministerial warrant granted by the Governor-General, a certain standard is expected—not just a standard of application in terms of exercising the duties and powers of a justice of the peace but a standard of participation. That was something the select committee considered very closely. The House can see from the commentary on the bill that there were some concerns about the lack of tracking and monitoring of justices of the peace after their initial appointment, and that we were concerned that the current system did not allow easy recognition of JPs who were not committed to the exercise of roles, powers, and functions.

Of course, there is always the vexed question of remuneration hanging over a JP’s appointment and the extensive time that JPs often put into community activities with little or no financial recompense. As a committee we considered this. In fact, the chairman—now totally in control of proceedings—asked the Justices’ Associations whether it had a view on remuneration. Again, without dobbing in the Justices’ Associations, that is also something the House might like to consider at some later point. The reason I say that is that by this time the Associate Minister, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, was, by some accounts, becoming toey about the delays occurring at the Law and Order Committee in returning the bill to the House. This, of course, motivated the Opposition to look at these issues further and in more detail, which it did for some time.

In the end, though, in the interests of expediting legislation that is essentially for the justices themselves, it is, if the House will allow me, their legislation. On that basis the Opposition formed the view, under the strong hand of Martin Gallagher, that we were to move in a direction that would allow this legislation to return to the House as swiftly as possible.

So outstanding issues remain in respect of limited tenure for JPs and remuneration, but I will finish by making two or three comments. The first is that the National members of Parliament want to put on record the great value they place on the work of justices of the peace throughout New Zealand. They are a fine group of volunteers who do a considerable amount of work for the community, often with little or no recognition, and certainly with no financial reward. This is a group of people who selflessly give up time, not only to execute documents for their local community, to act as referees, or to swear affidavits or the like, but also, in the case of those who are particularly dutiful, to sit on the benches of our various District Courts, from time to time. We on the National side say to justices of the peace across New Zealand that we hope this legislation presents itself to them as useful, working legislation that reflects the modern realities of taking on this community job, with one or two issues outstanding that members on this side of the House would like to see addressed at some point in the future.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I rise as chair of the Law and Order Committee, whose pleasure it was to consider the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill, and acknowledge the contribution of Simon Power and the Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. This is one of those interesting and rare moments—although perhaps not very rare in terms of percentages—where there is agreement across the House. We come back to the Chamber with an essentially unanimous report.

First of all, I particularly acknowledge members of the select committee—the deputy chair Ron Mark, Simon Power, Kate Wilkinson, Chester Borrows, Jill Pettis, and the Hon Winnie Laban. They all worked together very constructively and proactively to try to come back with a bill in an amended form that will be the template—the platform—for the honourable office of justice of the peace for New Zealand to carry on into the 21st century. I will come back in a minute to the issue of limited tenure, because I think it deserves a mention; no doubt we will hear further mention of it in our third reading contributions.

First of all, I join with the previous two speakers in emphasising that justices of the peace play an extremely valuable and vital role in communities throughout New Zealand. They embody the spirit of the genuine community volunteer, in terms of their selfless work. I give the Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove particular praise in finally achieving the bringing of a bill to the House that basically updates and refines JP legislation. I believe that this legislation will greatly enhance the work of JPs. It is certainly a very clear and concise bill.

I take this opportunity also to pay particular tribute to the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations for its excellent work over the years as it tirelessly lobbied for this bill. Previous Ministers whom I have worked with will certainly testify to that. I am mindful that the bill has taken quite some time to come to the House, and I thank the Ministers for their patience. The royal federation, as a lobby group—if I can use that phrase, because obviously it plays that role—has a relationship with the Government, Opposition, and all parties in this House. I pay tribute to the federation, particularly its registrar Alan Hart, for the very professional way in which it has interacted with a number of members of this Parliament over the years. The bill is a reflection of that—that it has patiently put forward a view that we needed to update the legislation, which we have finally done.

I also note a media statement issued by the federation as a result of its latest excellent conference in Napier, which I and others attended. I pay particular tribute, first of all, to the immediate past president, Gavin Kerr, who, as the Minister has acknowledged, was honoured with a well-deserved Queen’s honour in the new year. I pay particular tribute to his leadership during this time. In the media statement, Gavin Kerr and the incoming president, Mr John Falconer, raised the issue of complacency. I will quote from the statement: “A loophole in the Justice of the Peace system that sees some JPs ‘disappear’ may be changed with a bill on its way through parliament, said Gavin Kerr and John Falconer, who were in Napier for the national JP conference last week.” This comes back to the issue of limited tenure, which I will return to. The statement continues: “Complacency is a major issue and, to be blunt, in the past there have been people who regard it as a reward system and we would like to see that totally done away with … We owe it to the New Zealand public to have competent and accessible JPs.” The statement also acknowledged that a small minority of JPs disappeared once they had been given the title.

I acknowledge the current and former Ministers for tightening up on the process by which JPs are nominated. As all MPs are aware, for a person now to be nominated by a member of Parliament, he or she first of all has to have at least two community references and a personal reference. The Minister’s office has to see some very clear, concise evidence of community service. I think that is excellent. The media statement also urged members of this Parliament to consider a nominee’s ability “to do the job, as if processes were mishandled in a public office, ramifications could be severe.” In other words, the very respectful message to us as members of Parliament, who are the first people in the chain who physically nominate JPs, is that we need to give great care and consideration to the process of nomination and make sure we have suitable people—by means of CVs, community references, and personal references at least. There has to be some evidence given to the Minister’s office that we are putting up suitable people.

What the bill does very positively—and I think this is a huge step forward—is give a final national consistency for the interview process. The federation has some views on that process. Once a person is interviewed and recommended back to the Minister for appointment to the office, he or she, as a result of this bill, now has to undergo compulsory, mandatory training. That is a final, good backstop, because obviously a person has to be willing to submit to that training, and if someone, having gone through all the other processes, is not suitable, then that is a backstop.

The other good provision is for the “JP (retired)” designation, which will do two things. First, it will give a JP who has given long and meritorious service the right to retain the title “JP (retired)”, which is an acknowledgment of that historic, meritorious community service. To allow those JPs to keep the letters after their name is a good way for the community to give them that kind of acknowledgment. However, I think that when this provision comes in there will be a number of JPs who feel that they have given service, who do not really want to be in the situation where they have disappeared, and who may reflect that it is time for them to genuinely retire. There will be a process where we will hopefully whittle down the list of JPs to those who are what we call “active JPs” per se.

In terms of limited tenure—in the brief time I have left—the select committee asked why we should wait for 5 or 10 years or whatever. If some JPs are not doing the job, there should be other processes put in place so that they can be weeded out. I am aware that the federation is doing ongoing work with the Minister in terms of keeping the roles updated and trying to track people who have literally disappeared into the woodwork. In my view, those people, through some sort of process, should be invited either to become active or to exercise their right to retire.

Finally, I say that the Minister—and it is probably a bit of an understatement—has been exceptionally keen to get this bill through. That is good. He was aware that this was long overdue and needed legislation. As a committee we have diligently and conscientiously gone through all the issues. As a result, I think we have brought back a good bill to Parliament and, as I said at the opening of my contribution, it will be a good template and platform for the very wonderful office of justice of the peace in New Zealand. I say “wonderful” in terms of the wonderful spirit of the volunteer and community service that the office of justice of the peace of New Zealand performs for the 21st century. Thank you.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I am a staunch advocate of the role of JPs in communities. I spoke on 19 July last year on the role and background of a JP. I mentioned in particular the very ancient and honourable status that has been conferred on JPs over the last 600 years. The Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill acknowledges the status of retired JPs, and that is very good. As Martin Gallagher said, that is part of the JP programme that National fully supports.

The role of the JP has become much more complex in recent times as a result of legislation, and training now needs to take place before a warrant can be issued. I think that is a very good move, because at that stage one can determine whether the person nominated for the role of justice of the peace is committed to the particular role that will be involved.

Upskilling and training are very important in the ongoing development of a justice of the peace. I am in favour of there being much stricter vetting of applications when people come forward, in order to validate their commitment as individuals to what the role actually entails. There are numerous examples in our communities of people who have the honorific “JP” but, in fact, are not prepared to do anything. Over this last weekend a JP approached me who had left a district. This person told me that another JP in the same district had died, and that there was a third person who had been a justice of the peace for 5 years. That person was not prepared to do any work as a justice of the peace—to witness the signing of documents, and to do basic things that a JP is required and, on many occasions, requested to do. When a JP does not do these very simple tasks in a rural community, it is difficult for that community to be serviced. We spoke at length about what should happen. This person is looking to nominate someone and to get the information that is required—CVs and statements of support from organisations to the effect that there needs to be a JP within the area.

So there are those who have the honorific “JP” but are not prepared to do anything. Maybe in future reviews those people need to be looked at closely, and it needs to be decided whether there is a role for them to play in the future. In fact, I would advocate that if such people are not prepared to commit to the task, then their warrants could be cancelled. That is just a point that maybe we can consider in the future. Then there are those who do valued service and have performed loyal and honourable service for many, many years. To them we say “Thank you very much”.

The Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has a proud reputation. It has stood the test of time over many, many years. It is highly regarded, and JPs who take an active part in it are highly regarded. National supports what that association is doing. It is worthy of this Parliament’s recognition and support. National is privileged to be able to support this bill at the second reading.

RON MARK (NZ First): Pretty much all that needs to be said has been said, but it remains for me to put on the record New Zealand First’s position in respect of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. First, I have to say it was a pleasure working with the Law and Order Committee as we went through the legislation. Occasionally we have bills before select committees that are contentious and where issues are fought out. In the case of this bill I think all parties recognised—or, if they did not recognise it, the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations certainly made it clear to them—that the legislation as it stood from 1957 was outdated, outmoded, and in need of an urgent review to enable some workability to be restored to the regime, and to give some security and confidence going forward.

New Zealand First members put on record that we respect and appreciate the men and women who are the justices of the peace of New Zealand, and who take on the onerous task and responsibility of working for the people—largely for absolutely nothing in return. We understand and respect the responsibilities and burdens that they bear and their acceptance that they might well be woken at all hours of the night by a knock on the door from someone in blue or someone in need of help to get documents signed, be they search warrants or Government documents that need to be validated as being true and accurate copies of the original. Such boring and mundane tasks are vitally important to citizens when they need the help and support of a justice of the peace in those areas.

It was pretty widely known that there had become a political practice particularly within the two old parties, National and Labour, of using the JP regime as a means of rewarding people for their dutiful and loyal service, and enabling them to gather an honorific such as “JP” after their names. It was always a nice, tidy way of acknowledging someone’s contribution and support in certain areas and making use of his or her skills. It is interesting that we also often found that a number of persons out there bearing the title of JP were not actually doing the mahi. They were not doing the work, and they were not slow to inform people that they were not interested. That was of enormous concern to the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations, it was a concern to the Minister, and it was a concern to the select committee.

As a result, we welcome a tightening up and a broader cross-party—if I could put it that way—agreement that there is a need for change, there is a need to put in place criteria against which people will be assessed, and there are expectations that will now be enshrined in the legislation that nominees will undergo and complete training before they commence their duties as justices of the peace. Essentially, if they do not do that training they simply will not start work. We think that was a very, very sensible amendment to the Act.

The age of exemption had to be an issue, given that it was only a month or so ago that we passed legislation to increase the age at which judges may continue to serve to 70. I noted that the original bill wanted to lower the retirement age for justices of the peace from 72 to 68. We settled at the happy medium of 70, which brought it into line with the legislation affecting the judiciary.

The other area that Simon Power covered so well was the question of limited tenure. Again, I have to put on record an endorsement of those words, and say that we in New Zealand First actually see this as a first step—an important step. That step that has been taken at some pace because of the urgent need to get the legislation corrected. But we would envisage that this legislation will be back before the House again in time, that there will be some fine-tuning to it, and that the question of limited tenure is most likely to be on the agenda again for discussion and analysis. New Zealand First members signal concurrence and agreement with what Mr Power was saying—that there is room in the legislation for providing some mechanism by which we are able to limit the tenure or fix a period for which people must serve.

Hand in hand with such a provision will also go, I would assume, steps to enable the system to analyse and assess the performance of those people who have held the title of JP over the time for which they have been appointed. It is nonsensical in this day and age, I would argue, that people’s appointments could be renewed, and that those people could be allowed to continue in those appointments without an analysis having been conducted of their work performances over the period of time that they have held their appointments. It is also nonsensical that those people could be allowed to continue serving and holding the title without it being known precisely what they have been doing and how effectively they have been doing it. I hear people screaming in this House for accountability, measurability, and performance assessments, all the time—

Hon Member: Transparency.

RON MARK: They are always carping on about transparency. It is true that we need transparency, and we need accountability. But if we do not address those failings as they currently exist in this legislation in the long term, we might well regret that.

We believe that the addition of the honorific “JP” to those who are retiring as justices of the peace is eminently sensible. We believe that it is a good thing. It is the very least that Parliament can do to give recognition to the service of some New Zealanders who have given so unselfishly, at cost to themselves and their families, of their time, and who have worn the burden of responsibility. It is a civic duty for which they have not been remunerated or compensated for, to the degree that we believe they should be, or could be.

That brings me to the final point. There has been a lot of discussion about remuneration. I guess we would point out once again that a lot of people in this country give of their time freely—they do not give just of their time; they give of their assets. Anyone who was watching television tonight would have seen Mr Stephen Tindall. The discussion was about the amount of money that he, through his business and through his trusts, has given to New Zealanders, to charities, and to organisations, for good causes. “Bob the Builder” may think Mr Tindall is not giving a good service to the country, but I believe he is. I believe that New Zealanders such as him are very rare. We would be the poorer without New Zealanders like him. That is true of the men and women who bear the title of justice of the peace. It is nice—

Bob Clarkson: I like your tie.

RON MARK: Well, there we go. That is the man whom Tauranga elected to Parliament—a gibbering old idiot who sits over there, prattling on during the heart of a debate about which there is unanimity and consensus. The contribution “Bob the Builder” makes to the House is to come into this Chamber, having drunk I do not know what over dinner, and start prattling on about my tie.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated, please. The member has been here long enough to know that members cannot refer to other members by a nickname. I refer him to Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7. The member will come to order.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mark made a derogatory comment about my colleague Bob Clarkson. As many members will know, Bob does not consume alcohol. The implication was made that he had been drinking.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated, please. It is up to the member himself to raise the issue, not Mr Tisch.

RON MARK: The man I was referring to was Mr Bob Clarkson. How bizarre is that? Lindsay Tisch, the dumped whip, stood up and broke the Standing Orders by seeking to make some sort of explanation for Mr Clarkson, which he did not need to do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot now take liberties with the House and refer to the point of order. The member must continue with his speech and desist from that action.

RON MARK: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for reminding me of exactly that point. I ask you, Mr Assistant Speaker, given that you are so well versed in the Standing Orders, to apply the Standing Order that deals with trivial interjections and points of order that are designed to break up a member’s speech, as that member’s point of order clearly did.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. I am the sole judge whilst Speaker of the House. I did not consider that to be a frivolous interjection. I considered it to be something the member may not have known about. When he was informed, he sat down straightaway.

RON MARK: I will just say to the House in general how interesting it is, when we are dealing with such important legislation, that the major contribution from Mr Clarkson—in fact, the only contribution I think this House has heard from him for probably a month or more, or probably 2 months or 10 months—is some comment about how a member is dressed in the House, and in particular about my pink tie. If that is the contribution that Tauranga has bequeathed to the nation, then I have to say good on Tauranga, as it has just made itself the laughing stock of the whole country. By crikey! Roll on the next election.

I conclude by saying that New Zealand First supports this legislation. I congratulate the Law and Order Committee, and Kate Wilkinson and Simon Power on their contributions throughout the consideration of this bill. I look forward to the Committee stage.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou i te Whare. We heap so many accolades upon our justices of the peace that I am surprised we do not all just resign from our jobs here and hand it over to the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations to run the country.

I would like to take just a short call on the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill to share a few of the Māori Party’s views on the training, discipline, and retirement proposals for justices of the peace, and in particular the views we draw from the considerable experience of our co-leader Dr Pita Sharples, a JP of long standing himself. Dr Sharples was appointed as a JP in 1978, after considerable persuasion by people working in the courts who were quite taken by his efforts and the success of a community court programme for criminal offenders that he had pioneered, and a restorative justice programme that he was chairing in Auckland.

The Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations tells us that our JPs serve in their role primarily voluntarily, but that because they hold public office the royal federation has had to do quite a bit of work over the years to improve policies and practices to try to get good training so that JPs can properly carry out their roles. We support the recommendation from the Dunedin Community Law Centre that if we truly value the work of our JPs, we should make sure they get some decent training in the role before taking the oath. We also support the recommendation of the Law and Order Committee that full training be completed before appointment, so that the quality of work of potential JPs is guaranteed to be to the level and satisfaction required by the courts and the public at large.

The training for JPs also needs to include an awareness of the legal obligations and responsibilities that come with the role, and regular courses to ensure that all JPs are constantly aware of changes in legislation pertaining to their work. The level of training required to ensure that they can serve the public confidently and competently also suggests it might be desirable to ensure that there is a process by which JP licences can be reviewed.

Other matters that the Māori Party would like to include in the context of training for justices of the peace include an understanding of cultural safety, education around Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a basic understanding of tikanga Māori and te reo Māori, an awareness of the diverse cultural mix that makes up our population, and a basic course in the proper pronunciation of people’s names. I recall a Mr John Butler, the first clergyman ordained in Aotearoa, who was appointed a JP in July 1819. Although Butler was not the first magistrate in the country, he was recognised for his ability to work well with Māori because of his commitment to learning and conversing in Māori. Also noted was the generosity extended to him and Samuel Marsden by Hongi Hika, who gave them land for their settlement in Kerikeri.

This issue is not just about being PC, sensitive new-age, or anything like that. It is about affirming a statement made by the Prime Minister herself. She said, just a few years ago, that “the basis of constitutional government in this country is to be found in its founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi.” It is about validating the fact that the Māori language is rightfully recognised as an official language in Aotearoa, and it is about recognising the value and importance that all other cultures bring to our society in Aotearoa.

The bill, in recognition of the fact that JPs operate from a position of trust, also introduces new rules to ensure that the values of transparency, accountability, and public safety—which were mentioned earlier by Mr Ron Mark—are upheld. The Māori Party supports the view that anyone who has a role that impacts on the wider society should accept the responsibilities that go with that role.

The last proposal, of course, is to let retired JPs use the designation “JP (retired)” if they have held office for at least 10 years. We accept that proposal as well, even though we know it will be tough for Te Ururoa Flavell and I, who not only have to call our esteemed Te Aute - bred co-leader “Doctor” Pita Sharples, but we were told at caucus by the illustrious co-leader himself that he now expects us to refer to him as “Dr Pita Sharples, JP Retired”.

Finally, we note the advice from the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations that JPs should have a “genuine desire to serve the community, be of good standing in the community, and be respected as persons of good sense, character and integrity.” I will repeat that. JPs should have a genuine desire to serve the community, be of good standing in the community, and be respected as persons of good sense, character, and integrity. As those are the exact requirements to be able to stand as a member of Parliament for the only party that truly represents the hopes and aspirations of the tangata whenua, the mighty Māori Party, we can do no less than offer our support for this bill. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): It is a great pleasure to speak tonight in support of the second reading of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. It is legislation that has taken many years, and a lot of ideas and thought, to get here tonight. We are now debating the recommendations made by the Law and Order Committee, and are picking up on work that has been done by three Ministers in a row, starting with Paul Swain, when Labour came into Government at the end of 1999. His work was continued in the second term by Rick Barker, and was brought to a legislative form by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, who moved the first reading last year.

It seems to me that when we are dealing with this area—and all members who have spoken have reflected on the importance this office holds in all our communities—it is important that we have a high level of agreement within the House, that there is consensus, and that the bill not be seen to be rushed through, because it is very important that this office retains its integrity in the community. That is why it has been heartening to hear the speeches of so many members of Parliament here tonight.

The legislation replaces a law that is now 50 years old. When we think of the changes that have occurred in our communities over the last 50 years, we can see that it is necessary now to modernise and bring this legislation up to date. I think that is what the bill seeks to achieve.

Many members have talked about their practices in their own electorates. In my electorate of Otaki we have a very high number of justices of the peace. When I look at the reforms proposed in this bill, I think they will assist enormously in the efficient administration of the JP system in the Otaki electorate. My electorate has more people over the age of 65 than any other electorate. A lot of people who have performed a lifetime of good work and good service as JPs in their community then retire to the Kapiti Coast and Horowhenua and, because there has been no provision within the 50-year-old law for a designation of “JP (retired)”, they have stayed on as active JPs. This means it is very difficult to appoint new JPs; the argument is that there are already a lot in the area.

One of the provisions in this bill that I am most keen on is that we are creating a new category of “JP (retired)”, which honours all the work that has gone on before and states that the contribution that has been made is not being overlooked or forgotten. It means that people come off the active list, if you like, and that when we are looking at new appointments we are able to make a fairer assessment of whether there are enough justices of the peace in an area. So I am particularly pleased to welcome that provision.

The new category of “JP (retired)”, as the select committee talked about, actually gives the appointment, and the privilege of it, much more of a career structure. The work that has been done by way of training reinforces that point. People might start off at a younger age as a JP, undertake training to try to ensure that they can do that job to the best of their ability, then, once they finally get to the stage when they have finished making an active contribution, they get to stay part of that wider justice community by way of the “JP (retired)” category. I am very much in favour of that.

I note in the papers I have read about this bill that although there are about 10,700 JPs in New Zealand and we receive anywhere upwards of 350 nominations a year, in the last year only 12 nominations came in for people under the age of 50. That is an area that members of Parliament, when they are making appointments, need to think about, so as to ensure that we are getting some younger people coming through as justices of the peace who are prepared to make that long-term commitment, do the training, be part of the system, and be active.

It is at this point that I would like to mention the practice I have followed. Mr Tisch talked about his own practice, and so did Mr Power. I acknowledge Lindsay Tisch as someone who has had a long-term interest in JP issues; in fact, he is often called upon in this complex to perform JP responsibilities, and he takes that very seriously indeed. One of the most effective ways in which I have dealt with people who have come to my office and said that a lot of people want them to be a JP and could I please nominate them is to say that if that is the case, if so many people are asking them that, would they like to come back with some letters of support from people—maybe from just two or three groups in our community who are in favour of their receiving that appointment. It is striking to me how often that is the last meeting I have with people. Normally what happens is that people suggest a name to me, and I can work through it.

I have always said not everybody is cut out for the judicial role, but I would at least expect people to be open to considering that once they have settled in. The training, which up until now has been more of a voluntary nature—certainly, for the bulk of the time of the law we are amending—must be undertaken. I think it is important that people participate in their local JP association. There is a real reluctance among some appointees to do that kind of thing. They think once their appointment is all signed off by the Governor-General, that is the end of their involvement. I think it is very, very important that they be involved in their local JP association. [Interruption]

I hear Bob Clarkson and Lockwood Smith interjecting. Here we are trying to debate and discuss quite a non-partisan, proper issue about the administration of justice and democracy in our communities, and all they want to do is make cheap political points and chip, chip, chip away. I think JPs play a very important role in our society. If those members do not think that, that is fine, but all I ask them to do is to show respect for the 10,700 people who do perform a role as a JP. Lockwood Smith was telling us earlier on in the House that he has been in Parliament for 23 years. Presumably he has appointed a lot of people in that time. If he is not interested in debating that, maybe he should go and do something else, but those of us who are here and want to participate in the debate think this issue is very, very important.

The other point that has come up very strongly is around training. Lockwood Smith might not know that the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has developed a very good CD-Rom that is now being used to undertake training right across the country, including in rural and isolated areas where maybe the associations are not very strong. That CD-Rom is beefing up the capacity of our JPs all across the country. It was a joint project funded by the Government and the federation. Of course, to be fair, all the legwork was done by the federation. Getting that CD-Rom out across the country has assisted our JPs in such an important way. In particular, if people do not carry out certain parts of the role very often, then their being able to have that resource right there on the computer is very important. The training aspect is crucial in terms of retaining public confidence in the system and not allowing that confidence to fritter away.

The discipline issue has been mentioned by other colleagues tonight in terms of what lower levels of correctional behaviour can be taken rather than our taking the shotgun kind of approach of saying that a person will be kicked out of the system, which I do not think people would want to see for smaller transgressions. Again, that reinforces my earlier point about having active local associations. Sometimes some of the best stuff can be done by local JPs talking to one another and getting mentoring and training.

The process of the bill has been good. We have all gone out and talked to our local JPs. I certainly have done so over the last 5 years in Horowhenua and Kapiti. I have asked JPs what they need. I have said to them that we were going to change this law for the first time in 50 years, and have asked what would be good to have in it. That is what we have been able to put in this bill. The committee has looked at the bill, enhanced it, and made it even better, which has been a worthwhile and beneficial thing. The other good aspect of this reform has been the way in which the Government, the Ministry of Justice, and the select committee itself have, in a non-partisan way, been able to work with those representing the federation of JPs. That is very good.

I conclude by paying tribute in that regard to Gavin Kerr, who has been the president of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations through most of the time we have been looking at this bill. Gavin Kerr is of course well known to me as the former principal of Horowhenua College in my electorate; he was principal at the time when I was a student at that fine establishment.

Hon David Benson-Pope: He couldn’t still be alive.

DARREN HUGHES: I tell Mr Benson-Pope that that was very recently—just in the last decade, in fact. Gavin has put a huge amount of energy and time into this bill, particularly around the training aspect and around making sure the federation had some quite sharp contributions to make as to how this bill ended up. I think that not only the federation but our Parliament have been well served by Gavin’s contribution. I am absolutely delighted that today he was at Government House receiving a New Zealand Royal Honour. I cannot think of a more fitting tribute for somebody for whom I have enormous respect and whom I think of as a man of extraordinary integrity. This matter is just one aspect of his life’s work, and I think everyone will agree we are better off for his contribution to the bill. I pay tribute to him tonight.

I support the second reading of the bill.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): It is a privilege to be able to speak to the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. I will take a couple of moments just to say how grateful I am for the work that JPs do right around the country. As my parliamentary colleague mentioned, 10,700 of them operate around New Zealand, and every day of the week hundreds of them are sitting on depositions hearings, traffic courts, and infringement courts, and listening to bail hearings. I understand that about 34 percent of bail hearings in this country are conducted by justices of the peace, so they must save our judicial system a heck of a lot of money. JPs are in charge of distributing and allocating a heck of a lot of justice around our country. I wonder just how our system would cope without them. Many, many JPs have given years and years of careful consideration to the pleas of those appearing before them, and they have very much enhanced the system we have in this country.

I will take a couple of minutes to acknowledge the work that JPs put into making submissions in respect of constructing the bill. They raised three particular issues before us. The first one was what to do with long-serving JPs who, for one reason or another, cannot continue with their duties. How could we treat them graciously and with dignity, and not require them to continue to function when under pressure due to age or ill health? JPs take their function seriously, and so does the rest of the community. The ability to allow JPs to retain an honorific of “JP (retired)” treats those people with dignity and accords them the grateful thanks of New Zealanders for the work they have done for the country.

The next question raised by the JPs was how we supply JPs with training sufficient for the task before them, and how we create in them the capability to serve the community in their judicial office, a role which is becoming more complex and more demanding. The point was made that training should begin before a warrant is extended to JPs. A number of examples were given of JPs who, having been sworn into office, were unable to continue with their duties—were unable in some cases even to take up the most basic of duties—because of a lack of understanding of the language or a lack of understanding of the office they were to perform. Of course, we know that 70 percent of all criminal information that comes before the courts has been dealt with by justices of the peace, so they must have a huge level of understanding in order to make the decisions that they are called upon to make.

The last question raised was how we deal with the very small number of JPs who show a lack of competence in their duties, or for some reason cannot continue with their duties. Unfortunately, in respect of some of them, there has been an offence of some kind. How do we deal with JPs when they become unsuitable? That matter needed to be dealt with discreetly, with some sensitivity. I believe that this bill does that.

I reiterate the comments of others who served on the Law and Order Committee about the way the task of dealing with this legislation was addressed. It was done in good faith, and obviously a lot of time and commitment were put into it. In fact, there were six drafts of this bill before it was finally reported back to the House. Members of the committee worked well together and took seriously the matter before them.

DIANNE YATES (Labour): I wish to speak on the second reading of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill, and thank my colleague Martin Gallagher, who chaired the committee and who did a good deal of work—not only on this bill, but also he has done a tremendous amount of work with justices of the peace. I know he has made it a point throughout his parliamentary career to attend their conferences and to keep up to date with their issues. He was obviously a good person to chair the committee to deal with this issue of justices of the peace.

It is a role that has changed over a period of time, and I note that this bill does make some provisions, as has been said by a number of other members, in making sure that people have community support, and that those who seek to be nominated or who are nominated by others, get that community support and have a history of working in a community and being responsible to the communities in which they live.

They need that community respect in order to carry out their roles, and it is not an easy role. Many times, justices of the peace get hauled out of bed at 3.00 in the morning by the police in order to sign a search warrant. Many of them have their privacy invaded. They have people going to their houses wanting signatures at all times of the day and night, and they do a tremendous job. I would also like to thank those particular justices of the peace who work within new communities in New Zealand and who play the role often, not only of giving legal advice, but also they are there to help people who have language difficulties, in coming to terms with New Zealand life, and often at times when they need witnesses.

I particularly want to thank those justices of the peace who are based at universities, who actually work at a university and deal with the many overseas students who constantly need forms witnessed, and who need the services of a justice of the peace, and those employers who give people who are justices of the peace time from their work in which to deal with this public service.

So I do thank those who were involved with the bill, and I also thank those who worked on the aspects relating to training, discipline, and retirement, which has been mentioned. I thank the members of the Law and Order Committee, those who made submissions, and those from the justices organisation themselves, who are a very concerned group. They are concerned not only with their public duty but also with how our courts function, and they basically have a great sense of community service. I commend this bill to the House.

NATHAN GUY (National): I acknowledge the good work that the Law and Order Committee did around this Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. This evening we have heard in particular that this bill has been drafted, redrafted, and redrawn about six times to get to where it is in its present form. Sitting here listening to the addresses for the last hour or so, I know there is a lot of support around the House to get it right. Although we do have some concerns that some of the issues may not be addressed fully, and in the way the National Party would like them to be addressed, I think this is a good starting point.

In particular, I raise some concerns from the Horowhenua-Kapiti region, where we do at times, particularly in rural communities, find that it is a bit of a jaunt to get to a JP. Some of those in our rural communities have a bit of a struggle getting into a vehicle, finding a JP, and getting some of their documents signed, so I think that one of the real concerns out in rural communities around New Zealand is that JPs are accessible to those in areas that may be a little bit isolated. I think that one of the really important things for JPs is that they are accessible. It is great to have JPs running businesses, because people who need to get documents signed know that they can approach their JP, normally between the hours of 9 to 5.

This bill will actually allow JPs to have some training, which is very, very important. The most important thing is that JPs will have this training before they are approved or declined by the ministry, which I think is really important.

National supports this bill, and there is a lot of support across the House. However, we do have some reservations that longer term, I think, we will have to look at addressing. But the bill is a step in the right direction.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill

Second Reading

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I move, That the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill be now read a second time. In speaking to the second reading of this bill, I first extend my thanks to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The committee has worked hard and given full consideration to the public submissions received.

Most immigration advisers provide quality services that facilitate the entry of skilled migrants to New Zealand. Some, however, do not. Like many MPs in this House I have heard many stories of migrants being ripped off, misled, or taken for a ride by liars, crooks, and thieves calling themselves immigration advisers. These dishonest, so-called advisers threaten and undermine—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does that include Taito?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There will be no comments from the other side of the House about former Ministers, please. These so-called advisers threaten and undermine the integrity of New Zealand’s immigration programme, and they must be weeded out. The passing of this bill means that anyone providing immigration advice, both onshore and offshore, must hold a licence. Those who do not, with some exceptions, will be prosecuted.

It is important to review the main aspects of the bill as considered by the select committee and the proposed changes that the committee has recommended. I turn first to the issue of the independence of the Immigration Advisers Authority. One of the major amendments to the bill is the establishment of the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal, which will be independent of the authority and administratively supported by the Ministry of Justice. The tribunal will consider all complaints about immigration advisers filed with it by the registrar, and it will have disciplinary powers to impose sanctions on those immigration advisers.

The implementation time frame for the bill has been reduced from 5 years to 3 years, and I think that that is an excellent amendment. All offshore advisers must now be licensed after 3 years, 1 year after their onshore counterparts. Some submitters were against the exemption for offshore education advisers. They thought students deserved the same protections offered by this bill as other migrants. That is an on-balance judgment, but the exemption is to remain in place due to the competitive conditions of the international education sector at this time. The bill provides a process to remove the exemption for offshore education advisers, should the need arise and competitive conditions permit.

Exemptions for members of Parliament and their staff, employees of the public service, and foreign diplomats are now quite appropriately included in the bill, and I thank the select committee for making those amendments. The select committee has limited the exemption of employees of the public service to only those who provide immigration advice within the scope of their employment. Practising lawyers remain exempt under the bill, and this exemption has been elevated into the primary legislation. I note, first, that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act of 2006 has enhanced complaints and disciplinary procedures for lawyers compared with those under the Law Practitioners Act of 1982. The New Zealand Law Society has indicated that it will work closely with the Immigration Advisers Authority when developing practice rules for standards of professional conduct in client care and ongoing legal education for practising lawyers who provide immigration advice.

The bill requires the Minister of Justice to consult with the Minister of Immigration when considering those practice rules submitted by the New Zealand Law Society for approval. It is my intention that those Ministers will have careful regard for the need of migrants to have quality assurance in their legal advice. Should the arrangements fail to work satisfactorily, the select committee has indicated that the exemption for practising lawyers should be reconsidered—a most balanced position.

The select committee recognised that it would not be in the consumers’ interest for not-for-profit organisations to stop providing information to migrants because of the costs involved in getting a licence. Therefore, an exemption is provided for individuals employed by, or working as, volunteers for citizens advice bureaus or community law centres. These organisations already have the appropriate safeguards to ensure the ethical conduct of individuals working for them. Individuals employed by, or working as, volunteers for any not-for-profit organisation will therefore not be charged a licensing fee. Further exemptions may be made by Order in Council, and the process for recommending an exemption by Order in Council has been clarified. I believe that any further exemptions will need to follow a robust decision-making process.

The list of classes of people prohibited from being licensed has been clarified so that a prohibition on licensing is linked to the term of disqualification under the companies legislation. The select committee recommended that individuals who have exercised powers of discretion on immigration matters, such as former immigration officers and, I say to Dr Smith, former Ministers or Associate Ministers of Immigration, would be prohibited from being licensed for a period of 12 months after they leave that role. What then will retiring National Ministers do for a living? This change will prevent former officeholders trading on their reputation and the perception of insider knowledge. I thank the select committee for making that suggestion.

The bill has been clarified to allow the registrar to take into account a person’s disciplinary record in other occupations or professions—for example, a lawyer who had been disciplined under the Law Practitioners Act of 1982. The bill now clarifies the process for cancellation and suspension of licences. The decision to suspend a licence during an investigation is now made independently by the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal rather than the registrar. This is a serious sanction; therefore, it is important that an independent body makes that decision.

Changes have been made to the complaints and disciplinary processes. The complainant must specify one or more grounds that form the basis of the complaint. The decision of the registrar to dismiss a complaint because of its trivial nature, or because none of the grounds of complaint are disclosed, can now be appealed to the tribunal. In relation to sanctions, the bill clarifies which payments must be made to the Crown and which must be made to the complainant or another person.

In respect of inspection powers, the bill clarifies that inspection powers may be used when investigating complaints. Inspection powers may be exercised in respect of former immigration advisers, and when an entry warrant is required as part of an inspection, the application for the warrant must be in writing—all very sensible stuff.

I refer now to offences and penalties. There are changes to the way that offences are presented under the bill, to ensure proper enforcement. Offences have been redrafted so that where the registrar has informed a person of a relevant fact—such as, that the person is required to be licensed within the preceding 12 months—that person will be deemed to know that fact, which is a knowledge offence. Changes are also made to clarify the nature of the offences. The defence of reasonable excuse has been clarified. A person has a reasonable excuse and does not commit an offence if they did not know that they were performing the act that constitutes the offence and if they took all reasonable care and due diligence to ensure that they did not perform such an act.

The rights of appeal have been clarified. The right of appeal should be exercisable only by the person who was subject to a sanction. Following the notice of decision being communicated to any person subject to a decision, an appeal must be made by giving notice in writing within 20 working days after that date.

In conclusion, the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill is critical to managing the growing immigration advisers industry. Immigration advisers help to facilitate the entrance of migrants to New Zealand and many—no doubt, most—do an excellent job. However, the liars, crooks, and thieves who seek to undermine our immigration programme must be weeded out. They must face consequences. This bill will help to achieve that goal. I believe that the bill is welcomed not only by migrants and by the broader community but also by most in the immigration consulting industry itself. As such, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): It is not often I agree with the Hon David Cunliffe, the Minister of Immigration, but we do need migrants in this country. Of course, we need them to replace the thousands of New Zealanders escaping from this Labour Government in New Zealand at the moment. In the last 12 months, 22,000 people have headed off to Australia to get away from the controlling tentacles of this Labour Government.

In speaking to the second reading of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill, I will not repeat the detail the Minister has given on what the bill does. In many ways for the National Opposition, it was a matter of some judgment that we exercise in supporting this bill and its second reading. The dilemma is that the bill sets up yet more Government bureaucracy. This country is just being weighed down by a massive growth in Government bureaucracy, but, on balance, we accept it is important that immigration consultants and advisers are registered.

I congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on its examination of the legislation, because originally, as the Government had introduced the bill, this bureaucracy was all to be part of the Department of Labour. I think that would have been very unfortunate, because that department has a few problems on its hands. It is not one of our most successful departments, in my view. It made a lot of sense for the select committee to recommend that the complaints and disciplinary tribunal now be established within the Ministry of Justice, and the bill has been altered accordingly. Having that kind of independence from the Department of Labour is a smart move, and I congratulate the select committee on doing that.

Also National listened to what the people making submissions had to say about the bill. It is worth noting that, I think, all submitters, including immigration consultant groups, supported the thrust of the legislation—that immigration consultants and advisers should be licensed. So National’s having listened to that helped it to support this legislation.

One issue that the Minister mentioned still needs further thought—that is, the restraint of trade. To suggest that certain people should not be able to be immigration consultants or advisers for a period of time, such as former Ministers or employees of Immigration New Zealand, is an unnecessary constraint of trade. I was once an Associate Minister of Immigration. I have no desire to be an immigration consultant. I guess that after having handled as a constituency MP so many immigration cases, I have no desire to be an immigration consultant. But to have legislation imposing that kind of restraint of trade is not necessary, and I think that my good colleague Pansy Wong may move an amendment during the Committee stage so that members have the chance to reconsider that issue.

So with some of those concerns about the risk of adding yet more to the massively burgeoning bureaucracy under this Labour Government, I think that there will be pluses from this legislation—as long as the establishment of this process to register and license immigration consultants is kept efficient. National will support this legislation, but we will be making sure that as it is implemented, the bureaucracy and bureaucratic requirement is kept to a minimum.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): I stand to speak in this second reading debate on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. This is one of the bills that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to have been part of putting together. Although not a lot of members of the public will listen to this debate with great interest—many would ask what Parliament is on about in terms of licensing immigration advisers—I am pretty sure a significant number of electorate agents of MPs up and down the country will be sitting listening tonight, and applauding this Parliament for the work it has done in this area.

I say that in great seriousness. The workload for many, many MPs with constituencies is heavily weighted towards immigration. Certainly, up and down the country, our electorate agents do sterling work in dealing with the mess that is created in the area of immigration. Much of that mess will be taken care of, we hope, with the passing of this bill.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard a lot of evidence. I congratulate all those members who sat on the committee during the hearing of that evidence and the consideration of the bill. The select committee members did that with a great deal of self-interest, in terms of trying to clean up the mess that MPs’ offices too often have to clean up. I could probably sit here and read out a list of names of the consultants and lawyers in my patch who cause us great strife, but I have only 10 minutes. I also know that the Standing Orders really do discourage us from naming members of the public in the House, but I am tempted. [Interruption]

Even though that lawyer over on that side of the House, David Bennett, fought valiantly for his union interests in terms of the legal profession, we did very carefully consider whether lawyers should be brought into the coverage of this bill. I think it was a very close decision on that one for those of us who are not lawyers. We looked across the Tasman, where for instance lawyers are in fact caught by the regulatory process, and we were tempted—sorely tempted. I cannot say it was the power of argument from David Bennett that swayed us; it was more the advice we had from officials in terms of looking at the recent change of law in respect of lawyers.

The members of the select committee have sent out a clear warning to members of the legal profession that we trust them to take care of this issue in their own way under their legislation, but that a future Parliament will not look kindly upon them if they fail to do that job properly. I say that with all seriousness. Many of the lawyers who came before the select committee who were practising as immigration consultants rather than as lawyers encouraged us to have lawyers covered by this bill. But in the end we accepted the advice of the officials, and lawyers are exempted by the bill.

One of the other good parts about the select committee process was the series of submissions from the not-for-profit sector. In particular, I congratulate the people from the Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, who made an excellent submission, and the people from the community law centres, who put their case very well and asked for the exemption to be specifically placed in the law rather than taken care of later by an Order in Council. I absolutely agree with that position. I think the select committee made a wise choice there. We heard about the significant amount of work that citizens advice bureau volunteers do in the area of immigration advice. We did not want to interfere with that. Volunteers would have been in the situation of having to exit from that area altogether if they were not exempted. We can imagine the flood of work going into MP’s offices that would have occurred if that had happened. I offer my congratulations to the Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on its very good submission, and to the select committee members on taking note of it, as we have in our report.

The select committee looked at the whole question of offshore education advisers. Again, many questions were raised. I remember Pansy Wong raising this issue a great deal in her work on the committee. Once again, we wanted to be convinced that there should be an exemption, if you like, for those people, to leave them out of the coverage of the bill. We will have to wait and see, and it will be a matter for future Parliaments to consider, because—as Pansy Wong said—quite a considerable amount of immigration advice goes on behind the scenes with those people. But we took account of the fact that we operate in an international environment, and that to regulate in this area would have put us outside the mainstream as far as the rest of the world was concerned. We certainly do not want to put our very good international education industry at risk.

I will comment on the other thing raised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith around the coverage of people who were formerly Ministers or people who had worked in the immigration area for the Department of Labour. We heard submissions from, in particular, representatives of the Federation of Ethnic Councils, I think it was—or certainly representatives of the ethnic community—about their concerns about people who have worked for the Immigration Service and who, almost immediately after they have left the job, have set up as immigration advisers and have advertised the fact that they are former Immigration Service officials. Those people are seeking an advantage, if you like, by portraying to their prospective customers that they have the inside running, having freshly come out of the Immigration Service. We also know from personal experience as MPs that some of the people who have come straight out of the Immigration Service have actually performed very badly as immigration advisers.

The issue is not that we do not want former Immigration Service officials to use their knowledge down the track, but we want to take away the perceived advantage that they have with their customer base, and the sort of impression they give that they can get immigration cases through, where others cannot, because of their contacts within the Immigration Service. So it was an important issue to consider, and it is no doubt one that will be debated in the Committee stage. But I think, on balance, we got it right, even though there was some disagreement in the select committee and in the report.

Equally, to go back to the concept of exemptions—and the not-for-profit sector obviously succeeded in its desire to have that exemption—we also had to look at the question of MPs, their staff, and public servants, who were exempted entirely by the original bill, and to ask whether that should be the case. We have changed it so that the exemption will apply to MPs and their staff—and so it should—but we have narrowed the definition of public servants who can give advice without being covered by this law. I think that is also a sensible and wise decision.

As Dr Smith said, one of the other important changes made by the committee was to make sure that the appearance of independence by means of an immigration advisers complaints and disciplinary tribunal was not only an appearance but also a reality. I believe that the move to have that administratively supported by the Ministry of Justice answered the criticism—the valid criticism—of most submitters. In fact, I think all submitters asked us to look at that.

Bringing the implementation time frame down from 5 years to 3 years is absolutely necessary. We have had for far too many years dodgy practices, poor operators, bad rip-offs, and all sorts of shenanigans going on in the area of immigration advice. Virtually anybody could just hang up a sign and say he or she was an immigration adviser, charge enormous amounts of money, and quite often take things like passports and documents off their customers and never return them. The stories are legendary and very sad. Many, many people have ended up in this country illegally because of the poor advice and poor service of the people whom we seek to regulate here.

I thank the select committee for its good work, and I also commend the bill to the House and look forward to its passing.

KATE WILKINSON (National): I would like to speak very, very briefly in support of the second reading of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill.

Hon David Cunliffe: Another lawyer!

KATE WILKINSON: I confess that I was a lawyer practising immigration law somewhat.

I have to say that the bill is not perfect by any means, but I certainly do not intend to repeat what previous speakers have said; they have gone into great detail as to what is in the bill, and we do not need to repeat that.

Immigration advisers have a pivotal role to play, and I do not think we can overemphasise that. People rely on immigration advisers when making life-changing decisions. Many want to come to New Zealand and be as privileged as we are to call it home. They may sell up their belongings, sell their houses, and travel miles and miles to get here, relying on advice that says that when they get here they can live here, study here, work here, or visit here. The integrity of our whole system relies on the integrity of those immigration advisers. By licensing those advisers, albeit with some exemptions, this bill puts some checks and balances in place—some competency standards, some complaint procedures, and some disciplinary procedures.

My colleague Dr Lockwood Smith mentioned the level of bureaucracy that may arise from this bill, and I am somewhat concerned about this issue. We must be wary to ensure that it does not, like many other departments, grow and grow into a monster. I hope that the bill will improve and raise the standard of immigration advice in New Zealand, but that the cost of such a standard is not overshadowed by another bloated bureaucracy.

That is all I really need to say in taking this brief call. We support the second reading of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Much has been said on this Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill, and I share the view of my National colleague so I do not intend to repeat the detail, but this bill has been a long time in coming. It is an important bill because, although some immigration advisers are obviously very good and on top of their game, some others tend to give the impression that they are somewhat lacking in the knowledge and detail of how they apply their competency—if they have any, at all.

I have to say to the Hon Mark Gosche that it is not only constituency MPs who sort out the mess that is quite often left by poorly informed, poorly educated, or lazy immigration consultants. Just recently I had the case—I say recently; it was late last year—of a very fine guy and a family. He showed me the accounts he had got from a particular immigration adviser, and the advice came down to: “I do not know, and I cannot help, at all. Try someone else.” He went to someone else and was told that the first adviser had put him totally crook, that he should now do something different, and that the second adviser would do it for him. That got him nowhere and ultimately, in his desperation, he came to see me. It took about 10 minutes to fix it, yet this guy had paid the best part of $20,000 in getting that advice.

An immigration adviser has an important role. It is an important role for immigrants, but it is also an important role for this country as a whole. We do not want immigrants coming here who are being mucked around, and who are being made illegal immigrants in some cases, when they have come here in good faith to play a working part in, and to make a valued contribution to, the country.

National MPs have touched on the issue of our having too much bureaucracy. I do not believe that this bill has produced too much bureaucracy. In fact, it is better to have a little more bureaucracy than to have too many illegal immigrants or frustrated immigrants, or to have people’s lives mucked up because of incompetent people. This bill imposes a standard and it imposes a disciplinary regime.

It is true that we looked at the situation of lawyers, and some of us were very, very cautious in giving lawyers the exemption that this bill does in fact award them. But the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee made it quite clear that we want to see lawyers toeing the line, acting properly and professionally, and taking care of their disciplinary measures under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. If they fail on that account, then we believe that Parliament must relook at the lawyers’ exemption.

This bill is essential. This country must handle its immigration problems and its people sensitively and fairly. Some of the immigration advisers we have handling these issues at the moment are a long way short of handling them competently and fairly. New Zealand First supports this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou i tēnei pō. Ā, i ngā rima tau kua hipa, i te putanga o te Kōmihana Whakatau Tikanga Tangata, arā, a Greg Fortuin; nāna te kōrero, he wero tonu, a hunga manene nei mō te noho i Aotearoa nei. I kōrero ia mō tōna mana tuku iho mai i Āwherika i te Tonga, ā, e pēnei ana tāna: “My heritage is a gift I had no say in. I’ll always be proud of who I am, but I’ll embrace the identity of my new homeland. It’s just damn difficult to know what the identity of my new homeland is.”

Koia nei kei te pūtake o tēnei take. I te wā i kōrero Te Tōrangapū Māori i te pānuitanga tuatahi, i kōrero tonu mātou mō te hunga manuhiri e hara mai ana ki Aotearoa nei, mai i mārakiraki, i mātongatonga, i ngā tōpito katoa o te ao. Ko te kōrero i kōrerohia, arā, ko tērā o roto i ngā whāinga matua o Te Tōrangapū Māori e kī ana, mēnā ka whakatuwherahia te kuaha ki taua hunga, me kaha tiaki, me kaha tautoko tātou i a rātou. Ka mutu, i a tātou e manaaki ana i a rātou, kaua tātou e whakatūtū i ngā taiapa ki te hunga manuhiri kia kitea pū nei e taua hunga i te āhuatanga o tō rātou kāinga hōu. Ko tā mātou kē e pēnei ana. Ko te tiaki, ko te manaaki i te tangata he mea tuitui, kia noho tahi i runga i ngā kaupapa me ngā tikanga kei roto tonu i te taonga nei o te motu, Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Kei te pūtake o tēnei pire, ko ngā kōrero rangatira nei, hei awhi i ēnei manuhiri kua tau mai ki Aotearoa nei. Kāti, me pēhea e taea ai te whakakaha nei i te i ingoa o Aotearoa hei wāhi noho, ki te kore tātou o Aotearoa nei i te mōhio ko wai hoki tātou?

Kua oti kē i a James Chang tēnei take te titiro. I hara mai ia ki Aotearoa nei i a ia e tamariki ana. Kua āta tirohia e ia ko te noho o te hunga Āhia i tēnei whenua. Hei tāna mahi rangahau, ko te wāhanga tuatahi hei tirohanga mā te hunga Āhia, ko tērā e pā ana ki te noho i Aotearoa nei, me te noho anō nei nō tēnei whenua tūturu koe.

Me noho ko Te Tiriti o Waitangi ki te pūtake o tō tātou pāho ki te ao nei, āe, he whenua motuhake te whenua nei. Āe rā hoki! Ko taua Tiriti tonu i tangohia mai e te Minita Mātauranga i te marautanga o ngā kura; ko taua Tiriti tonu nā te waimarie i whakahokia e te tumuaki o te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga; ko taua Tiriti tonu i te 26 o Hōngongoi i te tau kua hipa, i puta te whakatau o ngā Mema 50 o Reipa, me kī, ko te katoa o ngā Māori o taua rōpū tonu, kia ūkui katoa i ngā ture o te motu.

Kei reira tonu kei Hansard te kōrero, i te marama o Hōngongoi i te tau kua hipa, arā, 111 i whakaae ki te ūkui i ngā whāinga matua o te Tiriti o Waitangi, ko Reipa 50, Nahinara 48, Aotearoa Tuatahi e 7, United Future e 3, Act e 2, Progressive 1, ā, 10 noa iho i whakahē. Ko ngā Kākāriki e 6, me te 4 o Te Tōrangapū Māori.

Koia nei Te Tiriti i kōrerohia e Tākuta Ranginui Walker me tana kī, koia nei te whāinga matua tüturu ake mō ngā take kaiheke. Hei tā Ranginui Walker, mā te Tiriti, ka taea e ngā manene o tāwāhi te uru mai ki Aotearoa, ahakoa nō hea rātou. Ko te hōhonutanga o te Tiriti he mea hei momo kirimana o te noho tahi o ngā tikanga e rua, arā, ko te Karauna me te Māori. Kei tōna pūtake, ko te tūmanako tonu ko tērā e kī ana, ko te tikanga a te Tiriti nei, ka kōrero ngātahi te Māori me te Karauna mō ngā take katoa e pā ana ki te noho o iwi kē, ki Aotearoa nei.

Kei te noho tino mārama te tangata whenua ki ngā whakatau o te hunga nā rātou te Tiriti i tāmoko i te tau 1840. I mārama tonu ngā hoa haere e rua i ngā pānga nui ki te whenua, ki te ao Māori. I te mōhio tonu te hunga hanga i te Tiriti i tōna tīmatanga, ka whakatauria e taua Tiriti ko ngā kawa ā-noho mō ngā uri o te Whare o Wikitōria hei whakanui i ngā tikanga, ngā ture ngā taonga tuku iho o te tangata whenua, hei karo i ngā mahi taurekareka ka whai mai i muri.

Ko tā tēnei pire, he whakariterite i ngā tikanga mō te hunga e tuku kōrero nei mō ngā take kaiheke. Hāngai tonu ana te pire nei ki ngā kaitohutohu i Aotearoa nei, i tāwāhi rānei kia orite ō rātou tikanga whakahaere. He mea nui tērā, arā, kia ōrite ngā tikanga whakahaere, ka mutu, hei te wāhanga komiti nei, ka kōkiri mātou ko tētahi pepa hei whakapiri atu kia pūmau tonu te whakaaro, kia kaha tautoko ngā kaiāwhina i te hunga kaiheke i tō rātou mōhiotanga ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi me tā rātou ako i ngā tikanga me Te Reo Māori. Ki tā mātou o Te tōrangapū Māori, he tīmatanga pai tēnei, pēnei i tā James Chang e kōrero nei, kia hanga i tētahi wānanga ā-noho, ā-tikanga hoki hei āwhina i te hunga kaiheke, arā, ko te hunga kōrero i tētahi reo i tua atu o te reo Pākehā, ki te āhuatanga o te ao Māori. Tērā pea he whakaaro pai tēnei mō ētahi atu o ngā iwi kua noho ki Aotearoa nei mō nga whakatipuranga e whā, e rima rānei.

E te Kaihautū, hāngai tonu ana tō mātou titiro i tēnei pire kia pūmau te wāhanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i ngā tohutohu a te tari hekenga ā-iwi. Ehara i te mea ko te tangata whenua anake e hiki nei i te Tiriti ki tōna taumata. E ai ki tā Te Kōmihana Whakatika Tangata rangahau, kei te tipu tonu te māramatanga me te tūturutanga o te Tiriti i te ngākau o Aotearoa whānui.

Engari, kei te rongo anō hoki mātou i ngā nawe, i ngā āwangawanga o te hunga tuku kōrero ki te Komiti Whāiti, arā, ki te Komiti Transport and Industrial Relations. Arā, ngā māharahara nui mō te koretake o ngā tohutohu ki te hunga tono, ko te noho māharahara, rangirua rānei nā ngā mahi huna a nga kaiāwhina, tae atu ki te tono kia whakaritea tonu i ngā taumata ōrite. Ko tōna tūmanako, ka āta titiro Te Rōpū Tohutohu ā-Kaiheke nei ki ēnei nawe, ki ēnei māharahara i a ia e whakahaere ana i ngā tikanga whakaae, ā, ko te hanga me te whakamātau o ngā taumata ōrite, tae atu ki tētahi kawa mō ngā kaiāwhina.

Hei tā te Kaunihera Wāhine ā-Motu i tā rātou tuhinga, me kaha tonu te whakawhitiwhiti kōrero me te wānanga i ēnei taumata. I tāpirihia atu e te komiti whāiti tētahi atu kōrero anō, arā, he tūtohu tonu kia tū he tira whakatau nei i ngā nawe me ngā tikanga whakahau. Nō reira, ka whakatauria e te pire tētahi Taraipiunara Whakatika Nawe, Whakahau Anō Hoki, hei rōpū i tōna ake mana. I te taraipiunara me ngā wānanga mō ngā taumata ōrite, ko tā Te Tōrangapū Māori e kī nei, me rongo i ngā tūmanako me te reo o te tangata whenua.

Nō reira, koia nei kei te pūtake o tētahi Kōrero Tāpiri nei ka whakatakotoria e Te Tōrangapū Māori. Ko tā mātou ko te whakarite i tētahi Kaunihera Māori hōu, ko tāna mahi ko te āta wherawhera i ngā take hāngai tonu ana ki te haerenga mai o ngā manuhiri me tōna pānga ki te Māori.

Ko tētahi wāhanga o ngā mahi o tēnei Kaunihera Māori hōu, ko te āta arotake i te ture hekenga e ai ki tā te Tiriti titiro, ka mutu, nā tōna piringa ki Te Rōpū Kaitohutohu ā-Hekenga Nui, ko tāna mahi, ko te tohutohu i a rātou i roto i te āhuatanga o Te Tiriti me Te Reo. Mā te Kaunihera nei, ka mahea ake ngā māharahara o te ao Māori, arā, ko ērā kua roa e noho tārewa ana. He aha ērā? Ko te aukati i te ao Māori i ngā kōrero tautohetohe, i ngā wānanga mō te noho a ētahi atu i tēnei whenua!

I ngā tekau mā rua tau kua hipa neke atu, i puta te whakatau o te Kaunihera o te Kotahitanga o te Hāhi Weteriana me te Perehipitīriana, e pēnei ana tāna: “Recognising that Māori Treaty rights have had no place in the development of this country’s immigration policy, conference request the Government to place an embargo on further immigration until te iwi Māori have a partnership say on future immigration policy.”

Kia kitea mai ai i ngā painga o te nohotahi, me whai wāhi ngā hoa haere ki te kōrero, kia rongo anō hoki tētahi i tētahi. Ko tēnei piri, he mea pai tonu hei whakatika i ngā uauatanga o ngā 160 tau kua hipa, arā, ko ngā mahi aro kore, mahi aukati i nga whakatau ā-kaiheke nei. Ko tēnei pire, he mea kua roa e tāria ana, kia tau noa ngā māharahara e hia kē nei, arā, ko ērā e aukati nei i te Māori i ngā whakatau ā-hunga manuhiri, kore kōrero ki te Māori, kore paku aro mai.

Hei whakamutu atu, tērā pea, koi nei te whakatinanatanga o tēnei mea o te rangatiratanga, he whakaaturanga o tēnei mea o te manaakitanga, me te wā tika hei whakanui i te wairua o te nohotahi e tūmanakohia ana i roto tonu i Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nō reira, ka tautoko mātou i tēnei pire, ka mutu, ka akiaki tonu i ētahi wāhanga, i te wānanga ā-komiti nei. Kia ora tātou.

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

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us this evening. Five years ago, the outgoing Race Relations Conciliator, Gregory Fortuin, described the challenge, as an immigrant, of being a good citizen in Aotearoa. He talked of his birthright as a South African, and I quote: “My heritage is a gift I had no say in. I’ll always be proud of who I am, but I’ll embrace the identity of my new homeland. It’s just damn difficult to know what the identity of my new homeland is.”

And this, indeed, is the crux of this issue. When the Māori Party spoke at the bill’s first reading, we talked about migrants coming to Aotearoa from the north, the south, and all corners of the world. We talked about the policy of the Māori Party, which is that if we open the door to migrants, we should also work hard to look after them. And looking after them is not about making it damn difficult for the new arrivals to know what their new homeland is like. What we are really saying is that looking after them is about being united and bound through the values and aspirations embedded in our founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi.

The focus of this bill is the provision of quality immigration advice to assist these visitors who have arrived here in New Zealand. Yet, how can we enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migrant destination without promoting and recognising who we really are?

James Chang has looked at this issue. He emigrated here to New Zealand in his early teens. He has studied the impact on Asians of living here. His research pointed to a constructive first step being for Asian immigrants to become more educated about issues related to New Zealand and what it meant to be a New Zealander.

The Treaty of Waitangi should be the core of our marketing of this country to the world, when we say that, yes, it is a unique destination. Yes, indeed! It is that same Treaty that the Minister of Education removed from the curriculum for schools; that same Treaty that the chief executive of the Ministry of Education fortunately put back; the same Treaty that on 26 July last year all 50 Labour MPs, including the entire number of Māori members of that party, ruled be removed from all laws of the country.

That is recorded in Hansard, where it is clearly stated that in July last year 111 members voted in favour of removing the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The voting was New Zealand Labour 50, New Zealand National 48, New Zealand First 7, United Future 3, ACT New Zealand 2, Progressive 1, and just 10 opposed it—Greens 6, and the Māori Party 4.

This is the Treaty that Dr Ranginui Walker referred to as containing the founding principles for matters relating to immigration. According to Dr Walker, the Treaty will enable immigrants to enter New Zealand regardless of where they are from. The profound nature of the Treaty is to have a form of social contract that will enable two cultures, that of the Crown and of Māori, to exist side by side.

At its very core was the expectation that, according to the meaning of this Treaty, Māori and the Crown, as Treaty partners, should consult with each other on every aspect concerning migrants who wish to reside here in New Zealand.

Māori still have a very clear understanding of the intentions of the Treaty signatories in 1840. Both parties recognise the significant impact on the land and the world of the Māori. Architects of the Treaty were aware at its conception that what the Treaty represented would establish a precedent in terms of how the British Empire recognised the culture, rights, traditions, and way of life of indigenous peoples, as a means of fending off subsequent scandalous actions.

This bill sets up a licensing regime for all people providing immigration advice. It applies to advisers, both resident and offshore, setting benchmarks. It is the critical importance of establishing benchmarks that will lead us to introducing, at the Committee stage, a Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that advisers are equipped to support migrants in understanding the Treaty and learning about Māori customs and the language. We, the Māori Party, believe that a constructive first step, as James Chang concluded, would be to develop a social and cultural programme that would assist prospective migrants, especially second-language speakers of English, to understand Māori perspectives. Perhaps this is a good idea for other New Zealanders who may have been here for four or five generations to consider.

In this bill we are focusing on ensuring that the provision of immigration advice reflects the significance of the Treaty. And it is not just Māori who reflect this significance of the Treaty. Human Rights Commission research shows a growing knowledge of and commitment to the Treaty by New Zealanders generally.

But we also note the complaints and concerns referred to in many of the submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Huge concerns prevail over the poor quality of advice given, the risk to clients who are being left unnecessarily vulnerable by the actions of unscrupulous advisers, and the consistent call for the establishment of competency standards. It is hoped that the Immigration Advisers Authority will address these complaints and concerns through the administration of the licensing regime, the development and monitoring of competency standards, and the creation of a code of conduct for advisers.

The National Council of Women in its submission, suggested that a robust consultation process should occur in the development of these standards, and be debated. The select committee added an extra layer, recommending a governance entity for complaints and disciplinary proceedings. So the bill will set up the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal as an autonomous body. In both this tribunal, and in the consultation process around competency standards, the Māori Party would suggest that Māori aspirations, views, and voices be part of this process. This, therefore, will be the substance of another Supplementary Order Paper that the Māori Party will introduce to the debate. We will be looking to create a new Māori immigration council, which will examine issues related to immigration and its impact on Māori.

As part of this brief, the Māori immigration council would review immigration legislation from a Treaty of Waitangi perspective, and, through direct representation on the Immigration Advisers Authority, advise them on matters relating to the Treaty and te reo. Such a council will go part of the way to resolving longstanding Māori concerns. What concerns? Being locked out of any debate and dialogue about who else should live upon this land!

Twelve or so years ago, the Council of Conference Joint Methodist-Presbyterian Public Relations Committee concluded that: “Recognising that Māori Treaty rights have had no place in the development of this country’s immigration policy, conference request the Government to place an embargo on further immigration until te iwi Māori have a partnership say on future immigration policy.”

For accrued benefits of any partnership to be seen, there must be involvement by partners in discussions and hearing from each other. This bill gives us our best opportunity to right the wrongs of the past 160 years, of being in a state of ignorance and being shut out of these immigration decisions. This bill may be the long-awaited chance to finally address longstanding concerns where immigration policies have been made at the expense of Māori, without consultation with Māori, and being completely ignored.

By way of concluding, this may be the embodiment of this thing called self-determination, a demonstration perhaps of this thing called hospitality, the proper moment to magnify the spirit of partnership that was the expectation in the Treaty of Waitangi. In this light, we will support the bill, and will eagerly debate parts of it at the Committee stage that follows. Greetings to us.]

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. The first thing I want to say is that although I really respect our colleagues from the Māori Party and their contributions, I strongly refute that this Government designs its immigration policies around endeavouring to defeat the Treaty or, for that matter, enrolment on the Māori roll. It was a pleasure to serve on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee under the excellent leadership of Mark Gosche, and I congratulate the committee.

I have been an MP for only 18 months, but like all MPs I have come across some pretty awful examples of what has been going on in the community without the regulation of immigration advisers or consultants. We have all dealt with what seems to me to be a disproportionate number of immigration cases involving immigration consultants or advisers where we have been left to clean up the mess. Most MPs will have come across cases of immigration consultants overcharging, and giving inappropriate advice that ends up costing both the taxpayer and the applicants; and in some cases legal documents, including passports, have gone missing or they have been held unlawfully. In some cases there has been outright fraud.

I acknowledge that there are many responsible immigration advisers who provide a professional and very necessary service, but the fact is that some have been exploiting people at a time when they are most vulnerable. One example that came to my attention was of a man who took on an ever-increasing number of cases completely beyond his competence to deal with, and who lied, to those people relying on his advice, about what he was doing. Eventually this caused those people to move into an unlawful immigration status. To cap it all off, large numbers of passports went missing and, for all anyone knows, they have ended up on the black market somewhere in the world.

In some of the worst cases I have heard of, unscrupulous consultants have resorted to threatening the people involved that if they complain they will have them arrested and removed from the country and their families blacklisted or jailed. These victims have handed over their hard-earned savings to these so-called consultants and they lose not only their money and funds from family members, but also their chance to gain residence.

In other cases, migrants are given false hope through misinformation or poor advice for outrageously high fees. Some potential business migrants have been very badly ripped off. All kinds of scams have been uncovered over the years, including dodgy offers of employment. I came across someone who had been charged $35,000 for bad advice, where only three or four letters had been written, and the application never filed.

Immigration consultants or advisers are often the first point of contact for intending migrants, and when they have bad experiences it reflects badly on New Zealand. If the first contact reveals unprofessional or unconscionable behaviour, then we all suffer. Stories of unscrupulous immigration advice can hit the headlines in other countries. This impacts on New Zealand’s reputation overseas and our ability to attract people in a very competitive world market for skilled migrants. These stories also resonate throughout migrant communities that are already settled in New Zealand, and our reputation for fairness is eroded.

The fact is that it has just been too easy for people to set themselves up as immigration experts, to take money from unsuspecting people, to give them inappropriate advice, and in some cases to abscond with people’s money, leaving ruined lives behind them. In other cases, inexperience or incompetence from well-meaning people has led to cases being mishandled and it has caused an overload of a system that actually works very well.

The Labour-led Government has refocused New Zealand’s immigration programme to facilitate the entry of those migrants who are best placed to contribute to the New Zealand economy. While doing this we also need to meet our obligations as a good international citizen, of course without compromising our country’s security. We have also moved to ensure that new migrants have the support they need to settle effectively in New Zealand.

I acknowledge the former Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel, and of course the current Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe. Lianne began the process of this legislation as soon as she became Minister of Immigration. Although some will say this has taken too long, there has been a very robust process to bring us to where we are today, and doing things well does take time.

During the select committee process, the parties worked together to generally improve the bill. It is gratifying that all parties on the select committee now agree on the need for regulation within this industry.

I hate to say it but National did have a chance to fix this in 1999, following years of intensive lobbying from the responsible immigration practitioners and from Labour and immigration officials. But National voted against the legislation in 1999. Bill Birch and Max Bradford—do members remember them—Ministers of Immigration in the former National Government, insisted that the free market was the best mechanism for immigration consultancy. So the problems continued to worsen throughout the 1990s. However, times do move on, and so does the National Party, it seems, or at least in some things. It seems to be adopting more and more of our good ideas.

The select committee process was a very interesting and constructive one, with many concerns expressed by submitters being taken on board and the bill amended accordingly. I will mention some of the amendments that the select committee is recommending. They have been rehearsed by other speakers, but these are ones that particularly resonated with me. The first is around exemptions from licensing. In addition to MPs, it is vitally important that our electorate staff are exempt, because they are the front-line representatives of MPs and deal with a large amount of immigration casework. I take the opportunity here to acknowledge those front-line staff out in the community who work for all of us. They do a huge amount of work and have been dealing with some very difficult issues, in immigration in particular.

The committee also felt that the exemption for other public servants was way too broad, so we are recommending an amendment to limit exemptions to public servants who provide immigration advice within the scope of their employment agreement. As mentioned before, there was a lot of debate about whether lawyers should continue to be exempt, as intended by the original bill. I was one of those in the select committee who was sceptical about this—with all due respect to my lawyer colleagues on the other side of the House. That is because lawyers have been among those who have provided poor immigration service or advice. There was also a view that having a different system of complaints for lawyers could cause a perception that they are subject to a lesser or less accessible standard. However, we were assured that the complaints and disciplinary process under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act will be an improvement on the previous system under the Law Practitioners Act. I guess this is a question of watch this space and see whether it works.

Another area of amendment I want to mention is in regard to the not-for-profit sector, which is not exempt from the original licensing requirements of the bill. I join Mark Gosche in congratulating the Citizens Advice Bureaux and the community law centres that put forward a very strong case to be exempted. I think we all accepted that they have a very high standard of service and properly trained employees and volunteers, and that they are an essential service to the community and therefore should be exempt from the licensing requirements of the bill. The core of this bill is the requirement for people who provide immigration advice —

Simon Power: Speak from the heart; throw the notes away.

DARIEN FENTON: Oh! How about that? —to be able to prove competency and to be fit to practise. That is the core of the bill. This, I believe, along with the other parts and amendments to the bill, will ensure the regulation of immigration advisers and will help put an end to some of the problems that intending migrants have encountered over the years. Good immigration consultants have been crying out for this regulation in what is actually a highly specialised area of expertise in which advice can easily be wrong. They want to see the industry cleaned up.

Simon Power: Throw the notes away; speak from the heart.

DARIEN FENTON: I am. They want to see the industry cleaned up and become an industry that is valued and recognised as contributing to our society and to our international reputation. This Labour-led Government understands that a sustainable, well-managed immigration programme is key to New Zealand’s economic transformation. This bill is part of that.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill is legislation National has no problem in supporting. The reasoning behind the legislation has not been looked at tonight, though. The immigration advice industry is one that does not have the ability to self-regulate. If one looks at industries such as the legal or accounting professions, one can see they are essentially self-regulated. This industry does not have that ability, so the Government has had to come in and regulate it through this programme. That is why there has been a little bit more bureaucracy than we would want to see; essentially, if we want to have regulation of immigration advisers, then we have to do it through the Government.

Another issue that the Māori Party has brought up has been immigration in New Zealand in a wider context. This bill will not actually deal with that issue. The wider immigration debate that the Minister David Cunliffe will be looking at I am sure will have much more effect on that issue. But there is one thing I think we have to look at in this modern world, which is that immigration is inevitable. We live in a part of the world where there are 4 billion people on our doorstep. If even 1 percent of that group wanted to come to New Zealand, there would be a huge demographic change. If we go to the western seaboard of the US, we see its demographics have changed completely. That is inevitable for New Zealand. It is only a matter of time before we have such change in this country; it is part of our growth as an international country.

There are some other facets of the legislation that I think we need to look at. The lawyers exemption is a good exemption. Lawyers are probably under a stricter regime than immigration consultants because of the Acts they have to go through. Therefore, giving lawyers an exemption is not a problem, because they have a stricter regime to follow anyway.

The community groups exemption originally was not on a non-profit basis. National brought in that profit test. It a very good test because it separates community groups from non-community groups. Non-community groups are those that are advising as a business enterprise.

However, the definition in this bill of community groups that have been given exemption is very narrow. It should have included places like the Waikato Migrant Resource Centre, which is a community group that does probably as much work as the citizens advice bureaus would do in that area of providing immigration advice. Yet it has not been given that exemption. There should be a lot more exemptions through that not-for-profit category.

The students exemption is also an important one. We have to maintain our student base in the international context. We cannot afford to put too many limits on students coming into New Zealand. The exemption for advisers to students is something that is realistic and will do good for our industries in the education sector.

Overall, I think this legislation reflects the industry that we are dealing with. The industry is not able to be self-regulated, so regulation had to be done by the Government. There are a number of exemptions that represent the practical realities of the industry. I think it is inevitable that we will be looking further at immigration in this House, as it is something we have to deal with as a country over time. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): This is one of the occasions when one is really pleased to be asked to take a call. It is another example of a Government that when it came into power in 1999, got on with fixing up an industry that, as the previous speaker said, was—frankly—a mess. I became an electorate MP following a previous Minister of Immigration and I was simply appalled that constituents in the town of Rotorua were told to go to Hamilton for all matters of immigration. They were told not to go to the MP’s office. That was the culture of the previous Government, and of a previous Minister of Immigration who worked in our community. So in our community we opened the doors of the constituency office as an outreach for immigration, because we saw the shambles in the service at that time.

Immigration advice was not provided by the Immigration Service but by advisers. These were advisers offshore who had put people wrong in their country of origin, and advisers in New Zealand who had perpetuated a culture of very, very bad service for new migrants. As other speakers have said, it reflected appallingly on New Zealand as the host country, the welcoming country, when people were told: “You are welcome here, we will help you, and these are the steps that you have to go through.” In our community we heard of rorts by advisers from particular countries who were charging an astronomical amount of money for people even to get their services and to start to open the gate, before they came to New Zealand. It was the previous Minister of Immigration, Lianne Dalziel, who asked people to give her the names of some of those immigration consultants who were starting to blacken the immigration advisers’ industry. We did that, and the Minister acted immediately.

I would like to congratulate the current Minister, who put this Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill—a tidying-up bill—into the House in December 2006, and here we are in March 2007 at the second reading stage. I think the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has done a wonderful job to get the bill back to us. Making prompt work of bills that are needed to fix up an industry is what this Government is all about. This Government identifies the problem, and gets on and fixes it.

One of the things that is very important about this bill is the issue of reciprocity with other countries. This legislation will bring us into line with countries like the UK and Australia, and that is absolutely critical. We also need to be constantly vigilant about monitoring the advice given in other countries to our new migrants attempting to come to New Zealand.

The other aspect of this legislation that I particularly feel is great is the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal. People have had nowhere to go other than the Minister’s office when they have had knowledge about these sorts of rotten apples in the advisory barrel. That is why Minister Lianne Dalziel realised that we really had to do something. Nothing had been done by the Opposition for 9 years, and the situation was simply appalling. We started to put the case together about the countries where those advisers were giving poor advice. It was only electorate MPs, who saw the stresses of immigration cases in our electorate offices, who could feed back where we needed to put processes in place to get it right. When we had an electorate MP who sent all cases to Hamilton, of course members did not know where the systems were rotten so that they could put in systemic change to put it right. We are hands-on MPs out in our community. We saw the problem, we fed it into the Minister, and the Minister got on and did something about it.

I am pleased that the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal is there. It is independent of the authority, and I think that that is a very important aspect of the authority, which will have the support of the Ministry of Justice. This legislation will clean up advisers in this industry who have poured disrepute on to immigration, and who have set a very bad example.

This is a fantastic bill. I hope that it will reduce by some 40 percent my electorate office time spent on immigration cases. So if that is the case in a place like Rotorua, what will it be like in Auckland or North Shore? It is outrageous!

Darien Fenton: South Auckland.

STEVE CHADWICK: In South Auckland we had no option but for people to come to their MP’s office, because there were those dreadfully sad cases of people sometimes having had their passports confiscated until they had paid an amount of money, and they could not ever return home. Some were even put into caravans and put into jobs by these advisers, who said: “This is what you have to do when you come to this country. We’ll confiscate your passport. We’ll give it back when we’ve sorted out your visas and your residency.” They actually impounded passports in some cases for up to 2 to 3 years.

I am really pleased this bill has come to its second reading. I congratulate all those who have so reasonably put it together, and I look forward to it passing as soon as possible. Thank you.

Amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs): I move, That the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to begin by acknowledging the member for Waitakere, in whose name this bill was first introduced. Lynne Pillay deserves credit for bringing this matter before the House in the form of a very well-crafted member’s bill. I would like to place on record my congratulations to her on bringing this bill to this point.

I approached the Leader of the House last week because I was becoming increasingly concerned about our ability as a House to meet the timetable for the bill’s passage. It was on the list of members’ bills and could be dealt with only once every fortnight. With the 3-week Easter adjournment coming up it would mean that we would be getting to the point where I was concerned that we would not be able to pass this legislation in time to lift the reservation before reporting to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women this year.

At this stage we do not have a final date for attending the committee, but the advice that I have is that it will be in the last week in July or in the first week in August. As members opposite know quite well, there is a process that has to be gone through, in terms of the Treaty examination, in order for the reservation to be lifted. I am glad that Opposition members are so supportive of this legislation, because they themselves would like to see the reservation lifted in time for the committee report that I will be presenting on behalf of the Government.

I must also acknowledge my colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Defence who were very helpful in getting this legislation through into the House. I thank members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for their very thoughtful and constructive consideration of the bill. I note that the decision of the committee was unanimous, and I am indeed very grateful to all members of the House for honouring what is a very important step forward for New Zealand women.

In recommending this bill to the House I would like briefly to cover its contribution to New Zealand’s international obligations in relation to the rights of women, and then to discuss just briefly the purpose and impact of the bill. New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The convention is often described as an international Bill of Rights for women. By ratifying the convention, State parties agree to take all appropriate measures, including legislation and temporary special measures, to enable women to enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms. The convention permits ratification, subject to reservations, provided that the reservations are compatible with the object and purpose of the convention.

Until now, New Zealand has reserved the right to discriminate against women in respect of combat roles in the armed forces and law enforcement roles that require serving in situations involving violence or the threat of violence. New Zealand has consistently been urged by the committee to take the steps necessary for the withdrawal of this reservation. New Zealand submitted its sixth report under the convention in March last year, and advised the committee in that report that in practice women had the same rights as men to be deployed to combat and other operational units. Women police officers also have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as their male counterparts. Further, New Zealand advised that as soon as the necessary legislative change had been made, we would consider lifting this reservation.

The current bill provides the legislative vehicle that will enable us to do that by repealing section 33 of the Human Rights Act, which allows such discrimination to occur. The effect of the bill is to amend the Human Rights Act to remove an exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters that applies to the armed forces. Section 22 of the Act effectively makes it illegal to discriminate in employment matters on any of the prohibited grounds, including sex. The exemption in section 33 allows the New Zealand Defence Force to discriminate against women regarding their employment in active combat roles, reflecting the now redundant practice of preventing women from serving in combat roles. This bill removes that exemption, confirming in law what has been the practice in the New Zealand Defence Force from 2000, since when women have been able to serve in combat positions.

Servicewomen now play an integral and vital role in the operations of the armed forces. The percentage of women in our defence forces is slowly rising. This law will not change their career options in practice, but it serves to reinforce to them that they have a fully equal role to play in the defence of New Zealand and in our important peacekeeping activities around the world. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has carefully considered this bill and, as I said before, has made a unanimous recommendation for amendment, which the Government supports.

Clause 4 currently refers to women serving “at the front line”. The view of the committee, which I support, was that the front line is a nebulous concept in modern warfare. Given the reach of modern weapons, members of the armed forces serve in armed conflict operations even when they are far behind the front line. As section 33 refers to members of the armed forces serving in an active combat role, the committee recommended that this be reflected in the purpose clause, which should refer to women serving in active combat roles, rather than at the front line. I think it is also significant that the select committee received only six submissions on the bill, only one of which opposed the change.

I believe that New Zealanders will generally support the intent of this bill, just as the House supports the underlying presumption, that no New Zealander should be discriminated against on the basis of any of the characteristics defined in the Human Rights Act.

Before finishing I would like to mention just two more impacts of the proposed change. First, this bill will also amend section 106(1)(j) and section 106(2)(a) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to remove references to section 33 of the Act, which will be redundant once the bill is enacted. Second, the proposed removal of the reservation under the convention, which will follow from this bill, has impacts on Niue and Tokelau as the reservation also covers these jurisdictions. Tokelau and Niue have already agreed to be associated with New Zealand’s action to withdraw the reservation. The Cook Islands was previously covered by the reservation, but has now acceded to the convention in its own right. The Cook Islands has not yet considered this issue, but it may withdraw its reservation independently if it wishes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to ensure that this important change is now in the form of a Government bill. I noted that Opposition members wanted it to be a Government bill when it was first introduced. So we have now been able to meet the desire of the Opposition as well. I think this is a win-win, and I recommend the bill to the House.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I must say that I was impressed with the last speaker on behalf of the Government, Lianne Dalziel. I think it is probably worth reminding listeners to the radio that this is the shortest Order Paper in the history of this Government. There are only 13 items on the Order Paper. In fact, the Government has deliberately added notices of motion basically to bolster out its Order Paper.

Everyone on this side of the House is eagerly awaiting, in particular, the 12th item on the Order Paper, the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill, in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope. We are very concerned that that particular legislation has sat on the Order Paper for many, many years. Now that there are only 12 items on the Order Paper, I guess we will be debating it pretty soon—or, I ask the Government, how many more notices of motion will it stack on in the next couple of days to bolster this Order Paper?

It simply cannot go unremarked that the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill’s being changed from a member’s bill to a Government bill is truly a sign of desperation. I will speak briefly about the substance of the bill. Yes, the bill is right and is supported by all parties in the House, but it is worth noting that the rules allowing women to serve in all capacities in the armed forces have actually been in place for the last 7 years. I can understand that this Government quakes at the thought of an adverse Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women report. I guess that the Government spends all its time making sure that it is compliant with every little UN committee, tinpot or otherwise, so as not to get an adverse rating. I wonder what the public of New Zealand would say if the Government spent all of its time worrying about the UN.

I bring the House’s attention to these particular facts because I think they need to be put on the record. The provincial reconstruction team currently serving in Afghanistan has about 100 people, of which 21 are women. I think they need to be acknowledged and thanked. They are doing a great job for New Zealand. We note that the law will, in the words of the Government, finally give legislative recognition of their role. But for the Government to suggest that the bill is urgent, that the bill has to be transformed from a member’s bill to a Government bill, and that it has to be done for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women is simply a falsehood.

We on this side of the House are used to falsehoods. We get falsehoods from the Government every single day, and the public will judge it for that. This Government could do a lot better. When we have an Order Paper with 12 items on it, I say it is time to have a fresh election.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): It is with pride that I stand here and thank the Labour Government for elevating this bill, the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, to the status of a Government bill. This Government did not want this bill to languish on the Order Paper on members’ day; it sees this issue as more important. Now we have the opportunity to talk about this bill and to recognise it, rather than having to wait every fortnight while other matters are discussed and debated on members’ day.

I acknowledge Paula Bennett, who spoke out in this House at the bill’s first reading against the fact that this bill was a member’s bill. She said that it should have been recognised and should have had higher status. I think she was correct, and I am very grateful to the Minister of Women’s Affairs, Lianne Dalziel, who said that this bill was more important, that it was a women’s issue, that we wanted to be there, that we wanted to validate our position at the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and that we wanted to elevate this bill to the status of a Government bill. So I am happy to say to Paula Bennett tonight that this Government has made her day.

I also thank the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee who worked really, really hard on this bill and came back with a common-sense, unanimous report, and an endorsement of this bill. I thank this House for the unanimous support at the first reading, and I am confident that that support will be even stronger now that this bill has been elevated to a Government bill.

This Government, unlike the Opposition, recognises and actually celebrates women. It celebrates and advocates for women’s rights. It saddens me to hear the Opposition refer to this bill as a tinpot bill—a tinpot bill that actually recognises the rights of women, and that says that women have the ability, the skills, and should be recognised like men in the armed forces.

I want to speak about the open day at Whenuapai that I attended recently—

Hon David Cunliffe: Was John Key there?

LYNNE PILLAY: I did not see John Key there. I do not know that he did attend. But I was certainly there, as was our Minister of Defence, Phil Goff. It was wonderful to see the camaraderie and all the goodwill amongst the men and women in our armed forces. I acknowledge the service that they provide and how well they do it. I also acknowledge the armed forces because even though the policy stated that women should be discriminated against, the armed forces abandoned that policy in 2000. They were not applying that exemption. They were quite visionary in that way. But it meant, in terms of our standing with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, we had a little bit of a blot on our landscape. I am really pleased we are able to now put what is practice into our theory, and that blot on our landscape will be there no more.

I had the privilege of going to a women’s conference in Geneva with other parliamentary members, and I want to talk of the pride that I felt when given the right to speak on this bill—a bill that Dr Wayne Mapp refers to as a tinpot bill.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I am going to be represented, I like at least to be represented correctly. I referred to a certain international committee as tinpot. I certainly fully support the bill, which I applaud.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Wrong time, Dr Mapp.

LYNNE PILLAY: I am proud to say that I belong to a Government that does not refer to international committees, which advocate and represent women’s interests, as tinpot. But I think the National Party’s attitude to women really sums it up. I think it suddenly has a new-found interest in women, in that it realises that women really do not support it. We have heard arguments from that side of the House as to whether we really need a Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and where have we ever seen advocacy for women from that side of the House? I am quite hopeful that the women members from the National Party will take a call and say that they do not think that international organisations that advocate for women are tinpot organisations.

If I can return to the armed forces, I am really pleased that they were visionary enough to ensure that women were not discriminated against. I want to recognise New Zealand’s long and very, very proud record of recognition and promotion of the rights of women, both at home and, in fact, in the international forum as well.

New Zealanders are very proud of the fact that, as we all know, we were the first country where women won the right to vote. Since that landmark decision in September 1893 we have passed a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect human rights, not just of women but of all New Zealanders—Acts such as the Human Rights Act, the Care of Children Act, the Civil Union Act, the Relationships (Statutory References) Act, and the New Zealand Sign Language Act. More recently we have the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill. Those pieces of legislation can be seen as ongoing legislation that this Government and former Governments have introduced to ensure that human rights in this country are in the place they should be—that is, at the forefront.

Unjustified discrimination is not acceptable in any society, and least of all in New Zealand, which is leading the way. I say again that New Zealand women have provided so much good service in the armed forces. I draw members’ attention to the recognition and celebration of the wonderful contribution that women have made in the booklet Twenty-five Years of Women in the New Zealand Armed Forces, which I would like to table in the House later.

Looking back over the past 25 years, or even not quite so far as that, we would all accept that it has not been easy, in that women were not actually recognised and did not have the same rights as men. Even when the equal pay legislation came into force, women in the armed forces did not enjoy the same privileges as women working in civilian society. I am pleased that that is now not the case. We now have a bill before this Parliament that I know—and it may sound big-headed—will receive unanimous support from everybody here. I know that it is because of the goodwill of the Minister of Women’s Affairs that the bill has been taken up as a Government bill. I think that is good for women in this country. In fact, it shows—

Darien Fenton: We value women on this side of the House.

LYNNE PILLAY: Thank you. It shows we value women on this side of the House. It is one of the myriad things this Government has put in place for women, and I am pleased that the Opposition has broken its record of opposing most things for women and is at least getting behind this bill. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been a pleasure to speak on this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I am very pleased to rise in the second reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill and to say categorically that National supports the bill. We think it is a good bill. However, we think that the member taking 7 years to bring it forward was probably a long time. None the less, it is here, and we support it because we support the involvement of women in the armed forces and we support the advancement of women throughout all sectors of the community, not least defence.

The second thing I want to say before I speak briefly to the bill is just to make a comment in relation to my colleague Wayne Mapp when he referred to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women as being tinpot. I certainly do not consider that committee to be tinpot. In fact, as the Minister of Women’s Affairs back in 1999 I was very involved in advancing New Zealand’s position in it. But in Wayne Mapp’s defence—

Hon Member: It was indefensible.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No, because actually he is a very fair person at the end of the day. In his defence he was trying to make a point, and he got a bit carried away.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.