Wednesday, 2 April 2008

Wednesday, 2 April 2008

Wednesday, 2 April 2008

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Bills

Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill

Procedure

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday, I seek leave for the debates on the questions that the Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill be read a second and a third time be taken together as a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches.

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

Points of Order

Parliamentary Press Gallery—Access to Parliamentary Complex

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You gave a ruling just yesterday regarding access by the media to the corridors of this Parliament, and you appeared to be reasonably liberal about their access to them. But I am raising at the first opportunity a complaint by way of my objection—and I am sure it is not just mine alone—at being obstructed in getting into this Parliament by a barrier of media people who do not make any access way available when members are coming through the foyer out there, but think they have the right to obstruct parliamentarians. It bespeaks an awful arrogance when people think they can get away with that sort of behaviour. They can put up all the arguments they like about press freedom, but they are now abusing parliamentarians who are going about their duties. The foyer is not a place to hold a press conference. If they want to stand off to the side, I am certain that members of Parliament and Ministers would accommodate them, but in behaving the way that they have I think they have gone way over the boundaries, and I ask you to make a ruling on it, Madam Speaker.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I support to some extent what the member is saying. I think that in the past there has been a clear understanding that members of the gallery stand along the side of the corridor so that members can walk past. The habit has grown up more and more, as time has gone on, for simply a complete wall to be put up through which members have to pass, as if members are entering Parliament by grace and favour of the press gallery, if one likes, and I think that creates an unfortunate position. I do not think it is an intentional practice; I think it is one that has grown up over time, as people have found it more convenient to be ready for the huddle of the TV cameras. But I do think members should be able to walk past the media into the Chamber, without having to, in effect, push their way through should that be required. I think that is improper, and places both the gallery and members of Parliament in the unfortunate position whereby somebody has to appear to be discourteous to somebody else.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank both members for their comments. I have written to all leaders of parties, explaining the position that was raised by the Hon Bill English yesterday. I will look at the position that has been raised by both the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. I guess the difficulty I have as Speaker is to try to get a balance in terms of the access of the media; at the same time, this is a workplace, and people should be able to go about their business in a manner that is unimpeded. We are always struggling to find that balance. I would also add that although we have the privilege of working in such a historic building, it is not designed for the number of people who occupy it on a daily basis, and that also creates issues from time to time. But I am happy to undertake to look at the issue again.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Tax Cuts—Amounts

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement regarding tax cuts that “I am sure there will be something for everybody. But that means individual amounts are not likely to be large, given that the money is spread very thinly.”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes, but I am sure that the member has long since discovered size is not everything.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister recall his statement less than a year ago that cancelling the “chewing gum tax cuts”, which would have come into effect yesterday, was not difficult, because “a small tax cut now would be spent and then gone”; and what is the difference between the small tax cut that he cancelled and the cuts he described yesterday as “not likely to be large”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I said that size is not everything, but it is something. Certainly, what is announced in the Budget will be significantly larger than the simple threshold adjustment, and the tax cuts that were to flow from it, announced in 2005.

Charles Chauvel: When the Minister made the statement that he believed there would be something for everyone, was he stating a personal view or his view as Minister of Finance?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Both; there is a pleasing identity between the two. That contrasts strongly with the view expressed by John Key this morning on breakfast TV, where he said: “Well, I mean, in a sense—I never have a personal view these days. I mean, if I express a personal view, that obviously turns into the party view. I am the, the, the voice piece if you like—or the face—of the National Party. And so, no, I don’t really have the ability to give a personal view, um.”

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister stand by his statement that “tax cuts are not self-funding. If unaccompanied by expenditure cuts they simply lead to burgeoning deficits and debt.”, and that “across-the-board tax cuts are likely to be merely stimulatory and to prompt their own undoing by stoking inflation.”; if he does not stand by those statements any more, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have outlined—[Interruption] My goodness me, he is chirping in again. I have outlined four tests for personal tax cuts. Each of those has been denied by the National Party—not least, of course, because John Key has now made it clear that whatever is in the Budget, he will promise more, no matter what it takes.

Hon Bill English: When the Minister said yesterday “I am sure there will be something for everybody”, does he mean people who earn less than $9,500 per year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: When I said “something for everybody”, I was expressing a personal view that is also the policy of the Government.

Hon Bill English: When the Minister said yesterday that “I am sure there will be something for everybody”, does “everybody” include people who earn under $9,500?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have an array of dictionaries available for the member if he does not understand what “everybody” means.

Hon Bill English: When the Minister said yesterday “I am sure there will be something for everybody”, does “everybody” mean everybody?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Let me put the member’s mind at rest. It does include him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister have any reports that reflect on political support for tax cuts; and, having regard to what happened yesterday and also in the 1998 Budget—when the Treasurer was not from the National Party—what is the record of National where tax cuts are concerned?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: At best it could be described as cracked, I think. Actually, it is very weak indeed—in particular, in the business tax area. National has not made any significant moves in that area within living memory.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the only way to make sure that there is something for “everybody” is to create a tax-free threshold, where people can earn income up to a certain level, free of tax?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, but let me just clarify one point. Of course, one has to be a taxpayer before one actually benefits from any tax cuts.

Charles Chauvel: How much tax relief has the Labour-led Government delivered in recent Budgets, and what support has there been for this tax relief?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As at this year New Zealanders are receiving $4.5 billion in a variety of forms of tax relief. The biggest of those, of course, has been the Working for Families package, which has reduced by some 70 percent the amount of tax paid by a single-income family on the average wage with two dependent children. All of those tax cuts, whether for families, savers, or business, have been opposed by the National Party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister any historical reports relating to a surtax where the promise was to remove it, but, in fact, under Ruth Richardson when the National Government came in, it moved the tax up to—effectively, as an impost—at its worst, 92c in the dollar?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I well recall a speech, in the Wellington Town Hall, given by the then leader of the National Party, which promised to remove the surcharge “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”—

Hon Members: “No ifs, no buts, no maybes”!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Even 18 years on, we can still do it! At the next Budget the National Government announced not a removal of the surcharge but its replacement with a much more vicious income and asset test.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So that the public can proceed into the next election with some confidence on this issue, has the Minister any reports as to which members of Parliament remain in that party, supporting the same policy today?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Not the least of them is the Opposition spokesperson on finance, who only last year, I think, said retirement income provision in New Zealand is too generous. One can understand what that means, in that historical context.

Investment—Foreign

2. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: What was the total value of foreign investment inflows into New Zealand in the year ended 31 March 2008, and what was the total value of income derived from foreign investment in New Zealand in the same period?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): In the year to 31 December 2007, which is the last period for which we have the numbers, total foreign investment flows into New Zealand totalled $26 billion. This comprised $3.9 billion of direct investment, $16.1 billion of portfolio investment, and $6 billion of other investment. In the year to 31 December 2007, income flows derived from foreign investment in New Zealand amounted to $16.2 billion.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister confirm that the total value of income derived from foreign investment in New Zealand in the last 5 years equates to more than the total core Crown revenue in the last financial year, and is he concerned that foreign investors are extracting the equivalent income from New Zealand investments each year of more than a fifth of the Government’s total annual revenue?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have the numbers to confirm the first part of that question, but from a rough estimate in my head, I am sure that that would be correct. I can confirm that those income flows are very substantial, indeed. Of course, one of the issues is that that reflects the high level of dependence by New Zealand on offshore borrowing for its investment purposes, and the only answer to that, at the end of the day, is to increase New Zealand’s own internal savings rate. It is therefore worth repeating again that the National Party has voted 40 times against the KiwiSaver scheme.

R Doug Woolerton: Is he happy with the current situation that sees around 10 percent of New Zealand’s GDP each year ending up lining the pockets of overseas investors, and would he agree that such figures show that the idea of boatloads of cash departing New Zealand for foreign shores is not too far from the mark?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is, of course, worth reminding ourselves that not all of that income flow is repatriated offshore; a good part of that is reinvested back within New Zealand. Indeed, our figures on foreign investment flows, and on the current account, assume that any income earned by an offshore-owned entity is, in fact, booked against, if one likes, New Zealand, in that regard. Am I happy with that situation? I am not happy with a situation where our own savings rate is so low that we are excessively dependent upon foreign investment flows. I think it is true to say that New Zealand will be needing, at any time for the foreseeable future, significant inflows of foreign investment in order to enable this economy to grow and develop.

R Doug Woolerton: Would the Minister agree that an ever-increasing flow of foreign investment into New Zealand, and the massive extraction of profits from that investment, means that increasingly more Kiwis find themselves working for foreign masters while receiving fewer of the benefits of their labour?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not really sure that that is entirely true. A good part of those capital flows coming into New Zealand is, in fact, borrowings by the banks in New Zealand from offshore to on-lend into New Zealand, because of the cheaper availability of capital until recently, particularly offshore. It is by no means true that necessarily what that leads to is more New Zealanders being employed by offshore companies. Much of that money is invested back into New Zealand - owned businesses and into New Zealand housing stock owned by New Zealanders.

R Doug Woolerton: I seek leave to table figures from Statistics New Zealand showing the increasing flow of foreign investment into New Zealand.

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

R Doug Woolerton: I seek leave to table figures from Statistics New Zealand showing the increasing income derived from foreign investment in New Zealand.

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

Public Health System—Confidence

3. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in the public health system, and why?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): Yes, and how nice it is to have a Government question asked by a member of the Opposition. Just yesterday nationwide patient satisfaction stats were published, with a near record figure of 88.5 percent of patients very satisfied with the service they received. The same survey reported that 100 percent of patients in triage 1—the most serious category of emergency care—were treated immediately. In October last year an independent evaluation of the Labour-led Government’s Primary Health Care Strategy showed a 24 percent increase in consultation rates for older New Zealanders. And there is so much more good news.

Hon Tony Ryall: Would the Minister support an Auditor-General inquiry into the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board’s handling of conflicts of interest, when in the Health Committee this morning the chief executive, Chris Clarke, confirmed that no other tenderer had been given access to the tender documents that Mr Hausmann received and changed in his favour?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Unlike the member, I respect the integrity and independence of the Auditor-General. Any such decision is for the Auditor-General to make. But I note in passing that the member opposite managed to leave the select committee the moment people started talking about health care.

Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that the member Mr Ryall has reported what went on at the select committee this morning in regard to that question slightly inaccurately. The chief executive, after repeated questions from Mr Ryall, said he took no part in that process. He did not say what the member has just implied.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not really a point of order; it is more a point of debate or information.

Lesley Soper: Can the Minister please provide any further examples of why he has confidence in the health system?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes. Just today we launched the Autism Spectrum Disorder Guidelines—a world first. The orthopaedic initiative has funded over 8,000 hip and knee replacements. The cataract initiative has funded cataract surgery for 4,174 New Zealanders. In the last year 112,507 New Zealanders have received elective surgery. Four million people now benefit from primary health organisation enrolments. And 74 percent of children under 6 get free doctors’ visits. There is so much more good news. I have just had a petition from 600 women in south Canterbury thanking us for breast screening.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister satisfied that when questioned about Audit New Zealand’s extraordinary criticism of Mr Clarke for failing to comply with the board’s own procurement policies or public sector good practice, Mr Clarke told the select committee that he would have to “take that on the chin” and that he would put it in “his learnings paper”; how accountable is that?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have the greatest respect for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, but I have rather less respect for that member’s recollection of select committee proceedings.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is it acceptable for district health board management to be working with a favoured tenderer behind the scenes, which no other tenderer knew about, and surely there should be more accountability for behaviour like this than sticking it in a “learnings paper”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That is a question the member might want to address to former chairman Kevin Atkinson, who I understand has a brother with some interest in Royston Hospital, for which a $600,000 contract was apparently not tendered.

Hon Tony Ryall: Should the Auditor-General not inquire into this matter, when the chairman has been investigated and dismissed, and Mr Hausmann has been investigated and not reappointed, but not one person in management has been scrutinised by the Minister’s review panel for his or her involvement in breaching the board’s own policies and guidelines, and when the chief executive who oversaw all of this is still sitting there in his job?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I understand that the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General is consulting with all relevant parties, including the member. He will have had the opportunity to put his case to the office in private. It is quite clear that ultimate responsibility for management rested with the board—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: But you’ve sacked them.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —and now rests with the commissioner. I understand from the commissioner—and it was made clear to the select committee this morning—that he is satisfied that management can now implement the strategic direction he has put in place. I challenge the member: what is it about sustainable health-care for the people of Hawke’s Bay that he does not want?

Dr Jonathan Coleman: How believable is it that the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board’s email files for the first half of May were undamaged, for early June were undamaged, but for the crucial 2 weeks when Chris Clarke and Peter Hausmann were colluding on the tender document via email were mysteriously damaged beyond repair—how implausibly convenient is that?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It appears that the apprentice health spokesperson is raking over some rather old coals, which did not seem to be of sufficient interest to the independent review panel for its members to make salient in their report. Disagreeing with the conclusion of an independent report does not give a member of Parliament the right to undermine it.

I seek leave to table a petition from 600 women in south Canterbury who want to say thanks.

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

Research and Development Tax Credits—Reactions

4. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What reaction has he received from the research sector to the research and development tax credits, which became available from 1 April 2008?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): The 15 percent research and development tax credit that became available yesterday has been welcomed by businesses and researchers throughout New Zealand. Anthony Scott, the Chief Executive of Science New Zealand, for example, has said that the tax credit, in combination with New Zealand Fast Forward, represents an unprecedented investment in New Zealand science. He likened it to Vogel’s investment in the rail system, which transformed the New Zealand economy in the late 1880s. The National Party voted against this tax credit, and the National leader labelled New Zealand Fast Forward a gimmick. He is now out of step with almost everyone, including one or two in his own caucus.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has a view about whether this tax credit could be used to develop solutions to the threats posed by climate change?

Hon PETE HODGSON: My personal view is that it can, and that is also the Government’s policy. It is also my personal view, and that of a rapidly growing number of businesses, that climate change is real and that solutions are real business opportunities. However, the personal view of the Leader of the Opposition was offered up publicly on television this morning, and I quote what he said: “Well, look, actually, in terms of things like climate change, I believe climate change is occurring, um, yeah. I think the evidence supports that, but, you know, we have a public position. We support, ah, we support those positions collectively.” That is what clarity increasingly looks like these days, under the National Party.

Violent Offences—Increase

5. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Police: Can she confirm the number of violent offences increased by 12.3 percent from 2006 to 2007?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police): Yes. I can also confirm that the police advise that the increased number of violent offences in the statistics is almost entirely driven—5,810 out of the extra 6,252 offences—by recorded family violence. As Professor Mike Rowe from the institute of criminology at Victoria University said yesterday: “It may sound rather bizarre, but it is actually good news, because I think this suggests that people are more likely to report these offences to the police than perhaps they once were.”

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that the number of violent offences has increased by 43.6 percent since 1999, meaning that there are 333 more violent offences a week now than before Labour took office; and can she also confirm that she is presiding over the highest rate of violence per head of population ever?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I can confirm that there have been increases in violence in New Zealand. I can also confirm that most of it is driven by reported domestic violence. I have to say to the member that I am very concerned that the National Party has joined the domestic violence deniers, because it is not—[Interruption] This is a serious issue, because whenever the National Party talks about violent crime, it wants to discount domestic violence. As long as that party discounts domestic violence we will never get on top of it, because those members are supposed to be political leaders. We have seen massive increases in reported domestic violence in New Zealand. We ought to be—

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Clearly any member of Parliament from any party would find the Minister’s allegation that MPs of that party endorsed domestic violence deeply offensive. I ask that she withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has been asked to withdraw and apologise.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon David Benson-Pope: What reports has the Minister seen about the number of murders in 2007?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The number of murders in New Zealand is at an all-time decade low, at 45 murders. In fact, the highest in that decade was in 1997, with 66 murders. But if we were to be listening to members of the National Party and their comments on violent crime, we would think that New Zealand had out-of-control murders. Every one of those murders is a tragedy, but I think it is beholden on members of this House to present the facts to the public, rather than trying to crank up a political agenda for themselves.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that the number of grievous assaults has increased by 93.6 percent—or almost doubled—since Labour took office and that, within that category, assault with a weapon is up by two-thirds, wounding with intent has more than doubled, and injuring with intent has tripled?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Yes, there certainly has been an increase in these offences. But, thank goodness, this Government, in conjunction with New Zealand First, has been prepared to put additional police on the street so that more of the people who commit these crimes can be caught.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that violence by youth offenders aged 14 to 16 has gone up 47 percent since Labour took office, and that in the space of just 1 year—the year relating to the statistics released yesterday—violence by children aged 10 to 13 has increased by 30 percent?

Hon ANNETTE KING: There is certainly more increase in youth crime. Fortunately a lot of it arises out of the year in which we put in place, in South Auckland in particular, a multi-agency approach to youth crime in terms of gangs, which has been incredibly successful in suppressing youth gang activity in the South Auckland area.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koē, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. How are the police equipped to deal with the incidents of family violence in isolated rural areas?

Hon ANNETTE KING: No longer is family violence the responsibility of one or two officers. It is the responsibility of every police officer, so any police officer serving in a rural area is required to take family violence seriously. It is no longer called “just a domestic”, as it was for many years, and one can see in the prosecutions by the police, which have more than doubled in the last decade, that the police do take it seriously.

Simon Power: Can the Minister state categorically that the 43 percent increase in violent offences is due to an increase in reporting rather than an increase in violence; if so, should the next round of crime statistics show a decrease in the number of violent offences, will she be claiming that this represents a welcome reduction in violence or a disturbing decline in reporting?

Hon ANNETTE KING: What I will predict is that there will be more reported family violence in the next statistics, because we are not going to stop programmes and campaigns to get women in particular to come forward and report family violence. We should be welcoming that reporting—welcoming it—not criticising it and somehow minimising it because it happens to be family violence. It is important violence, in that it is within a person’s own home. It is much harder to deal with than street violence because we cannot have police patrolling bedrooms and lounges, and it is an issue that all of us, in terms of a community—politicians, local government, and others—need to address together. It is only going to change over time, and with a change in attitude.

Simon Power: How does the Minister’s claim that an increase in the reporting of domestic violence is causing the increase in violent offences, as an isolated statement, explain overall the fact that there are now over 1,000 more robberies a year than there were in 1999?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The statistics and the comments I used came from the New Zealand Police. I do not have any reason to doubt those comments. The New Zealand Police made it clear in its statement yesterday that when we look at the recorded cases of violence we see that overwhelmingly they have come from increased reports on family violence. Of course there are reports of other crime in New Zealand, but overall the picture of crime in New Zealand has been decreasing over the last decade, not increasing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder whether the Minister has heard any reports of suggestions to deal with the violence, such as that by Bob Clarkson MP, who suggested that, like the grand old Duke of York, offenders should be sent on long marches as a solution to their problems.

Bob Clarkson: Dickhead!

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have not heard—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Bob Clarkson has just said something about himself that he should not say in this House. He used a word beginning with “d” that I cannot repeat. It was “d-head”, and it well explains what he looks like in the mirror but he cannot say it in this House. I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, would the member please withdraw and apologise.

Bob Clarkson: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon ANNETTE KING: No, I have not heard of this particular solution to crime in New Zealand. I have heard that the Leader of the Opposition believes that the answer to all youth crime is to send youth to boot camps, something that has actually failed in New Zealand. That is the only answer we have heard on crime from the Opposition so far.

Tax Revenue—Increase

6. HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: How much additional tax revenue has been raised each financial year since he increased the top personal income tax rate to 39 percent, and will he admit that his overtaxing of hard-working Kiwis has far exceeded his December 1999 claims that “The increase will affect only about five percent of the workforce” and “The change is expected to bring in around $400 million a year”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The net additional tax revenue in the first year, which was 2000-01, was indeed around $400 million—it was $393 million. The excellent growth in the economy and in incomes under this Labour-led Government has seen that amount progressively rise to $447 million, $494 million, $540 million, $616 million, $699 million, and $791 million. I note the implication in the member’s question that only those earning over $60,000 a year are hard-working. If that absurd proposition were true, then there are a lot more hard-working New Zealanders under Labour than there were under National.

Heather Roy: Given that the Minister has fleeced hard-working taxpayers by much more than he had expected, even in his wildest dreams, will he make a commitment now to abolish the 39 percent personal tax rate in the Budget; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Already we see the ACT party’s questions being written by Roger Douglas, only a week or so after he re-emerged from the crypt. I note that in that supplementary question the member again equates hard-working people with those earning over $60,000 a year. I tell her that the vast majority of New Zealanders in full-time employment earn less than $60,000 a year, and many of them work a lot harder than some of those who earn over $60,000 a year—not directing my gaze too intensely.

Louisa Wall: How much less tax was paid by a single-earner family on the average wage with two children in December 2007 compared with December 1999?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Since December 2007 such a family has paid $1,941 per annum in tax, after allowing for the Working for Families tax credit. In 1999 they were paying $4,655, allowing for the then family tax credit. I notice that neither National nor ACT supported those tax cuts.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister regard people who earn the average wage who do not have children, and therefore do not qualify for Working for Families, as hard-working; if he does regard them as hard-working, why is he making them pay more of their income in tax now than they did when he came into Government?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Clearly, they are hard-working but, clearly—equally—they gain from a range of other policies, not the least of which being that, firstly, they now have assistance to get a work-based superannuation scheme, which National voted against 40 times; secondly, when they retire they will receive a higher pension than would have occurred under National’s policy; thirdly, if they need to go to the doctor they have a reduced doctor’s fee; and, fourthly, if the doctor prescribes medicine, they get that medicine more cheaply than they would have done under a National Government.

Heather Roy: Can he foresee a situation ever arising where he would abolish the 39 percent rate of personal income tax; if so, what is it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member is fishing about the Budget, I think I can say that the one thing people are not expecting is a cut in the 39 percent tax rate. I note, indeed, that the National Party, at the last election, did not promise a cut in the 39 percent tax rate.

Heather Roy: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was very specific and it did not relate to the Budget, at all. It asked whether he could foresee a situation ever arising when he would abolish it, and he failed completely to address that.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister did address the question. As members know, they cannot get a specific answer to their questions.

Housing—Affordability

7. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Housing: Does she agree with the findings of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s own house prices unit that states: “All measures of affordability have declined.”, with a “growing group of renters, at all but the highest levels of income, whose home ownership aspirations will not be met given current prices, interest rates and levels of income.”, and why does she think this has occurred?

Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing): Yes, I agree with the conclusions of the house price project report. The report indicates that no single factor is responsible for this but there have been a range of factors boosting demand for housing and a range of factors increasing the costs of supply of existing and new dwellings.

Phil Heatley: How exactly have the year-on-year rising mortgage interest rates—reaching today’s 10-year high—helped first-home buyers; and how has wasteful Government spending exacerbated these rising mortgage interest rates?

Hon MARYAN STREET: The increase in mortgage rates in recent times clearly has not assisted, but the more significant problem has been the extraordinary spike in house prices over the last few years—that has been one of many issues.

Russell Fairbrother: What initiatives has the Labour-led Government developed to address the decline in housing affordability?

Hon MARYAN STREET: The Government is working on a comprehensive plan of action to help families into homeownership by boosting the supply of affordable houses. We are developing large-scale housing developments involving partnerships, reviewing public land holdings, developing the not-for-profit sector, introducing Welcome Home Loans and shared equity, re-evaluating regulatory costs, and a number of other measures that I will not take the time to describe right now.

Phil Heatley: Why should Kiwis expect to recapture aspirations of homeownership when they have been witness to a sad 8-year history and, going forward with her announcements, Labour’s 500 Hobsonville houses will not be built until late next year; there is still not a shared-equity scheme; councils and builders oppose her affordable-housing legislation as it will drive up rates and house costs; the public land list is in its infancy—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Supplementary questions are not a time to make a speech. They should be terse and to the point, and I ask you to stop that member or ask him to abbreviate the question he has before him.

Phil Heatley: Speaking to the point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I understand the point of order. I need no assistance. There are some members in the House who do take the opportunity to make speeches, just as there are some Ministers who do the same when they answer them. So I would ask members to observe the rule and to keep their questions and answers succinct. Mr Heatley, please continue.

Phil Heatley: Well, I have listed four points, and I am continuing—and the last cursory Building Act proposals are still proposals with no details available?

Hon MARYAN STREET: The responses this Government has made to the question of housing affordability have been comprehensive. They will take time to put into place, and we look forward to putting them into place over the next few years. The fact that we are building houses, that we have plans for greenfield and brownfield sites, and that we have a whole suite of proposals and answers to what is a very complex question stands in marked contrast to the silence from the Opposition.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I could not hear, but did the Minister say that after 8 years they are still putting them in place?

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a very good reason why that member could not hear and that is that he was shouting during the answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I was just about to make that observation. The member has only himself to blame if he cannot hear answers. I try not to intervene, so that we hear questions and answers in silence. So would the member please restrain himself. He has the privilege of asking the next supplementary question.

Phil Heatley: Why did not Labour in its 8-year watch get on to the housing supply-side issues that take such a long time to work through so we would not find ourselves in today’s situation, where actions, as noted in her own report, should have been taken in respect of “focusing on streamlining regulatory systems, especially around the Resource Management Act” and “increasing the amount of land available for housing”?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You suggested that the member abbreviate his questions. He then got up straight away and went off on a dissertation that was far too long for question time, particularly when it comes to a supplementary question.

Madam SPEAKER: I do note that, but I also note that Ministers are required to respond to only one question in a supplementary question and to do so succinctly.

Hon MARYAN STREET: The question of affordable housing has been brewing for some time. The Government has paid attention to, first of all, the supply of houses by replacing ones that have been lost previously through sale by the previous National Government. Beyond that, we have instigated a number of demand-side measures, such as KiwiSaver and the Welcome Home Loan scheme, which have assisted thousands into their homes.

Phil Heatley: Why should Kiwis expect anything different from the last 8-year record, especially when editors and councils are saying that Labour’s “too little, too late” election-year schemes “only offer minimal relief to potential buyers” and “We need rather more radical surgery than snipping away at the edges of red tape.”?

Hon MARYAN STREET: The fact is that a number of actions have been taken, research has been done, and answers are being provided to this complex question.

Phil Heatley: Why has it taken more than 8 years for Labour to start tinkering at the fringes, when Helen Clark claimed in the 1990s that the Labour Government would “ensure that low-income people and young couples can buy their own homes again, as we always have in the past”, and does not Labour’s 8-year record make a mockery of that promise?

Hon MARYAN STREET: I know that you want short answers, Madam Speaker, and the very short answer to the last part of the member’s question is no. But the first part of the answer is that this Labour-led Government has substantially augmented household incomes. I can give one example: through Welcome Home Loans we have 3,329 families in homes of their own, which we would not have had before.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a document headed “Focus on streamlining regulatory systems, especially the RMA”, which is the Minister’s own report.

Document not tabled.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a document headed Labour’s schemes “only offer minimal relief to potential buyers”.

Document not tabled.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a document headed “We need rather more radical surgery than snipping away at the edges of red tape”.

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

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table a document headed “Ten years of rising quarterly interest rates”.

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

Youth—

KiwiSaver

8. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: Has she received any reports on how young New Zealanders are benefiting from the policies taking effect from 1 April 2008?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Youth Affairs): Yes, there is great news for a lot of young people. I have seen a report that as at 29 February, 118,084 young people aged under 25 were enrolled in KiwiSaver. Over 75,000 were young workers between the ages of 18 and 24 years, many of whom will benefit from employer contributions to their accounts of about 1 percent. A savings culture amongst many young Kiwis will make a difference to their future. A Labour Government cares about that future.

Moana Mackey: What benefits do young people under the age of 18 receive from their enrolment in KiwiSaver?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Members aged under 18 years are eligible to receive the $1,000 kick-start payment, and if they are employed they may receive voluntary employer contributions. The main benefits to young people joining KiwiSaver earlier come from joining the savings culture. The earlier we start saving, the greater security we have in the future. A number of parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles are signing up children in their families, and teaching the value of savings to the young. These values will carry through as young people join the workforce and start their own contributions. In addition to this, young people aged under 19 are supported in many other ways by a Labour-led Government—indirectly through the Working for Families package, cheaper and free doctors’ visits, and cheaper prescriptions; the list goes on.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member who protected the Government during my line of questioning by referring to long questions and answers was, I think, asleep when the Minister was giving her long answers. Could you please—

Madam SPEAKER: I understand the member’s point. Would he please be seated. Unfortunately, the member did not take the advice and his subsequent questions were quite long. However, I ask Ministers to please keep their answers short. If all members did that we would not have the disorder that is frequently created.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The insult from the member for Whangarei does him no service, or this Parliament for that matter. He knows full well that I was reading some foreign policy papers; I was not asleep, like he was in a car recently, as was reported in the Northern Advocate.

Madam SPEAKER: I am not sure that that was a point of order.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I withdraw and apologise for the length of my answer and for caring about young New Zealanders. Thank you.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Tertiary Education Commission—Confidence

9. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does he have confidence in the Tertiary Education Commission; if so, why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education): Yes; because the tertiary education commissioners are committed and hard-working.

Dr Paul Hutchison: If, as the annual report states, 2006-07 was the “busiest year in TEC’s history”, why was the Tertiary Education Commission so busy, and managed so poorly, that the commission’s staff turnover that year was a massive 25.5 percent?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because the Tertiary Education Commission was formed from various people out of the Ministry of Education and a whole lot of people from Skill New Zealand who were scattered all around the country. Quietly, initially, that was rationalised, and in the very busy year that the member speaks of it was rationalised quickly. That is why.

Su’a William Sio: Has the Minister seen any advice on whether small polytechnics should be taken over by big ones?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I have. Less than a month ago, National’s spokesperson Dr Paul Hutchison said that failing regional polytechnics should be taken over by more successful ones. He has managed to contradict himself since—most recently yesterday, when he said that one regional polytechnic should receive more funding. This Government sees our network of polytechnic provision as very important, and we will continue to strive for improvements in polytechnics’ sustainability and in their responsiveness to the skills needs of their stakeholders.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Can the Minister confirm that during the last 18 months of what has been described as one of the biggest tertiary education reforms ever, there has been a change in the chair of the Tertiary Education Commission and two changes of Minister, and there is about to be a change of chief executive officer; is that not abysmal succession planning?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I thank the member for his attention to the detail of the portfolio, but the fact of the matter is that all of these transitions have been quite seamless. If the member would like, I could go through the changes in the National Party leadership of recent years.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Can the Minister name any successful business that underwent a major reform during which its staff turnover was 25.5 percent, the chair changed, and the departure of the chief executive was timed so that she was not around to take any responsibility for the changes she had made—any example?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Fonterra and Telecom would do for starters. The point is that the Tertiary Education Commission has undoubtedly been through a very busy period, it continues to be in a busy period, and the transition is going quite well.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why did the Tertiary Education Commission have such a blowout in its personnel spending that it was forecast to spend $26.5 million but actually spent $34.5 million—nearly $10 million more of taxpayers’ money than had been budgeted?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am afraid I cannot give the member a detailed, accurate answer to that question. But I will say that the capital reserves of the Tertiary Education Commission were run down over that time on purpose. I will also say that the commission is now close to where it needs to be.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What sort of mess is the Tertiary Education Commission in, when the select committee warned the commission in the 2005-06 year that it was worried about the large amount of money being spent on contractors, and when, despite that warning and despite the commission itself having hundreds of staff, it spent 350 percent more money on contractors and consultants last year than it had budgeted for?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member does not get it. I will be brief. The long and the short of it is that when the Tertiary Education Commission was set up, it was not fit for today’s purpose. Therefore, an awful lot of bureaucrats had to lose their jobs.

Hon Member: What?

Hon PETE HODGSON: A whole lot of bureaucrats had to lose their jobs, and other, differently skilled, bureaucrats were taken on, and in the meantime a bit of contracting out occurred. That is roughly the story.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table the Tertiary Education Commission’s annual report, which shows a blowout of 350 percent in expenses.

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

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table the New Zealand Education Review article entitled “TEC 25 percent staff turnover”.

Document not tabled.

Accident Compensation Scheme—Reports

10. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for ACC: Has she received any reports regarding the delivery of the ACC scheme?

Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC): Yes, I have. An independent review by PricewaterhouseCoopers said that the Accident Compensation Corporation, under its current Government monopoly structure, is performing as well as or better than privatised alternatives, and is cheaper for employers. It described the scheme as representing international best practice.

Hon Mark Gosche: Did the report make any recommendations about privatising the Accident Compensation Corporation or making structural changes to the accident compensation scheme?

Hon MARYAN STREET: Yes, it did. The report said international comparative studies had “failed to establish any evidence which would suggest specific changes to ACC’s structural implementation.” However, the National Party stated yesterday that the review “tells us nothing we don’t already know.” So I wonder whether it is finally admitting that it knew all along that Labour’s monopoly delivery of accident compensation is the best way to do it.

Hon Mark Gosche: Did the report make any recommendations about privatising the corporation’s employers’ account?

Hon MARYAN STREET: Yes. In regard to the employers’ account, which National briefly privatised, the report states: “these observations lead us to form a moderately strong view that a government monopoly is the best observable mechanism for implementing the ACC employers account.” In the face of this mounting evidence, how can National members claim that the report has taught them nothing new?

Pansy Wong: Why is the Minister happy for the Accident Compensation Corporation, which is a monopoly organisation, to spend $1 million on that report, which states the corporation should remain a 24-hour, no-fault insurance scheme—something no one has proposed changing—and is this nothing more than the corporation conducting Government propaganda in an election year?

Hon MARYAN STREET: Thank you for that. I am delighted to hear from the National Opposition that there is to be no change to accident compensation. I welcome that revelation. In answer to another part of the question, I did not commission this report.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm that she was satisfied with the New Zealand First - initiated physiotherapy review, which was conducted and reported on last year; if so, can she advise the House how the Accident Compensation Corporation is responding to the non-financial recommendations, and can she further advise whether the Minister of Finance will address the—[Interruption] Settle down, fellows. Calm down; take a pill!

Madam SPEAKER: The member has asked three supplementary questions in one.

Hon MARYAN STREET: I would love to answer them all, but I take your injunction on board, Madam Speaker. The Government welcomed the approach from New Zealand First concerning the physiotherapy review, and I report to the House that the non-financial recommendations are already being worked through in partnership with the physiotherapists and the Accident Compensation Corporation.

Māori Trustee—Funds Transfer

11. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill include provisions for appropriating $35 million from the Māori Trustee?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs): Clause 15 of the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill provides for the transfer of $35 million from the general purposes fund as a contribution to the Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand fund.

Hon Tau Henare: Why then did Te Puni Kōkiri have to grant the Māori Trustee $360,000 from its Māori potential fund last financial year?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Māori Trustee is an organisation in its own right that can contribute to the future development of Māori. That is why there is a contract with the Māori Trustee, as there is with nearly 400 other organisations.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question asked why Te Puni Kōkiri had to grant the Māori Trustee $360,000 from its Māori potential fund, but that answer not only had nothing to do with the question but did not even address the question. I would like it that the same rules that apply to me—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. I understand the member’s point. I actually think the Minister addressed the question. It might not have been clear, but he did address it.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would really like it if the same rules that apply to myself when I interject on a point of order apply to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, as well.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree. The same rules are that you get a warning; another interjection and you are out.

Hon Tau Henare: Does the Minister agree with the following reason for the granting of $360,000 to the Māori Trustee by Te Puni Kōkiri: “to assist the Māori Trustee to develop the critical mass of people and resources, information and relationships that will lead to long-term economic sustainability and globally competitive agribusiness, leveraging off Māori land.”; if so, what does it mean?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It means, quite simply, that Māori are at the front edge of competing on the global stage in relation to exports. Māori are the biggest single exporters of meat. They are the biggest single-cluster owner in Fonterra. They are heading towards being the biggest single owner of fish in the South Pacific. Therefore, we need some convergence. The Māori Trustee is an appropriate place to ensure that that force is brought together.

Dave Hereora: What will be the benefits of setting up the Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand fund?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: The Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand fund will present a significant opportunity to accelerate Māori development by pooling existing resources that are available for this purpose. The Māori Trustee, as chairperson of Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand, will oversee this development fund and will have the benefit of the skills of a board to govern this larger fund. As an independent statutory corporation, the Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand board will be able to work directly and independently with Māori to progress their economic future.

Dr Pita Sharples: Tēnā tātou katoa. Is the Minister aware that the total surplus funds paid back by Te Puni Kōkiri to the consolidated fund between 1999 and 2007 were $6.336 million, and would it not have been better to have invested these surplus funds in the setting up of Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand, instead of appropriating the $35 million from the Māori Trustee beneficiaries?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: I am not too certain on the detail of that exact figure, and I would certainly need to look into it. But Te Puni Kōkiri, along with the Māori Trustee, is ensuring that that development is progressing well.

Hon Tau Henare: Why did the Minister approve the $360,000 grant to the Māori Trustee, when it is obvious that the Māori Trustee does not need an extra $360,000—it already has at least $35 million in the general purposes fund, which the Government wants to purloin?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Unless things have changed since that member was the Minister of Māori Affairs, when he did nothing, it is a contract between the ministry and the Māori Trustee, not the Minister, and it is sanctioned by the senior team—the executive team.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was about the grant that Te Puni Kōkiri made—[Interruption] That is the second time.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, you could ask the Minister to leave the Chamber, if you wish.

Hon Tau Henare: Do I still get to ask the question?

Madam SPEAKER: Well, that is the question, really, is it not? The member wants a specific answer to his question. As members know, one cannot require that. All Ministers have to do is address the question. We all see reality differently, obviously. Therefore, sometimes it is not surprising that there is not an understanding between the question and the answer.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think I will ask you to have the Minister removed because of that, and then I will ask you to have somebody else, in his stead, answer the question.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, you can. Would the Minister please leave the Chamber.

Hon Parekura Horomia withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the real problem with this issue in respect of Māori development a lack of funds, which is historically best assessed or judged by the fact that when yours truly was the Minister of Māori Affairs the funding was $239 million, and under the Richardson regime and the National Government, all by itself, it became $32 million, and as a consequence the department has struggled ever since?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: On behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs, yes, indeed, funding was drastically cut for the ministry during the 1990s, and it was restored under this Labour-led Government.

Hon Tau Henare: Was it not a fact that a former Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Koro Wētere, went through the Māori Affairs budget with a huge knife and cut it from the $200 million - odd that the Rt Hon Winston Peters talks about to at least half of that, in terms of the establishment of the Iwi Transition Authority?

Madam SPEAKER: That is straying a little from the initial question.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: This is like one of those bad Monty Python sequences—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With respect to Mr Henare, he should do a bit of work and know a bit of the history. The Iwi Transition Authority was set up in 1988, which is a full 3 years before the budget that I am talking about.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I was saying, this is becoming a bit like Monty Python. One can go back even further. The Hon Koro Wētere saw a massive expansion in the budget that he controlled from 1984 onwards. He then launched a change to the whole structure, and funding was split between the department and the Iwi Transition Authority.

Hon Tau Henare: What advice has the Minister received about the 1991 Charters, Sykes, and Nīkora review of the Māori Trustee and about the need to pay compensation to the Māori Trustee if certain moneys are taken from the trustee’s general purposes fund?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have the information in front of me to be able to answer that question, so if the member cares to put it down in writing I am sure he will get a more complete answer. What I can tell the member is that the proposal is to create a substantial fund for investment in Māori development purposes. None of that money is coming from the funds that are specifically earmarked for the beneficiaries.

Lotteries Commission—Online Lotto

12. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Why is he allowing the New Zealand Lotteries Commission to introduce online gaming for Lotto products, as announced last Friday?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs): In 2003, when Parliament passed the Gambling Act, it decided to retain the ability for the New Zealand Racing Board and the New Zealand Lotteries Commission to provide online services. The intention of this exemption is to provide New Zealanders with a safer alternative to online gaming-machine systems offered by overseas Internet-based gaming operators. Any benefits from Internet gambling would also, therefore, remain in New Zealand. Parliament made it clear in 2003 that the commission would be required to ensure that any risks of problem gambling and under-age gambling were minimised. Before I agreed to allow the commission to progress this proposal further, it had to satisfy me that appropriate safeguards would be in place in order for it to meet its responsibilities.

Madam SPEAKER: This is a long answer, Minister.

Sue Bradford: Why did the Minister and his officials not consult the expert advisory group on gambling, or, as far as I know, engage in any other form of community consultation as they are supposed to, before making the decision to introduce a new and highly addictive form of gambling at a time when he is conspicuously failing to control existing illegal online gambling in New Zealand?

Hon RICK BARKER: There is no substance behind saying that Lotto is highly addictive; there is evidence to say that it is a relatively safe form of gambling. The second point I would make is that online gambling actually has more safeguards in it than gambling in the current regime, where people can walk into any Lotto shop as many times as they like and spend as much as they like.

Darien Fenton: Further to the Minister’s last answer, what safeguards will the New Zealand Lotteries Commission put in place on the sale of online Lotto, and how does that compare with the current method of purchasing Lotto tickets?

Hon RICK BARKER: For online Lotto, players will be able to register only one account. They will be able to set their own spending limits and, in advance, will be able to self-exclude. There will be a weekly spending limit of $150, with no more than $300 spent in any month. Players who consistently spend to the maximum will be required by the commission to make contact with it, for it to offer advice and support. Currently, there are no requirements for a Lotto player to buy from one shop, there are no spending limits, and the retailer does not know who the person is. The retailer does not have any ability to monitor players’ spending or collect information about Lotto-playing people. There are many more safeguards in this proposal.

Madam SPEAKER: That is a long answer.

Sue Bradford: Why does the Minister think that limiting someone’s weekly spend to $150 is actually helpful, given that many people cannot afford to lose that amount of money, especially as beneficiaries have the highest reported rate of expenditure on gambling, according to the Department of Internal Affairs itself?

Hon RICK BARKER: Online Lotto is limited to $300 a month or $150 a week; for Lotto in a shop there is no limit whatsoever. Lotto online requires people to interact with Lotto through one account only, whereas with the current arrangement people can go to as many shops as often as they like and spend as much as they like.

Sue Bradford: Can the Minister guarantee that the Lotteries Commission will not in the future extend its use of online gaming from Lotto, Powerball, Keno, Strike, and so on, to even more addictive products like the instant games, which are incredibly addictive?

Hon RICK BARKER: The only proposal in front of me was the proposal for online Lotto and other lotteries products. I know that Lotto does have an interest in looking further at the matter, but if it does wish to proceed with those proposals, it will have to go through much, much tougher scrutiny, and will have to assure me or the subsequent Minister of Internal Affairs that the risks of harm for those people are absolutely minimised.

Sue Bradford: How does the Minister justify introducing a product that can be paid for only by credit card, when such cards attract interest in this country at the moment of up to 24.9 percent; and why on earth is a Labour Government promoting gambling on credit anyway, especially when low-income people are among the most vulnerable to this form of addiction?

Hon RICK BARKER: The problem with transferring money currently is that under most banking proposals money takes days to go through the various accounts. With a credit card, transfer is instantaneous. Or people can get themselves a debit card, which is the same thing but in a positive balance. I have advised the commissioner of the requirement that when the banking system changes, the commission will change with it and will require people to buy positively rather than negatively through credit cards. I accept the member’s point, but this was the only way the innovation could be financed.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister planning to act decisively if results from the investigation currently being run by his ministry into the allocation of pokie funds to the racing industry instead of to charitable outcomes are conclusive, in regard to what appears to be shoddy practice; if so—if he is going to act—what options is he prepared to consider to fix this outrageous situation?

Hon RICK BARKER: When Parliament changed the legislation in 2003, it enabled money from this source to be transferred to the racing industry for stake money. I have made it clear to the sector that when the legislation was passed, Parliament used the word “community”, and assisting the community was seen to include allocating funds to address a broad base of issues, not a single one. If people continue to persist in allocating money for one cause, which the community does not see as representative of the community, then I am sure Parliament will react.

Questions to Members

Petitions—Liquor Outlets

1. Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: What progress has been made in dealing with Petition 2005/0137 of Caroline Conroy and 372 others “requesting a review of legislation to ensure communities have a greater say in the number and location of liquor outlets”?

GORDON COPELAND (Acting Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): The committee decided to refer Caroline Conroy’s petition to the Ministry of Justice, with a request for its advice. The ministry is responsible for the Sale of Liquor Act. I can advise that that advice has now been received and currently awaits further consideration by the committee.

Hon George Hawkins: Is the committee hopeful of reporting its deliberations back to the House by the end of this Parliament?

GORDON COPELAND: As I mentioned in my principal answer, the matter currently awaits further consideration by the committee, and until that happens I am unable to give a firm date. But certainly I express the hope that that would occur.

Personal Explanations

Electoral Finance Act—Third Party Registration

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): Yesterday in the course of asking questions in the House I made a statement that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions had lodged an application to become a third party that did not include the correct authorisation. That statement is incorrect. I was going on the information available on the Electoral Commission’s website, and I now understand from discussion with the council that that website does not include all the information that is in the council’s application. In fact, the application is correct.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday in the House the member also said that the Public Service Association did not have its address on the website, and I wonder whether the member would like to apologise to the association, as well.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): That is not actually a point of order, but I will respond.

Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not a point of order.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I discussed the matter with the Public Service Association when it put in its application. The association agreed that it had not lodged the correct application and is supporting my amendment bill that I have put before the House, so I will not apologise.

Tabling of Documents

Driving Incident

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek leave to table a letter to the Northern Advocate dated Friday, 7 March 2008, about an MP—I do not know; MP may be in inverted commas—apparently asleep at the wheel, turning down the wrong way on a road, driving over an island and over a directional arrow as well—

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

General Debate

General Debate

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday the Labour-led Government delivered for New Zealanders, and we delivered for the New Zealand economy. Yesterday, while the Government delivered, the National Party did nothing but dither and slither, living up to its reputation for slipperiness. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Key, sat in this House all the way through question time, his shoulders slumped, the bags under his eyes growing, doing and saying not a thing—not asking a simple question in this House as the Leader of the Opposition. We lifted the minimum wage for the ninth time in 8 years. We delivered for low-income workers. We increased the rate of superannuation and veterans pensions to give nearly $35 a week more for a married couple than what the amount would have been under the National Party policy we inherited when we became the Government.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member opposite has forgotten that National lowered the floor rate of New Zealand superannuation to 60 percent—“Rubbish!”, he said. Well, I would get a rebate on those pills, if I were him, and I would get something different.

Yesterday we introduced employer contributions for KiwiSavers and the tax credits to support them. Over 500,000 New Zealanders are now in KiwiSaver; that is nearly twice as many as we thought we would get in the first full year. Yesterday we cut the company tax rate to 30c in the dollar and we introduced new research and development tax credits—the biggest single move to support private sector research and development in New Zealand’s history. We delivered for business. Yesterday began the year in which people and businesses can claim a rebate for all their charitable deductions, for the first time in New Zealand’s history. We are rising to the challenges of a difficult economic situation and delivering for New Zealanders.

But what of the Opposition? We know that National members do not support increasing the minimum wage. They did it once, grudgingly, when they were in Government, and only because New Zealand First demanded they increase the minimum wage. We have increased it nine times in 8 years. We know that Mr Key likes to talk about being a great supporter of business, but he voted against cutting the company tax rate and he voted against introducing research and development tax credits. Indeed, National never promised to cut the company tax rate in 2005 when in Opposition. Now, of course, Mr Key is all over the place on everything. He always thought that KiwiSaver would be successful, he said. But he always thought that it would fail, he said, when it was introduced.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s a bribe.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh, the member says that it is a fraud. “KiwiSaver is a fraud”, says Dr Nick Smith, who is helpful yet again today. I think that the Opposition will have to put tape around his mouth before he comes into the House. He keeps giving us lines for election advertisements: “KiwiSaver is a fraud”, says Dr Nick Smith, on the front bench of the National Party. I say “Thank you” to Dr Smith—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member Dr Cullen claimed that I said that KiwiSaver was a fraud. I did not say that.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I definitely did not say that, as the Hansard record—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am on my feet; I say to the member that that is a frivolous point of order.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: We did not know until Sunday night that Mr Key is now promising to review whether there will be annual adjustments to benefits and superannuation if his party ever becomes the Government.

Hon Member: Stop making it up.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, we are not making it up. He said: “We will be reviewing those situations.” Why would one review something that is automatic at the present time? I would ask why one would review that, except, of course, that National members did exactly that when in Government. They cut benefits, and for 3 years out of 9 they froze the increase in New Zealand superannuation. For 3 years out of 9, superannuitants got no increase in the 1990s. When we saw that, of course, we started to remember what Sir Roger Douglas tends to stand for in these areas, and we reminded ourselves that Stephen Franks, who actually makes Roger Douglas look like a raving leftie, is now the National Party candidate for Wellington Central.

We could argue that Mr Key does not know how we adjust benefits and that he was simply being ignorant yet again. We know that he thought that the Kyoto Protocol was a hoax and that climate change was a hoax, but now he is a climate warrior who believes in climate change and always has, according to him. We know that Lockwood Smith thinks that the planet is getting cooler, not warmer. All that tells us is that as one gets older one should not be wearing budgie smugglers too much, because one starts to think that the planet is getting cooler, not warmer. And on that issue I ask how anybody could possibly believe that this planet is getting cooler at the present time. Mr Williamson is not sure. He does not want to say, but he thinks that if warming is occurring, then it is caused by a big orange ball in the sky. Those are the people who would like to be senior Ministers in a National Government.

Debate interrupted.

Points of Order

Obituary—Tumu Pūtaura

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings of the House, and I offer my apologies to Mr English, but I just wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I received an email this afternoon that one of our security guards has passed away after 21 years of service—Mr Tumu Pūtaura. I just want to make sure that this House will have the opportunity to properly acknowledge that fact. The man has provided service to us for 21 years, and I think that it would be deeply offensive if we just continued with our usual carryings-on without acknowledging that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. That is a matter for the House to decide, Mr Tanczos, but I thank the member for drawing it to the House’s attention.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Perhaps it might be appropriate for you to refer to Madam Speaker the potential for the House to mark that tomorrow at the start of the House in the usual way that we do.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that suggestion.

General Debate

General Debate

Debate resumed.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): Dr Cullen always gets angry if someone disagrees with him over the way that taxpayers’ money should be spent. Actually, what is so frustrating for him is that most New Zealanders now disagree with him over the way that taxpayers’ money should be spent, because after 8 years of arrogance and lost opportunities they want to decide for themselves. There is nothing that does our cause better than to see Dr Cullen on TV talking about tax.

The whole Labour Party must be wondering what is going wrong when it believes it has given out so much that it thinks is so good, out of the generosity of its social democratic instincts, and the public are so ungrateful. I will tell the Labour Party why that is. It is because the public believe it is their money. That is why. They do not feel obliged to be grateful to the pink centre-left for giving them back what they earned by their hard work and be expected to give some grateful vote for it. The public have now come to the conclusion, after 8 years of getting bits and pieces from a Government that now thinks it is the only one that can decide, that they want to make up their own minds about it.

We should judge Dr Cullen on his record. Labour members want to talk about everything, except what happened while Labour was in Government. We listened to the Minister of Housing today. One would think she was a member of the Opposition. One would think that Labour was not there when interest rates doubled, when houses became much less affordable than they have ever been, and when people who loyally voted for Labour now know they will never be able to buy a house. In fact, over the next 12 months people will find out that they will have trouble renting a house. So Labour has cooked up all these proposals. The Minister, like all of the Labour Party, mistakes announcements for action. Labour has announced some housing policies, but there has been no action.

But let us look at Dr Cullen’s record on tax cuts. “National’s dilemma … is that to cut taxes when the current account deficit is already above 6 percent of gross domestic product is to commit economic sabotage.” Who said that? It was Dr Cullen, in 1999. What is the current account deficit? It is 7.9 percent. Who is advocating tax cuts? It is Dr Michael Cullen. That is a direct contradiction of the position he used to have. Here he is again: “We are in the extraordinary situation of having large surpluses, high interest rates, and a large current account deficit. We are also told that the only way to avoid a recession is to boost consumer demand through tax cuts and that this is somehow evidence of responsible economic management.” That was Dr Cullen in Opposition, criticising National.

Let us look at Dr Cullen’s record. We now have the largest surpluses we have ever had; the highest interest rates, almost, that we have had in 15 years; and the largest current account deficit we have ever had. What did he say the other day? He said that he wants to cut taxes because that might boost consumer demand. When he was in Opposition he used to call that economic sabotage; now he calls it adjusting to the economic circumstances. That is his record.

Here he is again: “Voters are not fools. Dangle promises of tax cuts in front of them in an election year and they will think you are trying to buy their vote.” Do members know what? I absolutely agree. Hard-working, loyal Labour voters, who know that Labour’s record is one of lost opportunity, have now found that in election year Dr Cullen is going to dangle tax cuts, and they are saying “We’ll take your tax cut, but not you.” They do not believe that Labour is sincere. They do not believe, for 1 minute, that Dr Cullen has changed his mind. If he can find a way of describing these tax cuts as small, then he will cancel them if he ever gets re-elected, but there is very little chance of that.

That is what he did last time. He announced his tax cuts, then when he got back into Government he said “Oh, they’re small so I’ll cancel them, because I can spend the money on other things.” Why would he not do that again? Can anyone give us one reason why he would not do that again? We should look at his record and Labour’s record, which is that tax cuts are bad and spending is good.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): It ill behoves Bill English to question the sincerity of others. That member was part of a Government that came into power in 1990 promising not to cut superannuation, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. That member was part of a Government that then imposed the most Draconian asset and income-testing that has ever been imposed on superannuation, and, specifically, that member, as Minister of Finance, in 1999 introduced legislation into this House cutting superannuation from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage. This Government, as a result of being re-elected, gives a married couple on superannuation $35 a week more than they would be getting if Bill English had stayed on as Minister of Finance or leader of the National Party. I say to the senior citizens of our country that it was Bill English who, last year, described the provision for retirement through superannuation schemes in New Zealand as too generous. He was being consistent with National policy, because it was National that froze the incomes of superannuitants for 3 successive years in the 1990s.

But it is not over now. On television on Sunday, John Key said that he would review the annual inflation adjustment for superannuitants. The senior citizens of this country know what that means.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Not only is that statement not true but also the member knows that the Labour Party clipped the transcript in order to distort what John Key said, and it did so deliberately.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order. It is a debatable point.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Let me help the member out. John Key, when asked whether he supported annual adjustments to benefits, said: “We are looking at those policies. I mean at the moment, um, some of them already have built in clauses, and others don’t. Ah, we’ll be reviewing those in due course.” The spin doctors of the National Party have failed, the mask has slipped, and that National Party, which has a track record of cutting the incomes of people who cannot defend themselves, is now on record as demonstrating that it will do that again.

I want members to contrast that with the fact that yesterday, yet again, Labour delivered for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. It delivered not only on superannuation, student allowances, and benefits, but also on the minimum wage. Let us contrast that with the hypocrisy of a person whom I can remember said that he stood for the underclass, yet over 9 years the National Party adjusted the minimum wage on only one occasion.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member may think that he is free to repeat an error to the House, as he did before, but he is not free to use the “h” word.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): If the member did use that word, he is well experienced and knows that he should not do so. If he did use it, he should desist.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I remember one John Key saying that National stood up for the underclasses and would do something for them. National had 9 years in which to do that, and in those 9 years National adjusted the minimum wage once—once in 9 years. Yesterday those folk on the minimum wage got an increase to $12 an hour. That is the eighth increase under this Government for the people in this country who are the low-paid workers. Contrast the policies put into practice by this Labour-led Government with the rhetoric, the double standards, and the dishonesty of the National Party on that issue.

Yesterday was a red-letter day too because we introduced employer contributions to the KiwiSaver scheme. Bill English will not say whether National would preserve that scheme. There are 500,000 New Zealanders who have been encouraged to become savers, because they have had the opportunity to do so under KiwiSaver. Just as the elderly folk in this country are not safe and should be very afraid of what Bill English might do in that area, so too should those New Zealanders who, for the first time in their lives, have had the chance to save for their retirement because of the incentives provided by KiwiSaver.

If we want another example of double standards, it is the business tax cut that came into effect yesterday. It is down to 30 percent and there are 15 percent tax credits on research and development. The National Party voted against that. Its members voted against it. I suppose that is consistent, because in their entire history in modern decades they have never cut tax for the corporate sector—the sector that creates jobs in this country. They have not done what this Labour-led Government has done to promote research and development and to ensure that New Zealand remains innovative, creative, and able to market its goods to the world. Labour has delivered; National has not. John Key was called slippery last week; he has lived up to that reputation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I have a very simple question for Mr Goff: why is it that a Labour Government has cut taxes for corporate companies, but not for the average working person?

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has asked me a question; I am happy to answer it. Will the member yield?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is up to the member whether he wants to yield. If the member yields, then you can only answer the question and that is it. It is up to this member himself.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave for the member to take the next 5-minute call and have a second call so that he can answer the question.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The House is the master of its own destiny. The reality is that you cannot seek leave for someone else.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am seeking leave for the normal Standing Order that a member cannot take more than one call in a general debate to be suspended so that Mr Goff can take the next 5-minute call to answer the question on the minds of all New Zealanders, and that is why Labour will not cut taxes for ordinary workers.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No. The member is a long-experienced member of the House. He knows the rules, or he should do by now. You cannot seek leave for someone else.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I moved a point of order asking the member to yield so that I could answer his question. That is a procedure that is possible in this House. You asked the member whether he would yield. He avoided, he skipped, he slithered his way around that question. Could we hear the answer to the question of whether he really wants the answer that he asked for?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to ask for a member to yield, but it is up to the member himself whether he does so.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave for the Standing Order saying that a member may not take more than one call in a general debate to be suspended for the purposes of this general debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to do that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the member clarify that that will give the Government side of the House an extra 5 minutes, in addition to the normal speaking time, or is he really trying to slither around it by saying—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is going too far. We are getting into semantics.

Dail Jones: I happened to notice that the next speaker is meant to be Mr Field. If he is not here, that leaves a gap for someone to take the call. Would this work in well with Dr Smith’s suggestion, and therefore will it be a Labour speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Jones. I have it in front of me that the slot will be taken by Labour.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The problem for Labour members is that they want to talk about everything this afternoon bar their record. My colleague Bill English has pointed out their record in respect of personal tax. Labour members have given every excuse possible as to why they have put taxes up, but will not give New Zealanders a tax break. The last 8 years are something that Labour members do not want to be reminded of. They want to pretend that they have been somewhere different for the last 8 years when it comes to issues like the mess in health, or the lack of tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders.

I want to draw the attention of this Labour Government to its record on climate change. We have heard the aspirations that we are going to be carbon neutral. We have heard so many speeches about how climate change is the most important issue of our time. The question I ask is: what is Labour’s record? Let us look at greenhouse gas emissions. Have they gone down by the 20 percent that Labour promised? When Labour came to Government in 1999 its members said they would cut emissions by 20 percent by 2005.

Chris Auchinvole: What’s happened?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They have gone up by 20 percent. Was there a typo? Did Labour miss the minus and put a plus in its place? It is even worse than that. Let us compare New Zealand’s record of emissions to that of other countries. We can line up with Australia, where Prime Minister John Howard was accused of being a climate change sceptic. Under this “carbon-neutral” Labour Government, New Zealand’s emissions have gone up at twice the rate of Australia’s. Carbon emissions have gone up by 2 percent in Japan. They have reduced by 2 percent in the United Kingdom. They have gone up by 5 percent in the United States. But in New Zealand—this great carbon-neutral paradise—they have gone up by 20 percent!

Hon Bill English: Could they have done any worse?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have my doubts. Out of the 42 countries facing emissions reduction obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, New Zealand is No. 38. Does that sound like we are a world leader on climate change? Does that sound like we are living up to carbon neutrality?

Let us go the critical issue of forestry. In every single year from 1951 to 2003 New Zealand planted more trees than it cut down. That is a record our country can be proud of. But in the last 4 years, 12 million more trees have been cut down than have been planted—a record that this Government conveniently wants to forget. Australia is on target to meet its Kyoto obligations, and New Zealand is not, because of the dumb forestry policies of this Government, which sees that appalling record.

Now we have the Government talking about its new aspiration. It says that 90 percent of power in New Zealand will be produced by renewable sources by 2025. Let us look at Labour’s record. In every year that Labour has been the Government, the proportion of our electricity produced from renewable sources has declined. It was 73 percent when it became the Government; in figures out this week it is now down to 66 percent. The amazing thing is that while those members talk about carbon neutrality and about a renewable energy target of 90 percent, 70 percent of new generating capacity has been thermal—70 percent. The Government has built the new Whirinaki oil power station with taxpayers’ money. Does that sound very carbon neutral? It built the new e3p generator at Huntly. It is the biggest new generating station since Huntly came online. That is a new thermal plant. Is it any wonder that we have seen our emissions go through the roof when we have had a trebling—a trebling—of the amount of electricity that is produced from coal? To members opposite I say that before they rave about climate change they should defend their record, because it is appalling.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I think it is a bit rich for National to mention climate change in a climate where its own individual party members are not willing to say where they stand on the issue. When asked about climate change at the Automobile Association’s annual meeting last week Maurice Williamson refused to answer, saying he wanted to stay a member of the National Party. I think that Guyon Espiner got it absolutely right on television when he stated “Politically, the problem for National is that this is another case of its MPs struggling to say where they actually stand. We have seen it on things like retaining state assets and on retaining the nuclear-free policy. We know there are quite a few of their MPs who don’t like those policies, but they fear if they don’t sign up to them then they are not actually ever going to be elected.” I totally agree with that statement. There is no principle standing behind National when its members make statements like that.

I am very proud to be able to stand in this Parliament the day after so many more of this Labour-led Government’s great policies came into effect. As Minister of Commerce I am very pleased to see the headline corporate tax rate fall from 33c to 30c in the dollar. This brings the headline rate in line with other jurisdictions. I know that those jurisdictions have other imposts on business that we do not have, but saying that the tax cut is now matched across the Tasman at the headline rate has been very well received by the corporate sector. I am surprised that the National Party does not support the reduction of the corporate rate. But never mind—we are not looking for consistency across the House any more.

Probably more significant though is the research and development tax credit of 15 percent. It was a Labour-led Government, I remind the House, that resolved the barriers to deductibility for research and development in the first place. I think it was in 2002 that the new rules took effect. That was certainly very warmly welcomed by industry. But, as Dr Cullen pointed out at question time today—and it was something that I saw Simon Power finally cotton on to—in order to enjoy the benefit of tax cuts people actually have to be paying tax. Therefore, fixing the barriers to deductibility is not enough to actually get the sea change that we need in investment and innovation in this country. That is what the tax credits are designed to do, and they have been welcomed from one end of the country to the other. Again, that is why it is absolutely beyond my comprehension that National voted against the tax credits for research and development.

With a projected cost of $630 million over the next 4 years, this tax credit will bring about that sea change in investment and innovation, and I welcome it as Minister of Commerce. We are anticipating that 2,500 firms will benefit from this. When we add to this the Fast Forward package that was announced as well, it means some real advances will be made in our primary production sector in respect of research and development. I was surprised that the National Party put its line in the sand over that issue. Its members said that National would not invest in Fast Forward or in research and development in the primary production sector. Poor old Eric Roy had to go down and explain that to the farmers in his area. But that is fine—we are not looking for consistency across the House, as I said before.

What about the workers? The minimum wage went up to $12 an hour yesterday. That is a $5 per hour increase since we came into Government. Every year the rate has increased under Labour. How much did it go up under National? It went up 87c in 9 long years. The minimum wage went up 87c. The other thing is that 18 and 19-year-olds were paid a youth rate under the former National Government, but not under a Labour-led Government—we dropped the youth rate provision and, in fact, just recently dropped the youth rate provision altogether. The freezing of the minimum wage and the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act were deliberately designed to lower wages in this country and they worked. When did the huge differential occur between New Zealand and Australian rates of pay, which the leader of the National Party uses as the justification for his concerns about people leaving New Zealand? It happened in the 1990s. It was a deliberate policy of the National Party—and we are still not looking for consistency across the House.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Last night Parliament lost one of its more distinguished members: Tumu Pūtaura—one of our security officers. Actually I never knew what his real name was until today, because like many others I just called him “Uncle”. Tumu was a real gentleman. He was always polite, always courteous, always pleasant, and always respectful. He came from the great city of Avarua in Rarotonga where he was one of the pioneers who helped launch Radio Cook Islands. He was also in a band back then, and noted for switching his radio station on to automatic so he could sneak off to whatever gig he and his band had booked for the night. Not long after that he moved to Aotearoa where he took up employment here in Parliament, and just last year he celebrated 20 years with parliamentary security. Tumu was one of that rare breed of men—very rare around here particularly—whom everybody liked and everybody respected. He was a humble man and never said anything bad about anyone—not even about us politicians. He never lost touch with his music and he was often heard quietly singing or humming around Parliament. So, uncle, haere koe, hoki atu ki tōu ūkaipō, hoki atu ki te okioki.

[Farewell, uncle, return to your earthly mother, to the place of rest.]

We love you, we miss you, farewell.

Tumu’s passing also made me think about how we are all affected in some way or another by the many personalities and experiences that make up this place. Today I would like to mention another one of them. Nandor Tanczos has been a real inspiration to me—a politician who lives by his principles and a man who cares deeply about the world and he stands by his love for Papatūānuku, and our role as caretakers of her future. He is famous for his dreads and being our first and only Rastafarian MP, Nandor has also taken a few knocks for indulging in the herb but he has always carried his beliefs with dignity and honour, never ramming them down anyone else’s throat but never apologising for them either.

When I first saw him skateboarding I laughed up large. I mean, who else here gets a kick out of doing things that our young people enjoy? Mind you, who else, for that matter, can even ride a skateboard?

Nandor has a genuine love for people, particularly those from the street, and his compassion for those in need has always warmed my heart. He argues passionately for peace and for justice, and has a long and proud history of confronting prejudice and fighting discrimination.

He speaks beautiful Māori. On Waitangi Day I recall him doing his whole mihi in Māori right after I had just welcomed everyone in English—shame on me and big ups to him! The thing about Nandor is that he does not speak Māori to get votes; he speaks Māori because his children are Māori, his friends are Māori, and his whānau is Māori—as well as Hungarian, South African, Khoi, Dutch, German, and Kiwi. Nandor shook up this place when he first came in here with his dreadlock turban, his hemp suit, and his crazy ways, and this Parliament is a better place for his having graced our presence.

Nandor and I had a good kōrero up at Parihaka about his leaving, and I respect his reasons for moving on. Parliament ain’t the centre of power in Aotearoa; it is just a place that passes laws. Real power lies outside these walls, in the hands of those who choose to either live by those laws or challenge them for a higher standard, and I wish my brother well in shaking up our world from the outside.

Tumu’s passing reminded me that we often do not get the chance to say what we really think about people who mean a lot to us, while they are still with us. Nandor’s leaving gives me the chance to change that. I am not sure when he is going but I am going to miss him when he does—his humility, his passion, his depth, his searching mind, his love, his humour, and the peace that always surrounds him in this world of madness and mayhem. His lovely daughter Pirimaia is going to be happy to have her daddy back, and if he is lucky, Sharney will be happy to have him back too. So go well, I say to my brother. He has a long life ahead of him and many challenges still to face. I say to him: “Fight the good fight, and never, ever forget to keep challenging us to remember who we are, where we have come from, and what our dreams are.”

There is one last thing, Mr Assistant Speaker. I say to mum: “Happy birthday. I love you too.” Kia ora tātou.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): After 8½ years of a Labour Government it is perhaps time to have a look at a few scorecards—as we have heard here in the House this afternoon. Let us have a look at the Government’s scorecard on education. After 8½ years of a Labour Government, one in five kids leaves school unable to read or write or do maths at anywhere near their chronological age—one in five kids. That is 150,000 children—New Zealand children—which is the equivalent number of children of the cities of Hamilton, Christchurch, and Wellington combined. That is an appalling record for any Government and it is totally unacceptable.

What other mark would one give this Government but a “fail” mark? What did the Minister say about this when he was asked about the 20 percent tail of underachievement at a meeting on Saturday?

Chris Auchinvole: What did he say?

ANNE TOLLEY: I will tell members what he said. He talked about Schools Plus. Do members remember Schools Plus? That was the policy the Prime Minister announced at the beginning of the year. It was absolutely and universally canned, because the Government was going to keep kids at school until they are 18.

Chris Auchinvole: Now it’s a discussion paper.

ANNE TOLLEY: Now the Government has reshaped it, rejigged it, and put it out as a discussion document. The Government has relaunched it. That is the Minister’s answer to those one in five kids.

After 8½ years of a Labour Government, two out of every three Māori children—only two out of every three—take part in early childhood education. Forty-six percent of Māori boys and 42 percent of Māori girls leave school without even the most basic qualification. This Labour Government is failing those Māori children. It is failing to provide them with an education that allows them to take a full part in this society. And what did the Minister say about this when he was asked at that meeting on Saturday?

Chris Auchinvole: What did he say?

ANNE TOLLEY: He talked about Schools Plus. He went on again about the policy to keep kids at school until they are 18 and about how that will fix it. But these kids do not want to be at school. They see no relevance for them at school. That has been proven time and time again, yet this Government continues to not listen. So there is another score of “fail” for a whole section of our community.

After 8½ years of a Labour Government, more than 25,000 young New Zealanders aged 15 to 19 are not in training, education, or work. The Labour Government set itself a goal of reducing that figure to zero. Well, it has absolutely failed. There are 25,000 young people out of training, education, and work. More than 13,000 teenagers are getting a Government benefit. They are locked in to a life of poverty and dependence, and this is at a time when employment is running at the highest levels. The latest household labour force survey shows us that 8,400 16 and 17-year-old New Zealanders are not in education, training, or work. What chance have those kids—

Hon Darren Hughes: Have we got to your policy yet?

ANNE TOLLEY: Actually, National does have a policy for it. Our Youth Guarantee programme will get those children back into education, training, and/or work. We have a plan, and I tell members that it is a much better plan than keeping them at school until they are 18.

What did the Minister say when he was asked what the story was for those teenagers on benefits and those teenagers who are excluded from any form of training out in our communities? What was the Minister’s answer?

Chris Auchinvole: What did he say?

ANNE TOLLEY: He talked about Schools Plus again. The Government is really trying to sell that policy, but it went down like a lead balloon.

So what about the teachers, after 8½ years of a Labour Government? What about the staff, those thousands of teachers out there, who work day after day and who are the most important people in the lives of our schools, as they make the difference for hundreds of thousands of Kiwi kids? In the latest collective contract we now have a two-tier system. You see, this Labour Government says that if teachers belong to a union then they deserve a better pay and conditions agreement than they do if they do not belong to a union. This Government has failed Kiwi kids and Kiwi teachers.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House): I briefly join the member for Te Tai Tokerau in the comments he made about Tumu Pūtaura, who passed away last evening. A lot of the people who work in these buildings and support us become like friends because we spend so much time in these buildings. I recall that when I came back from my first visit to the Cook Islands Tumu wanted to know every single thing I had done—he was so proud of where he was from, despite the fact that he had lived in New Zealand for so long. I think we were all upset and sad to learn of his passing last evening. So I thank the member for his comments.

This week the Government has been signalling the great new policies that have been starting under this Helen Clark - Labour-led Government. When we look at the policies that have come in that are benefiting a range of people, a wide cross-section of our society, it is clear that this Government has a plan for the future. It is a plan for the future that involves all our people being given the opportunity to reach their goals and achieve their dreams. This Government is not interested in just some people doing well, or just some people getting advancement, or just some people getting the benefit of things; this Government is making sure we can deliver to all communities.

My other colleagues have spoken about the changes in taxation around business taxes and research and development credits, and about the great work the Government has done for the charitable sector in changing the tax rules on charitable donations. Now that the cap has come off for charitable giving, it will hopefully unleash a wave of philanthropy amongst New Zealanders to help those delivering essential social services with the Government.

As the Hon Lianne Dalziel reminded us, the minimum wage has gone up. I want to put that on the record. The minimum wage is now $12 an hour, and this is part of our arrangement with New Zealand First. I know that the Green Party and the Māori Party are very supportive of that, as well. What the increase means for the workers at the bottom of the heap, the people who need the biggest hand-up from our society, is that they are $200 a week better off than they would have been if National had been in Government. They are better off because there has been a Labour-led Government. As we heard during question time, the only time the minimum wage was put up by members opposite, when in Government for over 9 years, was by 87.5c when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Treasurer.

One of the great things about this week is seeing the contrast. We see a Government with a plan for the future and with policies for all people versus an Opposition that is tired and is either recycling or hiding old ideas and being very, very slippery when it comes to telling us the difference between those two positions.

As Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, one of the things we have done this week that I am really proud of is that we have delivered to older New Zealanders. This week over half a million people receiving New Zealand superannuation get increases in their income as a result of that policy change. It is significant. A married couple will receive $27 extra a fortnight. This Government is listening and knows that there is a lot of pressure on basic food items and on things like petrol and electricity. We hear people saying they are struggling at the moment with those things—

Chris Auchinvole: They are.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: —because we have very high international dairy prices, and so on and so forth. That means that those kinds of rises are necessary. I hear an Opposition member saying that, yes, people are finding it a bit hard with those basics rising in price. How do Opposition members think that people can get by, paying for the basics, if their income is being cut? There is silence now because they have no idea. Let me tell those members over there a little statistic that they might find useful. If the National members were sitting on the Government benches today, a married couple on a pension would be $34 a week worse off. We know that pensions get paid every fortnight, so that means those married couples would be $68 a fortnight worse off if there had not been a Labour Government. That just shows the importance of keeping these social development policies going. There is no way that pensioners can have a plan for the future if their income is being cut.

Hon Tau Henare: Don’t talk rubbish!

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Tau Henare says “Don’t talk rubbish!”. He was a Minister—

Hon Tau Henare: You were in nappies when I was a Minister.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: He was a Minister who voted to let the floor of New Zealand superannuation fall to 60 percent of the average wage, and all he can do is make reference to how old I was when that happened. That does not excuse him for the crime of voting to cut the pension for older New Zealanders. What is worse is that today he supports National’s Minister of Finance, Bill English, who cut the pension for older people. What guarantee have we got that that will not happen again? Absolutely none, because yesterday when John Key was asked the very simple question about annual general adjustments for social security benefits and for New Zealand superannuation, he said: “Ah, well, um—we’re not sure.” He has no idea at all about anything to do with the machinery of Government.

But that is no surprise whatsoever to me, because we know that the National Party will leave a lot of blanks. We know that when it put up its health policy, it forgot to mention that doctors’ fees would go up. There is a word beginning with “s” and ending in “lippery” that probably goes with that. The Opposition party that is responsible for that policy will have to account for it as it goes forward. Those members really are a disgrace.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I too pay my respects to Tumu Pūtaura. He was the first person I met on coming to Parliament in 1993. He looked after the infamous tight five in our time of need. My aroha and mihi go to Tumu and his whānau.

Let this go on the record: the Government, Darren Hughes, and the like are very keen to talk about what they have not done. They give us all this rubbish about what they have not done. They never want to talk about some of the statistics that face us after 8 years of a Labour Government. They behave like first-termers—full of gumption and philosophy about what they are going to do—but they should put their eyes at the back of their heads and look backwards at what they have done over the last 8 years—or not done, as the case may be.

Government members have bold goals for the future, but we have lost opportunities. They have squandered every opportunity this nation has had. They have had the best of economic times for the last 8 years. We are now heading into a time when things will get harder and harder for the working man and woman, yet all we hear about is what happened 10 years ago.

Chris Auchinvole: Last century.

Hon TAU HENARE: Last century. Here are some of the statistics.

Hon Darren Hughes: Deny you wouldn’t do it again.

Hon TAU HENARE: That silly young man should be quiet. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Chaos may be the parent of creation but it will not be in this place—we will have some order. This is a place for full and vigorous debate. Contributions will be made while respecting the traditions of the House, as enshrined in the Standing Orders. I am standing because I crave your respect for those Standing Orders and your understanding.

Hon TAU HENARE: In 2000, in relation to the average weekly income for all people aged 15 and over, Māori earned 82 percent of what European people earned. But in 2007 that figure had dropped by a massive 10 percent to 72 percent of what European people earned.

Let us look at homeownership rates. In 2001, 30 percent of Māori owned, or partly owned, their own home. That figure is now down. The figure for State housing usage is also interesting. In 2001, 3.2 percent of Māori lived in a State house. In 2007, the figure had risen to 3.4 percent.

What that tells us is that when this Labour Government came into power in 1999, Labour members were all gumption and all gung-ho about closing the gaps. There was no such luck. In fact, the heat got too much and the Labour Government decided to give its Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Dover Samuels, the flick. Then it canned closing the gaps because the heat got too heavy. It could not handle the heat, it sacked one of its own people, and it even portrayed to the media that he would be back in that same position once all the swirling had finished. Well, 9 years later, we are still waiting for the kaumātua from the north to be reinstated to his position as Minister of Māori Affairs.

Labour has done nothing. What has Labour done in the last 8 years? Oh, that is right, it introduced the foreshore and seabed legislation. Boy was that a winner! In its own way it created another political party—the Māori Party. I say kia ora to my whanaunga and relations in the Māori Party. Labour has squandered its opportunities. It had the best of economic times, but it did not use those times to protect us from what was coming. We all knew that the subprime was going to happen. Most people who have mortgages knew that it was going to happen.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): We have heard all about 1 April in this House today, when a raft of Government initiatives came into effect, but what we have not heard is that most of those initiatives have been about the Government making decisions for people on their behalf. They have not been about empowering people to make the decisions that will really make a difference to their lives. What this country needs—and there is a mood for this out in the electorate—is change. We need a change in this country, but not just a change of Government; we need a change in direction, a change of course. If the same old policies are wheeled out now and after the election, then things will stay the same. Helen Clark has given up talking about moving New Zealand into the top half of the OECD, firstly, because she has not been able to do it, and, secondly, because she has no idea how to go about it. We do not need the old failed policies we have been seeing, we need bold policies that will lift this country’s economic performance and have everybody better off, not just the chosen few that this Government wants to help out because they will vote for it come the election.

I asked a question today about taxation. Michael Cullen made it very clear today that this Government has absolutely no intention of removing the “envy tax”—the 39 percent tax that was not necessary in the first place. The tax has not stuck at the top 5 percent of taxpayers; it now applies to somewhere near 15 percent of taxpayers. Michael Cullen said that he would raise an extra $400 million a year for his new spending initiatives. We learnt today that in the 2006-07 year that amount has almost doubled to nearly $800 million, and for what?

Is education any better? No. We keep hearing the figures. Forty percent of school leavers leave with such poor literacy and numeracy skills that they cannot read a bus timetable. This country needs some bold policies to lift every child’s educational ability. ACT would give all students a scholarship so that they can attend the school that best suits their needs so they can achieve to the best of their ability. Our country does not want mediocrity, which is what the Labour Government wants for everybody—everybody doing well and nobody failing. We want excellence. Every child has the right to that, and every child should get a scholarship to make that happen.

An extra $6 billion has been poured into health over the last 8 years. Where has that got us? It has not got us anywhere. There is no better access for any patient. In fact, we now have such a two-tiered system that the people we cater for are the very unwell—those people who have heart attacks and car accidents and need immediate attention—and the wealthy who can afford to pay for health services themselves. What about everybody in the middle? What about the people sitting at home and paying year after year, who want to get back to work, to be of much more use to the community, and to be able to look after their families? Well, it is OK with this Government that those people just sit and wait. We need to make patients the focus of our health system, not the bureaucrats, not the 1,400 people who work at the Ministry of Health. Under this Government the number of people who work at the Ministry of Health has increased from 400 to 1,400. What has that achieved? It has not achieved anything. Doctors and nurses must be put back in the driving seat.

I come back to the subject that I started with—taxation rates. We need a much lower and flatter rate of taxation in order to benefit all Kiwis. That will lift New Zealand’s economic performance and put people in charge of their own lives. It will leave them to make the decisions that best affect their families. The 39c tax rate should be abolished immediately. If Michael Cullen sat down and looked at his figures he would see that he is now taxing 15 percent of people at that top tax rate and that he has now got in twice as much revenue as he said he needed. He would see that his wildest dreams have been completely exceeded. Michael Cullen sits there and reaps in all this money so that, come Budget time, he can spread it around like at a lolly scramble. He might think that he can hoodwink New Zealanders by doing that. He might think that that will make them vote for his party come election time, but New Zealanders are smarter than that. They know that the key to success for themselves, their families, and this country is to let people have more of what they earn, to let people make their own decisions about their lives, and to lift this country’s economic performance so that New Zealand competes on a level playing field with the other countries we like to compare ourselves with.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I have heard that member, Heather Roy, and other members in the House denigrating this Government for a lack of boldness. I will give them bold. Bold is when the minimum wage is $12 and we do not have youth rates—and I thank Sue Bradford for her bill. Her bill was supported by Labour, but National voted against it. We bring in good policies. I was with a business group the other day, and it was really great. It was 1 April, and I said to them: “Isn’t it great about the cut in company tax?”. They said “Yep.” They said they were really pleased that we were now talking with National and that together we had cut the rate for business tax. I said to them that National voted against it, and they said: “No, no, no. This is some sort of April Fool’s joke.” I said: “No, it is not. They voted against the tax cut for business.” National—the friend of business—did not support a tax cut for business in this country. It is appalling.

What are we looking forward to on 1 April? There are some pretty good things happening. One of those is the KiwiSaver employer contribution kicking in. So as well as the $20 a week tax credit that employees get in this country, they also get a 1 percent contribution from employers. Do we see employers in this country bleating and grizzling like the National members do? No, we do not, because they can see that this is good for their employees and good for New Zealand.

We also see superannuation going up under a Labour-led Government. Did that happen under a National Government? No, superannuation went down. We also see interest-free student loans. When Labour came into power it cut the interest on loans when students are studying, and then we got rid of the interest on loans when students graduate. Did National support that? No, National voted against it. And we hear Opposition members telling us to be bold and to bring in new things. We lowered doctors’ fees and prescription costs, but National voted against that. We brought in 20 free hours a week of early childhood education for every 3 and 4-year-old in this country, which about 90 percent of parents have taken up, and National voted against it. Working for Families I have talked about. We have brought in fairer labour laws, but National voted against them.

What did National do to accident compensation when it got into Government? It cut the lump-sum payment for accident compensation. National also scrapped the Apprenticeship Act. Those are the sorts of things that we saw under a National Government, and I know that people in New Zealand are only too aware of what National did when it was in Government and what it would do if it got into Government again. National members will not tell us. What do they say? They say that they do not have a personal view. I have news for the National members. We have personal views in our party, but our personal views—unlike some members in National’s caucus—are the same as our party’s views. That is because we have a vision of New Zealanders being able to reach their full potential. How do New Zealanders reach their full potential? They do it through good education, good health, and good opportunities in life, and that is what this Government has delivered.

We hear the Opposition members denigrating us but we have not heard even one policy from them, except to send kids to boot camp. That is all we have heard from National members in terms of policy. We say to National members “Bring it on!”. On everything it opposed, National is now saying “Me too!”. National vehemently opposed interest-free student loans. National members said that it was the worst policy and that is was irresponsible Government. What are they doing now?

Jill Pettis: Having a bob each way.

LYNNE PILLAY: They are trying to have a bob each way.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Until after the election.

LYNNE PILLAY: What will they do after the election? What do we know?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was listening to Lynne Pillay’s speech and to the interjection from Steve Chadwick, in which they said “Bring it on!” and let us have an election. I seek leave for the House to be wound up and for there to be a general election.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, Dr Smith, you know that is a frivolous point of order. Please be seated. You know much better than that.

LYNNE PILLAY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the member, by “Bring it on!” we meant bring on a policy. We would love to see a policy of any kind.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that leads to disorder.

LYNNE PILLAY: We would like to see any policy from the National Party.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave to pick up the challenge of Lynne Pillay and Steve Chadwick. I understand, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you did not wish the challenge to be taken up in the middle of a speech, but I now seek leave for the House to be wound up so that there can be a general election, as the Labour Party seeks.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member can ask for that, but the House is the master of its own destiny. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? Yes, there is.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apart from the fact that that is a really silly suggestion, we have very important legislation before the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, that is not a point of order. Nice try.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I sometimes get very tired and bored when I am listening to debates in this House, because we hear the same old speeches all the time. A National member will say that the statistics for a certain group in society, when it comes to education, are going down and that wage rates are going down. Then a Labour member will say that if one does this or if one does that, then something else will happen.

Let us take education as an example. Speaking generally from my own experience—and I am actually an immigrant to New Zealand from Asia—one of the things that I have been noticing as New Zealand First’s education spokesperson is how well Asian immigrants seem to do when it comes to education. Many of them come to New Zealand not even able to speak English, yet often within 5 years they are at university and are often doing medical degrees. Why is that so? I have always put it down to something very simple: immigrants from Asia appreciate the wonderful education system in New Zealand. Regardless of which party is in power, neither party can damage what is essentially a wonderful system with a wonderful bunch of school teachers, who get denigrated in this House time and time again by each party when it abuses the education system.

My philosophy on education is simple: firstly, one should go to school; secondly, one should pay attention when one is there; and, thirdly, one should do one’s homework. The biggest problem we seem to have today is that children will not go to school. If a child does not go to school, there is nothing that any Government can do to force him or her to get there. With all due respect to National Party policy, we cannot send 5-year-olds to a boot camp, because they are only 5. But that is when the problem starts; it starts at a very early age. Boot camp policies are useless for children at that age, so let us get real. At the end of the day, as the ACT member Heather Roy was saying, we should put some responsibility on ourselves and put the responsibility on parents. Governments can really only interfere, and it is up to parents to accept responsibility, in all sorts of ways.

Of course, I have been out of Parliament for a little while, but I have come back. I was speaking to Peter Brown about what I should say in this speech. Peter said it was very important that I realise the things that New Zealand First has achieved since I have been away, some of which came into effect on 1 April. I thought: “Well, yes.” Then I asked Peter Brown what they were. He reminded me that—as has been mentioned today—the new superannuation increase has come into effect; the rate is now 66.2 percent. When I left Parliament in 2005 the rate was actually below 65 percent, but thanks to New Zealand First it has been increased by that extra 1-and-a-bit percent, due to our supply agreement.

I also say that I have noticed how well the agreement has worked between Labour and New Zealand First. There is respect on both sides, which is quite different from the situation that I understand existed in 1997 and, particularly, in 1998. New Zealand First has shown how an agreement can be carried out.

The minimum wage has gone up. Was it not New Zealand First that worked with Jim Anderton’s Progressive, which was talking about increasing the minimum wage—or was it the 4 weeks’ annual holiday? One of the things we did was make sure that workers can have 4 weeks’ leave. I think that members have forgotten that fact, and it should be asked of other parties in this House whether, if they came into Government again, they would put the leave back to 3 weeks. I understand that certain members voted against 4 weeks’ leave for all workers in New Zealand.

The company tax rate is down to 30 percent. When I was at the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) in Khyber Pass Road in about 2004-05, it said New Zealand First must support a reduction in company tax, and I am sure it said the National Party wanted one. So New Zealand First supported a reduction in the company tax, but what did National do? It opposed it. I am absolutely amazed, as a former National Party member of Parliament from 1975 to 1984, that National could possibly oppose a company tax reduction. That is quite amazing.

New Zealand First has done other things. I never go to race meetings but I know many people who do, and the things that New Zealand First has done for the racing industry are out of this world. I thank all those people in the racing industry for their support, and I look forward to that support on election day, in particular.

Looking ahead to the future, one of the things that I am working on as education spokesman for New Zealand First is our policy of a universal student allowance, which would make sure that students can go to university and not leave with a heavy debt load around their necks. New Zealand First has always had a student allowance policy. When I hear student leaders talk about the tremendous debt that students have to repay, I say to them: “Why didn’t you vote for New Zealand First? You’ve gone to university, you’re supposed to be very clever, you’re supposed to be coming out with these degrees, but has it ever occurred to you that one way of making sure that you will go to university and not have a debt is to vote for New Zealand First and support New Zealand First?”

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill

Third Reading

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I move, That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a third time. I am honoured to have been given the privilege of ensuring the bill’s safe passage through Parliament. It has not been without its challenges.

The bill has a long history. Over three decades ago the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt promoted the idea to the council of the time. It fell on deaf ears—but not now. I have to acknowledge the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, who is with us in the House today, and it is a pleasure to see him here. The three councils—the Waitakere City Council, the Auckland Regional Council, and the Rodney District Council—have jointly promoted this bill. It has been a meeting of hearts and minds, and a glowing example of councils working together.

The amendments made to the bill have significantly refined and improved its provisions. The changes result from a thorough consideration of over 200 submissions, for and against, by the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was ably chaired by Steve Chadwick, who has now appropriately gone on to become Minister of Conservation. I pay tribute to Steve, the whole committee, and the committee staff for their work on the bill. I also thank former Ministers Mark Burton and David Benson-Pope and their staff for their assistance and advice. I also acknowledge the able assistance of the Office of the Clerk—in particular, Carole Hicks.

The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area is a nationally significant area of ecological, historical, and cultural importance immediately adjoining the expanding international city that metropolitan Auckland has become. The area comprises 27,720 hectares, about two-thirds of which is the current Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, and incorporates 10,000 privately owned properties with a resident population of more than 21,000 people. The challenges of the encroaching city on this iconic area are enormous and unique in New Zealand. Further guidance is needed to sufficiently protect this area from the negative effects of urban growth and development. The bill serves the dual function of containing urban Auckland so that it does become more compact, efficient, and sustainable, and of protecting the natural and cultural values of the ranges and foothills.

But this bill is not blind protection at all costs. The heritage area will continue to be a lived in, worked in, and played in place; a place with its own special communities and landscapes; a place separate from, but highly accessible to, all urban Auckland. The needs and interests of the social and economic well-being of the local communities have been woven together with the wider national significance of the area and the need for protection.

The heart of the heritage area is the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park. These majestically rugged hills were originally gifted to the people of Auckland as a regional park to commemorate the first century of development of their city. The bill restates the objectives for this now-expanded parkland in terms derived from the purpose provision of the National Parks Act. These and other legal provisions ensure the protection in perpetuity of the land and the values of the parkland.

Outside the park, the heritage area includes 10,000 hectares of private land, including, I say proudly, my own home. It includes many distinctive communities: the rolling landscapes of Ōrātia, the wild west coast beaches of Pīhā, Karekare, and Bethells Beach; the Manukau Harbour heads area of Whatipū, the bush areas of Titirangi and Waiatarua, and the urban villages of Waitakere and Swanson. In Waitakere we have a proud history of connection to the land, from tangata whenua, the early orchardists, the gumdiggers, to our now vibrant vineyards and arts communities. The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill is an expression of this connection.

The bill operates within a framework of existing legislation, particularly the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002. Amendments have been made to ensure that the provisions of the bill do not conflict with the Resource Management Act or other legislation. Some members of the National Party have mischievously promoted that the bill will add costly layers and endless restrictions to an already complex Resource Management Act and district plan. That is not the case, and it was never the intent, but the select committee has ensured that there is no longer confusion.

The bill has majority support—just. I want to thank all supporting parties who shared with the people of Waitakere and New Zealand their vision of protecting this great land for generations to come. I thank Helen Clark for her leadership. I am with the westies on this; I brought support from the whole team. I give special thanks to my westie mates David Cunliffe and Chris Carter for their staunch support. Chris not only is a local MP but was the Minister of Conservation at the time. David Cunliffe laid the foundation for the bill to go through the parliamentary process. His electorate forms part of the heritage area. Beside me at all times, David has advocated, cajoled, and got things done in true David Cunliffe style.

Jim Anderton from the Progressive party, and the Green Party have given their unconditional support. The Māori Party has worked with us. I commend its members for their constructive comments. Taito Field, although he had concerns, took the time to talk to the local Pacific communities and residents, and put forward a constructive amendment. I thank him for that.

Dr Morgan Williams, a former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, drew much attention to the problem with his now-famous words “death by a thousand cuts”. I thank him for his inspiration.

The mayors—Bob Harvey, John Law, and now Penny Webster—along with the chair of the Auckland Regional Council, Mike Lee, have been strong advocates for the bill throughout, as have their councils and staff. Special thanks must go to Auckland regional councillors Sandra Coney, Paul Walbran, Christine Rose, and Bill Burrill; Waitakere city councillors Penny Hulse, Janet Clews, Ross Clow, and Judy Lawley, and former city councillors Denise Yates and Greg Presland; and Rodney district councillors David Steele and Greville Walker.

Tangata whenua support has been vital to the success of this bill. I specially thank Te Wārena Taua and Saul Roberts from Te Kawerau-a-Maki, and Bernadette Papa and Jane Sherard from Ngāti Whātua. I also acknowledge the Te Tai Tokerau member Dover Samuels.

I acknowledge staff from the three councils, including Dr Graeme Campbell, Jenny Fuller, and Mark Tollemache from the Waitakere District Council; Hugh Jarvis, Debbie Philp, Neil Olsen, and John Burns from the Auckland Regional Council; and Max Smitheram from the Rodney District Council. I acknowledge also, of course, Heather Ash and Emma Mosley from Simpson Grierson—the councils’ legal counsel.

There has been overwhelming support for this bill at grassroots, flax-roots, and bush-roots level, throughout Waitakere and the wider Auckland region, through polls, hui, public meetings, and submissions. There are many local people and organisations to thank and acknowledge in this House: the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society—of which, again, the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt is a founding member—is led by John Edgar, and it has campaigned for over three decades for the area’s protection; Gary Taylor and Douglas Allan from the Environmental Defence Society; Forest and Bird; and all those other Waitakere groups that are committed to keeping Waitakere beautiful. I also thank Jack Colmar from Waitakere, who tirelessly gathered pledges of support for a heritage area, from politicians, musicians, artists, sportspeople, and celebrities, including our very own Sir Ed Hillary. Sir Ed said: “I heartily support the establishment of the Waitakere Heritage Area. It is a magnificent piece of coastline and forest and Auckland is very fortunate to have it so close. … I enthusiastically support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area.” It is very fitting that the next of the summit walks to commemorate Sir Ed’s life is being held this weekend, just as the bill is passed, in the new heritage area.

The third reading is the final leg of a long journey, and we are almost at the summit. When the final vote has been taken and the bill is passed, we can say: “We knocked the you-know-what off!”. I commend the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): National members have had one question for Lynne Pillay, the sponsor of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, from the day that the bill received its first reading. It is a simple, direct question: how will this bill improve the environmental management of the beautiful area of the Waitakere Ranges? We listened to her first reading speech, we listened to her second reading speech, and again today we listened to her third reading speech, and we still have not had an answer.

We are told that the bill is an expression of the local people’s connection with the Waitakere Ranges. We are told that it is recognition of the beauty of the Waitakere Ranges. What we do not have is any answer as to how the bill will actually improve the area.

Jill Pettis: The connection with the environment is some kind of intangible thing.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask the “Paint Stripper” opposite, Jill Pettis, to explain why the Ministry for the Environment opposes this bill. Why the resource management section of the New Zealand Law Society oppose this bill? Why did numerous submitters come before the select committee and say that this unclear, fuzzy law would only make the existing problems of the Resource Management Act worse?

You see, we have national policy statements like the Coastal Policy Statement, which is designed to protect the coastline. We have regional policy statements and regional plans. We even have district policy statements and district plans. We have three tiers of documents that are meant to protect the Waitakere Ranges. How many people in this House really believe that by creating a fourth tier of local plans—

Lynne Pillay: The majority.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask Lynne Pillay, across the Chamber, how a fourth tier of planning processes and strategies will really make a difference. You see, the overwhelming view of New Zealanders, including those who live in the Waitakere Ranges, is that we have a fundamental problem already with too many words and too much fuzziness in the Resource Management Act, and that the very last thing we need is more of that, but that is what we get from this bill.

What concerns me about this legislation is that it is actually driven far more by politics, by spin, than by substance. When we go through the provisions of this bill, and when we ask the real practical question as to whether the bill will stop particular roads from being built, whether it will stop particular subdivisions from happening, whether it will stop particular changes in land use, whether it will kill any of the pests that inhabit the Waitakere Ranges, or whether it will improve the quality of the waterways in the Waitakere Ranges, the answer to every one of those questions is no. You see, the problem is that Labour has become so desperate for votes in Auckland that spin has overtaken substance. Labour has become far more concerned with the protection of its own political survival, with the protection of its own dropping support in West Auckland, than it is with the protection of the Waitakere Ranges.

The one substantive argument we get is that the Resource Management Act does not do a good job of dealing with cumulative effects. Well, if it does not do a good job of dealing with cumulative effects in the Waitakere Ranges, what are we doing about cumulative effects in Banks Peninsula? What about the Queenstown lakes? What about the beautiful areas of Ōtaki or Golden Bay? If the Resource Management Act does not properly deal with cumulative effects, we should fix those problems with the Act, rather than introducing this sort of piecemeal legislation.

National also wishes to make this key point about the statute: everything that Labour proclaims can be done in this bill can be done in the regional and district plans that govern this area. But the process under the Resource Management Act says that the time it takes for a council to change either the regional or district plan is 9 years. That is ridiculous. So rather than dealing with the real issue of the bureaucratic constraints on the regional and local councils being able to get proper rules in place to manage the environment of the Waitakere Ranges, rather than fixing what really will make a difference, Labour’s answer is more law, more bureaucracy, more plans, more strategies, and more policies. I say to members opposite that it will not work. [Interruption]

I challenge Mr Cunliffe to explain why we need four tiers of planning documents to properly manage the Waitakere Ranges. Every consent decision that is now made in that area will have to compare four lots of different wordy documents. If a member of that community wants to have a say about what goes on with the Waitakere Ranges, he or she will have to make submissions on the local plan, the district plan, the regional plan, as well as the national plan. And National says that is just too much bureaucracy—too many words and not enough action.

My colleague Paula Bennett has actually made a very constructive suggestion. She says that the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park. We have no national parks north of Taupō, despite the fact that more than 50 percent of our population lives in that area. National thinks that is a good idea. We think that, under section 8 of the Conservation Act, a national park assessment of the Waitakere Ranges should be done. We think that would be a constructive mechanism, because we all know that the National Parks Act provides real protection for the Waitakere Ranges. That is why we think that that is a far better way forward.

Paula Bennett: Write to the Minister.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Paula Bennett wrote to the Minister of Conservation, Steve Chadwick, and asked why we do not do a section 8 investigation, to raise the legal status of that area, to really increase the protection—to look at it being a national park. What did Labour say? No. How can Labour claim it has some affinity for the protection of the Waitakere Ranges, when it actually rejected a serious suggestion as to the way in which we should look to provide greater protection for that area?

What concerns National about this bill and this law is, as has been said by the Ministry for the Environment, and as has been said by the environmental law section of the New Zealand Law Society, that it takes the Resource Management Act in exactly the wrong direction. How many meetings do we go to where people say: “I think we need to make the Resource Management Act more complicated.”? How many meetings do we go to where people say: “Ah, the answer to the Resource Management Act is that we just need more plans.”? How many people dealing with the Resource Management Act say: “We just need more policies.”?

The reality is that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill takes us in exactly the wrong direction. It is so telling that the Ministry for the Environment, the agency charged with the job of championing good environmental law, rejects this bill, and says that it is flawed. It says that it is unnecessary, and that it is full of wishy-washy language that will do very little to protect the Waitakere Ranges. Why can members opposite not answer those criticisms from the Ministry for the Environment?

Lynne Pillay: What about confiscation by stealth?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member opposite cannot answer the fundamental question: why does her Government’s own Ministry for the Environment not support this bill? The silence is deafening.

The reality is that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill is all about spin rather than substance. It is all about a few members from the Waitakere Ranges area wanting to cloak themselves in green clothes, to say that they care about the Waitakere Ranges, when in reality this bill will simply complicate the management of that area. National says that we do need to make changes in the Resource Management Act, to deal with issues such as cumulative effects. We do need to consider a national park in the Waitakere Ranges; it is one of the iconic areas. But this bill fails to provide better protection for that area.

Hon David Cunliffe: Are you committed to that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I challenge the next member to answer a question for me. The first recital of the preamble says “this land is a fish”. I challenge any member to tell me how we improve the environmental management of this area by passing laws with that sort of mush.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): Over Easter I camped with my wife and two sons at Karamatura, near Huia, in the Waitakere Ranges. We tramped up the Karamatura Valley, and we explored the dunes and rock pools of Whatipu. As the sun set over the ranges on that beautiful weekend, I could almost feel the bush breathing a sigh of relief that its permanent protection was imminent. The people of Waitakere have been working for this day for 30 years, and I acknowledge the presence in the House of the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, who was one of the founders of the movement to get this bill here today. So along with my colleague and friend Lynne Pillay, it is with deep aroha and humility that we are here to recognise the work of all those who have gone before us.

This legislation represents the deeply held desire by the vast majority of Aucklanders to enhance the protection of our unique Waitakere Ranges, and I acknowledge immediately the key role of the bill’s sponsor, Lynne Pillay, MP for Waitakere, who has worked tirelessly to guide this bill through local consultation, select committee consideration, and the House. I also recognise west Auckland colleagues the Rt Hon Helen Clark, former Minister of Conservation Chris Carter, and our friend Darien Fenton MP, whose support has been critical to bringing this bill forward. Together we have heard the clarion call for the protection of the ranges because the environmental forces throughout the Auckland region—not just the west—have long been calling for it. That has been my experience since my first campaign in 1999.

Extensive consultation with the public and four local authorities shows that around 80 percent of Auckland’s population supports stronger protection for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. This bill therefore carries with it the mandate of the citizens and councillors of Waitakere City Council, Rodney District Council, and the Auckland Regional Council. It responds to a clear and consistent local voice saying that the permanence of legislation is necessary to address the concerns. It is a united voice to Parliament from Auckland’s local and regional government.

The central issue this bill seeks to resolve is that of the cumulative effects of subdivision and development, and the need to provide long-term certainty. What makes the Waitakere Ranges unique is not just its combination of biodiversity and geography, interlinked with the Manukau Harbour and west coast environments, but its proximity to a major and rapidly growing urban area. As a result of Auckland’s growth, there will always be extreme commercial pressure to subdivide and develop land around the city fringe. This reduces population density and makes infrastructure services more difficult to provide, but, crucially, it means there will always be money in knocking down the trees in the first paddock past the fence between the city and the bush. There is a legitimate, sound, and deeply held public interest in addressing and arresting this long-term trend. Dealing with it on an individual consent basis, without appropriate guidance at a framework level, can never solve that problem. Indeed, it risks an unfair burden being placed arbitrarily on individual consents.

The bill is a solution to a complex conflict between the short-term and legitimate demands of property owners and the long-term call by residents and others to protect an iconic resource. There is a long history to the issue. Waitakere leaders and locals have been seeking greater certainty for decades. For example, in 1995 the then conservative Waitakere City Council’s district plan proposed to lift the 1 hectare subdivision limit, and to promote the Little Muddy Creek study to remove protections from the Titirangi and Laingholm areas. Fortunately, the measures were not passed, but that episode did underline the need for permanent protection.

This bill therefore recognises the national, regional, and local importance of the Waitakere ranges and the foothills area, and promotes the protection and enhancement of its historic features for present and future generations. As was formerly stated by the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, it prevents “death by a thousand cuts”, or, in technical terms, those incremental effects. To assist the development of the legislation, I travelled to the UK as a guest of the British Government to study its national park system. In the light of that, I am pleased that this bill allows us to achieve what has kept the British moorland pristine for centuries—adequate protection that also provides for human habitation and public access within the boundaries of the area. The result for local landowners is undeniably an increase in the amenity and financial value of their land. A house in Britain inside a park boundary is easily 30 percent more valuable than a similar property outside.

Importantly, this bill fits within the Resource Management Act’s procedures and structures, and does not violate Resource Management Act processes. It ensures that existing property rights are consistent with the Resource Management Act. This was a select committee issue that has been worked hard on, and I recognise the work of the Hon David Benson-Pope, the then Minister for the Environment, in this regard. The select committee report also recommended changes to the clause on local area plans. The committee considered proposals to ensure that legitimate infrastructure changes could take place within the area covered by the bill. The interaction between this bill and local government legislation has been made more specific. The bill requires local authorities to comply with the requirements of section 77(1) of the Local Government Act. I acknowledge two Ministers of Local Government, the Hon Mark Burton and the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and their officials for their contribution to this aspect of the bill. The Auckland Regional Council will be required to prepare, adopt, and maintain a plan for the integrated management of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park. The select committee recommended that this be reviewed every 10 years.

I recognise the kaitiaki of this area—Te Kawerau-a-Maki and Ngāti Whātua—whose support for this bill is a foundation of its passage. I recognise the leadership of Waitakere City’s mayor, Bob Harvey, of deputy mayor Penny Hulse, who is with us today, and of councillors Greg Presland, Denise Yates, Judy Lawley and others, who have steadfastly supported this bill. I recognise regional councillors Sandra Coney and Paul Walbran, and councillor Christine Rose, now of the Auckland Regional Council but formerly of Rodney District Council. I recognise another kaumātua, Jack Colmar, and John Edgar, chairman of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society; Bruce and Trixie Harvey, Kath Dewar and their colleagues at the society; Dr Peter Maddison and Ken Catt of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society; Tim O’Shea of the Henderson Valley Residents and Ratepayers Association; the late Ian Henderson and his wife June, and Sue Hagen of the Titirangi Residents and Ratepayers Association; Hinne Hettema and Wayne McKenzie of the Laingholm and District Citizens Association—all of those champions who have given their best to ensure the long-term future of these precious ranges.

I thank the parties supporting the bill, all of our Labour colleagues, the Hon Jim Anderton’s Progressive party, the Greens, who have been rock-solid, the Māori Party, and, yes, Taito Phillip Field. I want to recognise the work of the officials of sponsoring councils, and especially Graeme Campbell and his team at Waitakere City, who have brilliantly coordinated the support. You know, Dr Seuss had a famous character called the Lorax, the spirit of the Truffula Trees. I think there is a little bit of the Lorax in all of these fine people, and I salute them.

This is a moderate bill that employs the processes of the Resource Management Act. It requires that any future change to a district plan be undertaken in harmony with the objectives and purposes of the legislation. Nobody will lose any rights to have a consent considered; nobody will lose a single extant property right. Not a single subdivision currently approved will be voided, but we will overcome the problem of incremental effects. This bill provides a historic opportunity to put in place a Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area that will provide certainty for planning purposes, preserve lifestyles for residents, and protect the integrity of the landscape and the ecosystem. I feel safe in the knowledge that the passage of this bill means that long after I retire from politics, I will be able to fish and tramp in the Waitakere Ranges. I will also know that all of the effort that has gone into this bill, and a little of my time in Parliament, will not have been wasted.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I will make a contribution to this debate as I have been involved in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill ever since it came to Parliament. First of all I compliment Paula Bennett on the work she has done in making sure that those who had an opposing view were given a full and thorough opportunity to express it. I also compliment Nick Smith and my other colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee on the work they have done. Even though we are opposed to the bill I will also compliment the staff and the various officials who worked on this bill, because, genuinely, they have done a good job, although I will raise one issue a little later. But I think that the staff who have been involved have given this 100 percent, so on that they can be complimented.

I would say to the local authority—it is primarily the Waitakere City Council, but it is not just that council—and the first thing I would place on the record is that I am not certain this move is a good expenditure of ratepayers’ money. This bill would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to put through.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Millions.

JOHN CARTER: Nick Smith says that it may be millions, and it may well be that sort of figure. I am not certain that the council can justify that sort of amount of ratepayers’ money on this sort of legislation. The member who just sat down made this very point: it does not do anything more than can already be done under the Resource Management Act.

Hon David Cunliffe: Oh, it does.

JOHN CARTER: We have to ask ourselves this question. If it does not do anything more, then why is this Parliament spending taxpayers’ money and why are the ratepayers of the Waitakere City Council spending their money on a bill that ends up doing nothing? That is the point I would make to the member opposite who interjects. Right from the very beginning I asked the officials that question. I asked why we had this bill and what it did that was extra—

Chris Auchinvole: Over and above.

JOHN CARTER: —over and above, and outside the Resource Management Act and the council’s district scheme.

Chris Auchinvole: What did they say?

JOHN CARTER: They said that it does not do anything. It does not do anything. They kept repeating that, assuring the committee that it does not do anything. Then we asked why we were doing it. There was no answer. Well, the unfortunate thing was that after a while—and I cannot remember the length of time—we finally got the officials to admit that it actually did do something over and above the Resource Management Act and the district scheme. It would go outside those boundaries. The officials actually lied to the select committee. That really upset me.

But then, of course, we had to go around and make sure that a local bill could not have higher status than the Resource Management Act. So we worked, and the officials worked, and they brought it back so that it came within the Resource Management Act. Then we have to ask ourselves the question again: why are we doing it? What is the purpose of a bill if it does nothing that we cannot do under the Resource Management Act? The fact is that we have never had an answer to that question, and that really concerns me.

The fact is that we have to ask ourselves—as Nick Smith has already commented—why the Ministry for the Environment is opposed to this bill. Surely, we would think that it would be supportive of it, but no, it is not. Why is the resource management sector of the New Zealand Law Society opposed to this bill? It is opposed to it because it is bad law. It is putting more legislation on our books than is necessary, and under the Labour Government that is a normal thing, of course. Most of the laws it passes are unnecessary.

That is the unfortunate thing about this whole debate. Here we are, wasting taxpayers and ratepayers’ money to achieve nothing other than a feel-good political thing for the Labour Government. The members opposite who promote this bill, who supported it, are playing politics, and the sad thing is that the council bought into it and its staff had to obey the wishes of the politicians. Sadly, it is all about local government - central government politics, not about what is in the best interests of the area.

We have heard the comment that a survey was done, and 80 percent of the people responded positively and said that they wanted this bill. Well, that is absolutely inaccurate. The question was: “Do you want the Waitakere Ranges protected?”. I am surprised that only 80 percent said yes. I would have thought that it would be 100 percent, because would people not want to protect the Waitakere Ranges? Would we not want to protect the Bay of Islands, Queenstown, or the lakes down in Rotorua? Of course, we do. It is one of the things we pride ourselves on in this nation. It is a part of our reputation that we look after our environment and we look after the places we care for.

We could ask ourselves this question: why are the Waitakere Ranges the way they are today? It is because the people who live there care for them—absolutely. They do not just care for them but also they have rehabilitated them. If we look at photos taken in years gone by—80 years, 100 years—many areas were burnt out, cut over, trampled, and farmed. They were bare hillsides that, today, are covered in lovely bush again. There is wonderful birdlife. The area probably has a few stoats and ferrets in it, unfortunately, but nevertheless—

Paula Bennett: Not much.

JOHN CARTER: There are not too many, I am told by my colleague Paula Bennett, but the fact is that the area has become the way that it is now because the people who have lived there for many years care for it. They do not need to have legislation to tell them to look after that place. They go and live there to make sure that it is looked after. It is unique because of the people.

If we wanted to look at people’s views, then we should look at the submissions made by the people who are directly affected. I am told that there were 221 submissions and they were split right down the middle—50:50—on who supported and who opposed the bill. That, to me, is a far better guide than the 80 percent that is often touted by the Labour Government.

I say to this House that I think what we are doing today is absolutely unnecessary. It will achieve absolutely nothing. Not one person has stood up and said: “This is a reason why we should do this.” There is no specific reason. If we could say that the bill will stop a house being built, stop a tree being cut down, stop somebody taking a bird’s life away, or something, then maybe we could say that there is an argument for it. [Interruption] They are to stop the what? [Interruption] Oh dear, oh dear! Seriously, the problem with this bill is that, apart from costing the ratepayers of Waitakere hundreds of thousands of dollars and costing the taxpayers a significant amount of money by using parliamentary time, it achieves nothing.

They are telling us—

Darien Fenton: Why are you opposing it?

JOHN CARTER: It is a waste of time and it is a waste of money, and unlike Labour, National cares about people’s money. We understand that people have to write out cheques for these things, unlike the Labour Government that has no understanding of fiscal management at all and does not understand about writing out cheques. Most Labour members have never had enough money to be able to write out their own cheques. We care about the fact that this is a waste of ratepayers’ money and a waste of taxpayers’ money. We do not want to see this bill, because it is a waste of time and money. It will achieve nothing. The members on that side of the House tell us that it will do nothing, and no one will be employed because of it. I finish with this question “Why are we doing it?”. There is no answer.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First opposes this bill. Many of the reasons have been set out already by Mr John Carter and by Dr Nick Smith. This bill is poorly drafted and poorly researched. It will do great damage to those people who live in the outer area of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, and in particular to those people who live on the 10,000 hectares—about 25,000 people.

I say that the bill is badly drafted. It was badly drafted from the very beginning, even in the Māori saying that is set out in the preamble. What I wish to do is to read out the actual pepeha, or tribal saying, of Te Kawerau-a-Maki, which I believe should have been the way in which this bill began. After I have read it out I will be asking whether the Māori translator, who has a copy of the words in English and the translation in Māori from West Auckland Remembers, edited by James Northcote Bade, can read out the Māori translation. I have shown it to Dr Sharples as well, who is a well-known authority in these matters, and the translation is accurate, I believe.

First of all I will read out the English and then I will seek leave for the Māori translator to read out the Māori translation, which is the reverse of the way things are often done in the House. I cannot see why, on the basis of equality, that approach cannot apply. The pepeha, or tribal saying, in English is: “Puketōtara is the mountain; Waitakere is the river; Te Au o te Whenua is the man; Te Kawerau a Maki are the people.”

I seek the leave of the House—the House being the master of its own affairs—for the translation to be read out in Māori. I seek your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether that is possible.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You were quite right in your earlier remarks—that what you seek is a reversal of the normal practice. It is indeed a reversal of why we have an interpreter in the House at all. Many Speakers’ rulings have laid down that matters uttered in Māori are for the interpreter to give the English version of. There is no provision for the interpreter to interpret words uttered in English. I have to be guided by Speakers’ rulings, all of which lead to that conclusion. It is not a matter of seeking leave; it is entirely in the hands of the Speaker. Being guided by earlier rulings, I have to say no. But the member may, of course, table the Māori version.

DAIL JONES: I am willing to read it out, but bearing in mind the comment that was made on my efforts to speak in Māori the last time I did so, I was trying to avoid that situation recurring. I will give the Māori translation, but I ask only whether that means that, as I am speaking in Māori, the Māori translator will then have to translate it back into English. I will leave that for members of the House to consider.

“Ko Puketōtara te maunga; ko Waitakere te awa; ko Te Au o Te Whenua te tangata; ko Te Kawerau a Maki te iwi.”

As I said, that means: “Puketōtara is the mountain; Waitakere is the river; Te Au o te Whenua is the man; Te Kawerau a Maki are the people.” I make that point because I believe those should have been the opening words, if we were to be fair and reasonable to the people of the area. That should have been the quotation in the preamble to the bill—being the pepeha, or tribal saying, of Te Kawerau-a-Maki—instead of the statement referred to in the bill. Of course the bill, in the very few words after that, is again incorrect. It refers to Te Waatarauihi and it does not give his surname, which is Tāwhia.

This bill is terribly drafted. It shows no regard for the people of the area—Te Kawerau-a-Maki—who, in Māori terms I understand, hold mana whenua or traditional ownership of the land. That is one of the many systematic failings of this bill.

Another thing I would like to have seen in the preamble to the bill, as I am interested in history, is making sure that anyone in this country in the future who looks at this bill understands the meaning of Waitakere, especially in regard to the meaning given by Shane Jones the other day. In this context, many people do not seem to realise or know that the name Waitakere is, strictly, the name of the large flat rock in the small bay between Te Ihumoana Island and Kōtau Point. The name refers to the action of the sea in sweeping over this rock. Originally this was not a name of great significance, but after the death of a Te Kawerau chieftain, Te Rapatū Te Hore, and the display of his remains on the rock, the place took on an immense significance. Therefore, the small bay became known as Waitakere, as did the river that in times past flowed into it, instead of to the south of Te Ihumoana, as it does today. Most people think of the Waitakeres as the ranges but it seems that Waitakere had a different meaning originally, and as a result of European settlement the name was given to the ranges themselves.

As I say, I believe that the bill is hopelessly flawed, and there are many reasons for that. If we look, for example, at clause 9, and at clause 9(f) in particular, there we have the nuts and bolts of this bill. This is what the bill is all about, and it is where all these pages we have before us get down to the thing that some people are concerned about and wish to prevent those people who live in the 10,000 hectare area from being able to enjoy. The provision states: “The objectives of establishing and maintaining the heritage are—”, and it goes on and on. Hidden in the middle of it all is subclause (f), which states “to ensure that any subdivision or development in the area, of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect,—(i) is of an appropriate character, scale, and intensity; and (ii) does not adversely affect the heritage features; and (iii) does not contribute to urban sprawl:”. What does that mean?

I am not surprised that the Auckland branch of the Law Society, or whichever branch it was, opposed this legislation. This will have a dreadful effect on anyone living in the 10,000 hectares. It means that when people come to extend their house, to put on an extra room because the family is growing, or to put in a garage or something, they will have to ensure that any development—and that is what it is—of itself or in respect of its cumulative effect is of an appropriate character and scale, and does not adversely affect the heritage features. That is what all those people in all the societies mentioned by Lynne Pillay and David Cunliffe want to achieve. Otherwise, as John Carter said, what is the purpose of this bill? That is what it comes down to. That is the key, as far as that is concerned.

Of course, Lynne Pillay also mentioned that this bill does not affect the Resource Management Act. Well, if we look at clause 13, “Resource consents”, it makes it quite clear by stating: “(2) The requirements in subsection (1)(a) are in addition to the requirements in the Resource Management Act 1991.” This bill is in addition to the Resource Management Act. The Resource Management Act is not subject to this bill; this bill is in addition to the Resource Management Act.

When people buy a house in Glen Eden or Orātia, when they are living in one of those areas and want to get something done, or when they want to sell in those areas, their lawyer will have to explain to them that this legislation will be another encumbrance on the title of the property. That is why the Law Society was upset. The lawyer will have to try to advise what buying a property in that 10,000 hectare area will really mean to people who want to do that. The lawyer for the sellers will have to try to explain what it will do to the value of their property. It is all very well to say that property values within the 17,500 hectares in the Waitakere Ranges might go up, but that was always protected. That is a different matter. Outside that area, people’s property values will be affected. That will be thanks to the Waitakere City Council and to those people who have supported this bill.

As has been mentioned by David Cunliffe, the really smart people have—very fairly—taken advantage of clause 30 of this bill. It says that people who have already lodged an application or have commenced whatever type of proceeding under the Resource Management Act that is applicable are still safe, because their proceedings will have to continue under the old law. We can imagine how full the council must be of applications lodged under what are called transitional provisions. As far as the future for all of those Joe Bloggses—Joseph or Joanna Bloggs—is concerned, if they want to do work to their house in that 10,000 hectare area, then they will have great problems.

I wanted to have a provision in the bill whereby everyone living in that 10,000 hectare area would be notified, but my amendment was lost. I wanted a provision whereby everyone living in the 10,000 hectares would have a notice on their property’s title, but that provision was lost. I wonder why the Waitakere City Council did not want the actual owners of property in that area to know the way in which their property had been affected by this bill. New Zealand First opposes the bill. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for the good grace with which he accepted the ruling on the issue that he raised, and I offer him special thanks for giving it to the House in Māori itself, too.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I take a very short call on this bill. It has been waiting to be passed for about 2 years now, and I think it is very timely that it is done as soon as possible. It is a very good bill and the Greens are very proud to have supported it through all its stages. This bill is about protecting the vision that New Zealanders have about their country. We are a clean country, we have room to move, we have beaches and bush that we can all enjoy, and these are common properties and commonly understood values by the community as a whole. This bill protects those values and gives the community the right to have a say over how land-use issues should be managed, as communities have done in New Zealand for generations. It ensures that those values are protected for many generations to come. We are very pleased that it is coming to this stage in the House.

I very briefly reflect on what I think is the scaremongering of New Zealand First about the property values around the Waitakere Ranges. What is actually true is that real estate agents support this legislation because they see that there is a significant marketing opportunity in having a Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, and indeed we are seeing houses for sale being marketed as within the heritage area this bill covers. It is very important to New Zealanders to have this kind of area protected, for all of the good reasons that have been previously stated.

I echo Lynne Pillay’s thanks and greetings to all of those who were involved in the bill. I particularly thank Kath Dewar and the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society for the work she and that organisation did. I also thank the public law team at Simpson Grierson, for whom I have a great deal of respect, for their efforts in the proceeding of this bill, in supporting the select committee, and providing the good advice we needed to get this bill right. I thank them very much for all of their work. I look forward to this bill passing its third reading. Kia ora.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I would like to pay my respects to Tumu Pūtaura. Kai te rangatira, Tumu Pūtaura, takoto, haere. Haere ki te okioki o ō tīpuna mātua.

[To the chief, Tumu Pūtaura, lie there, farewell. Depart to the resting place of your ancestors.]

It is a pleasure for me to talk on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. There is a Māori tourist company in the electorate of Tamaki Makaurau that is picking up awards almost as fast as the Māori Party is climbing in the polls. Potiki Adventures won the best Māori women in business award, Te Mana Wahine Tohu, last year. It took out the outstanding business citizenship award, the best new business award at the national women’s business awards, and Vogue Australia recently listed it as one of the top 15 things to do in Auckland City. The reason for its success is twofold: the breathtaking landscapes that Potiki Adventures takes tourists to, and the pride of the two owners in sharing the beauty and the knowledge handed down from their tīpuna about special locations all over Auckland.

A particularly popular tour is that through the Waitakere Ranges rainforest, and it is easy to understand why it is popular. The coastal belt to the west of the Waitakere Ranges—the real name of the ranges is Te Wao Nui o Tiriwā, by the way—exudes a rich Māori heritage. There are signs of early habitation, particularly on the islands and the headlands that constitute natural defence areas. The tour may also include an opportunity to view the unique and ancient inhabitants, such as geckos, rare frogs, kererū, etc., or one may wander through the mature native forest and marvel at the majestic sight of mānuka, kānuka, kahikatea, horoeka, rātā, rewarewa, rimu, and kauri. The wilderness of the Waitakere Ranges rainforest, the exuberance of the untamed coast, and the warmth of the black sand come together to create the unique environment that will linger in the memory long after visitors leave the park.

The unique landscape of the Waitakere Ranges is today being protected, preserved, and promoted by the mechanisms established in this bill. The distinctive tourist value of this area is, however, only one aspect of a space that positively resonates with an appreciation of a unique cultural heritage. Today we are taking a very important step in an investment in our future by preserving and caring for the history of past and present habitation in the environment. We are standing up to protect the national, regional, and local significance of the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park on behalf of those who call this land home.

We know just how important a step we are taking by the heat generated within the debate, and by the intensity and vigour of the positions put forward by people on both sides of the debate about the bill. It was obvious to us all that those who live in the land of the Waitakere Ranges fiercely locate themselves, and the generations before them, as a distinct community of interest in this bill. One after another, submitters traced back over the experiences of five or six generations in maintaining the Waitakere foothills bush environment. It has been a very inspiring process to feel the strength of the attachment that people from all walks of life have with this distinctive environment.

In the spirit of inspiration, I want to acknowledge the strength of this process as it has evolved in terms of soliciting the active participation of mana whenua. I commend Lynne Pillay, who right back in February 2006 was recognising the solid contribution and support from iwi—support that she openly declared was central to the success of this bill. Kia ora, Lynne. I commend the local authorities, the Auckland Regional Council, the Waitakere City Council, and the Rodney District Council, which have willingly endorsed the amendment I brought to the bill to establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki to contribute to the decision-making processes. We in the Māori Party were extremely impressed by the ways that tangata whenua have demonstrated such fine leadership in working with all players in relation to the land specified in this bill.

The Māori Party is very proud of the progress we have been able to achieve in creating processes to ensure that tangata whenua are actively involved in local decision-making. We are very pleased with the way the amendments to clauses 23B, 24, and 28AA were received by the House. The amendments establish a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, obligation on the Crown or the local authority to enter into deeds of acknowledgment with tangata whenua. The amendments place a positive duty on the respective local authorities to establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Ngāti Whātua and Te Kawerau-a-Maki to contribute to the decision-making process. That is unique.

The key point of this bill that really stands out is not just about the nature of collegiality and cooperation reflected in the engagement of mana whenua, of the local authorities, of the sponsor of the bill, and of the Māori Party. A crucial outcome of this process has been the precedent that has been established in enshrining the existing rights of mana whenua as a basis of recognition. The reaffirmation of tīpuna entitlements is essential to the full expression of tino rangatiratanga. We have a whakatauāki—a proverb—from my own people, Ngāti Kahungunu, that symbolises the concept of tikanga entitlements or tīpuna rights: “Kāore koe e tū mokemoke ai.”

[You will not stand alone.]

That whakatauāki speaks to me of the fact that no one stands alone, because we are born of whakapapa and live within its embrace. So it is that Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua came to the Local Government and Environment Committee speaking of the need to protect the whenua, their wai māori, and the natural resources of taonga tuku iho designated within their tribal rohe. We heard about Ngāti Whātua tribal constructs and both Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara working together with the mayors of the three councils to ensure the respective mandate and participatory authority that are to be maintained by whānau, marae, and hapū across their takiwā. We heard also the perspectives of Te Uri o Hau, Ngāti Rongo, Te Kawerau-a-Maki, Te Taumata Rūnanga, Te Rūnanga o Te Taou and how the significance of their ancestral associations could be protected and preserved within this bill.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi anticipated the protection of Māori custom and cultural values. It also guaranteed the right of tangata whenua to possess and control that which is our tino rangatiratanga. It was an absolute declaration about the value that the Crown saw in its relationship with Māori. It is a matter of great joy to be speaking in this House about a model in which outcomes are anticipated that seek to exemplify the strength of a Treaty relationship. This bill provides us all with a model that shows how easy it can be for local authorities to establish a process to facilitate the involvement and participation of Māori in local decision-making processes. We have been extremely pleased that our Supplementary Order Paper succeeded, that the voices of mana Māori and mana whenua were heard, and that actions were agreed to that consolidate the formal relationship with tangata whenua. We in the Māori Party are proud to support this bill. Thank you.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I want to begin by acknowledging the contribution of the sponsor of this bill and the dedication of the local authorities in and around the Auckland area to achieving a level of protection and commitment to the future of the Waitakere Ranges that belies their respective significance to the people of Auckland. I think it is great that that objective has been put before the House and I agree with Minister Cunliffe’s comments earlier about these wonderful pieces of land and tracts of bush and hillside being available for him and others to enjoy their recreational possibilities in their retirement. But I think that applies to all parts of New Zealand.

All of us can claim in our respective locations that degree of pristine beauty and that degree of natural integrity that we would want to see achieve the highest level of protection and the highest level of, if you like, heritage value for the future. That is what I have real problems with when I come to this legislation—the selective nature of it. I do not deny the people of west Auckland or the Auckland region the right to call for the high level of heritage protection for a particular part of their location but I do not deny that right to other New Zealanders as well.

It seems to me that in the framework the Resource Management Act sought to put in place we actually have that level playing field that sets the circumstances that all localities in New Zealand can work to achieve and apply in their own circumstances. I am not persuaded that there is a case for special legislation to be passed in respect of the Waitakere Ranges or, indeed, any other area. If that is so, then I think we need to come back to basics and ask: “Where does the Resource Management Act fit, what are our local planning ordinances in respect of those particular locations, and how should they, perhaps, be changed?

It is for that reason that United Future has opposed this bill from the outset and will be voting against it at the third reading today. It is not a statement to say that the Waitakere Ranges do not have significance, and are not of importance and value to the people of Auckland and the wider New Zealand community. It is a statement that recognises that that level of attachment, that level of protection, and that level of commitment should be able to be applied equally across the country. We are not in favour of what is essentially discriminatory law being passed in respect of one particular location—even though we acknowledge the significance it has to a large number of people.

So, although I take my hat off to those who promoted this bill for their dedication, their commitment, their sincerity, and their determination to do well by their region I think they are fundamentally wrong in their application and I think that this legislation is not good legislation. For those reasons United Future will be voting against it.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I wish to take a short call because, as others have said, this bill has been a long time in the making and the debate has been fast and furious and spread over many, many months.

It is a real pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I have the privilege of being a resident in the Waitakere foothills so I am one of the property owners affected by this bill. I value the opportunity to express my gratitude to the people in my community, to all of those Waitakere residents who campaigned long and hard for this bill to become law, and to the councils who are promoting this bill—Auckland Regional Council, Rodney District Council, and the Waitakere City Council—for their foresight and determination. As a local resident I thank my local Labour MP, my staunch friend Lynne Pillay, who, along with those other Labour MPs—the Hon Chris Carter and the Hon David Cunliffe—has worked diligently in her efforts to see this bill shepherded through the parliamentary process.

All the people whom I know from where I live—from my neighbours, friends, and family in the foothills of Waitakere to my friends in areas like Te Hēnga, Swanson, Orātia, and Scenic Drive—are watching the progress of this bill with intense interest. They are particularly keen to see whether National can get over its natural propensity to stick up for the interests of developers over the interests of communities. This is a chance for National to go beyond paying mere lip service to the environment for a change. Interventions like this bill are essential if we are serious about our environment and our planet. Economics cannot always be the dominant concern and sometimes, as in this case, the environment needs to come first.

As a property owner in the heritage area, I know the concern of my community is to ensure that the ranges are protected for all time and for all generations to come. I believe that just as we acknowledge former generations who created the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, the supporters of this important bill will be acknowledged in the future for having the astuteness and wisdom to protect the broader ranges area. I am proud to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill.

PAULA BENNETT (National): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I must say there are a few things said by the previous speakers that I certainly agree with. One would be when the Greens said it has been a long 2 years. It certainly feels like it and it certainly feels like it for the residents of Waitakere and I am sure for the councils, and particularly Waitakere City Council, which sponsored the bill.

I stand up with a smile because this bill has been a true reflection of democracy in New Zealand. I think in some respects we should stand up and be quite proud that there has been, most certainly, robust discussion around it. There has certainly been debate. I would certainly say that the residents of Waitakere support the Waitakere Ranges, as does the National Party. I do not think there can be any question of that.

On the poll, just for one moment, when people were asked whether they supported protecting the ranges, the majority said yes. I say with a wry smile that I think if I had been called I would have said yes as well. But there is no doubt that 221 submissions on a local government bill means that there was a strong interest in this legislation in the local community. The community was split and it was split pretty much fifty-fifty.

The local community has been split about this. I have been pretty upfront and available and have spoken to those who, I believe, support this bill. I have had no hesitancy in going to meetings where I have known I would not be the most popular person because the majority at those meetings were in favour of the bill, and I have had no hesitancy in making sure that my office door was open and that I listened to those who were at times rather zealous and incredibly passionate about the issue.

What I think is a bit of shame is that there has not been quite that feeling of openness and transparency from those who support the bill. In fact, we have just heard a speech—just before mine—that tries to paint the people who oppose this bill as being “devil developers” who want to cut up the ranges into a thousand pieces and see houses galore in a tight-fitting subdivision. That is grossly unfair because it is so far from the truth. If we ask around the residents who live in Waitakere, we will find that no one wants to see that sort of tight-fitting subdivision within the Waitakere Ranges and foothills. Certainly, that is the answer we got when we talked about protection. So I do not think there is any question as to whether the debate was about a tight-fitting subdivision by those “devil developers”. Unfortunately, that is how the debate progressed.

I want to pick up on a few things, which some of my colleagues have already mentioned. One has to be the fact that landowners are not necessarily the enemy. They are not the ones who barged in and cut down all the trees and turned this into a high residential area. In fact, it is the opposite. In fact, the people and the landowners in Waitakere have restored and rejuvenated the area. They are passionate about it, and they need that opportunity. I think that to paint National members as the big baddies who want to carve it all up may fit the agenda of some people, but the reality is we do not believe that this legislation will achieve its intention, and we have been consistent in that view.

We believe that this legislation is unnecessary and will potentially create huge litigation costs for ratepayers—and it should be done throughout the nation if we see cumulative effects as being vitally important. I for one do not stand here and negatively go against those who have put forward this bill and are supporting it. I think the intention has been genuine, and I think the desired outcome is actually quite good. But will this bill do it and will it be any good for Waitakere? My answer is absolutely and categorically no. In the Local Government and Environment Committee we were not at any time assured that this bill would fulfil its purpose. I have heard that 25,000 people—that is the latest count—live in the area and will be affected. To say they are not affected is to ask why we need the bill. It is a simple as that.

There are other ways to get the desired results of this bill, and it is through the Resource Management Act and a local district plan. Let us let a district plan do what it should do and plan how a district should be. This bill will not improve the quality of environmental management. It will simply add to the bureaucracy of existing plans and laws.

I commend the members of the select committee who worked on this bill. What we see today is certainly not what we saw when the bill was first introduced. There will be so many people—well, not so many; I do not believe that many people actually listen to these debates—who will find it quite hard to believe that at the select committee, even on a bill this contentious, we saw cross-party support to work our way through it. We may certainly have come at it from different angles, and we certainly had different beliefs and wanted different outcomes, but as the bill was to become law, we had a desire to make this legislation as workable as possible for Waitakere residents.

I want to touch on the potential for New Zealand. Let us have no disbelief that we have opened a can of worms that means that legislation like this can now come throughout the country. I want to pick up on what the Hon Peter Dunne said. He said that no one can deny the Waitakere area its natural beauty. I look at clause 8, and note one of the heritage features must be “natural scenic beauty”. I challenge members in this Chamber to stand up and tell me of somewhere in New Zealand that does not have that. But I can say to my Waitakere colleagues and the residents who may be listening, that I do know of one place that does not have natural scenic beauty, and that would have to be the Glen Eden overbridge, but I will deal with that issue in another format, I think.

Chris Auchinvole: You’re probably right.

PAULA BENNETT: Yes—bring it on, ONTRACK! I want to talk about a couple of clauses. One, which was an improvement made by the select committee, means that the boundary of the heritage area can now be extended only by an Order in Council and has to be by way of a legislative amendment. That is certainly an improvement on the original provision. The features of the heritage area, which are mentioned in clause 8, are still, perhaps, of the most concern, certainly to us, because they are the most ambiguous and carry the highest risk of litigation. So the clause still seeks to “protect, restore, and enhance”. It still talks about the quietness and the darkness, but that sort of stuff is so open to interpretation. I cannot help but say to the Greens that a lot of their party members are involved in the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society, and I sincerely hope it does not cost the Greens some membership and thousands and thousands of dollars, to be debating in court what the quietness and the darkness of the ranges really means.

It is important that the bill at least categorically states that if there is a conflict, the Resource Management Act prevails. Thank goodness! But, then, why have the bill if it will not do something that the Resource Management Act does not do?

It is fine for people to make little comments. It has been a personal attack for me, quite frankly, the whole way through, and people can go on about how completely awful I am or where I live and the fact that I do not actually live in the foothills area but live instead in poor old Henderson, which gets the raw end of this deal more often that not. It was fine for Mr Cunliffe to sit there earlier and talk about how no new person has been employed. That is not true. Already the Waitakere City Council has advertised for someone to work on this bill.

I finish with a final plea, and that plea would be that we turn this regional park into a national park. Let us give it that highest protection, and let the foothills and the rest of the area covered by this bill actually be under the National Parks Act, the Resource Management Act, and the Local Government Act. If we had stuck with them instead of yet another piece of legislation and bureaucracy, the Waitakere residents would be getting a better result.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I rise to take a very brief call on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. In many respects, some would think that one has to be from Waitakere to be able to portray the feelings that local people have towards this particular part of Auckland City. It is a very distinct part of the Auckland region, and many of the previous speakers, certainly on this side of the House, have attested to the cultural, natural, and historical significance and heritage of the Waitakere Ranges. In many ways, only they could, because they are from there, they understand the community, they have been brought up in the area, they have raised their children in the area, and they can attest to the reasons why a bill like this should be brought to the House.

In fact, listening to the member who has just spoken, Paula Bennett, one would think that she had not actually lived in the area herself. I am assured by many, many members on this side of the House—such as Lynne Pillay, the member in charge of the bill, Darien Fenton, David Cunliffe, Pita Sharples from the Māori Party, and Chris Carter—that this bill is supported by local people. Yes, it has taken some time to get there, but not without the tireless effort and commitment of a number of stakeholders to ensure that this bill will achieve an outcome for the benefit of that community. That is as it should be.

What stakeholders have been involved? There were two councils—Waitakere and Rodney. Numerous local members of Parliament from west Auckland have become involved. Various Government departments have offered advice to try to work on some of the local issues that have come through the select committee process. A number of Ministers, such as myself as Minister of Local Government, have raised issues and sought solutions to be able to get something into this House that could be passed and that could be useful to ensuring the preservation of the Waitakere area.

Lynne Pillay should be commended for her tireless endurance, if nothing else, in lobbying across the House, at the select committee, and in the community to ensure that the balance of interests was reflected in something in this House that could be moved forward positively.

That is really all I have to say. Many members have exhausted themselves discussing the bill. What I think we will see overall is a model of an approach whereby communities can work together, ultimately for their own interests. Members opposite say that the Government is trying to stop any type of development. That is simply not so. We need only to look at the Hansard record of the Committee stage of the bill to see the response to those types of issues.

In the long term I think we will see a model that may be looked at by other regions to offer the same type of protection. We are not sure about that, but in time we will see some of the benefits emanating from this particular bill. I certainly support it. I am disappointed that Paula Bennett, a local member from west Auckland, did not seem, as a thinking member, to be able to support the bill. That is a shame but, never mind, with the support of the Māori Party, the Greens, and Taito Phillip Field this bill will continue through. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; Progressive: 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Third Reading

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I move, That the Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill be now read a second time and a third time. On behalf of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its unanimous support of the bill. I also acknowledge the members of the Business Committee and the parliamentary parties for supporting the bill and agreeing to take its second and third readings as one question. The Finance and Expenditure Committee reports that the facts and purposes of the bill as set out in its preamble were proven to the satisfaction of the committee, and recommends that the bill be passed with a small amendment.

To recap on the bill’s purpose, it is designed to give certainty that the Melanesian Mission Trust Board’s income, including its business income, is exempt from income tax. The trust is actually a product of legislation that has been passed by New Zealand Parliaments going way back to 1862. The objective of successive pieces of legislation has been to apply income from land owned by the trust in New Zealand for charitable, religious, and educational purposes in Melanesia.

The trust provides 94 percent of the income of the Church of Melanesia, which utilises this funding mainly in the Solomon Islands but also in Vanuatu and New Caledonia. It runs schools, vocational training centres, medical centres, a centre for assisting victims of domestic violence, and a mothers union helping with family life, life skills, and literacy training. The church runs nine schools in the Solomons and 10 in Vanuatu, educating approximately 4,600 pupils and employing around 210 teachers. It runs seven vocational training centres for 620 students, employing about 46 teachers, and also provides theological training for 80 students. The Church of Melanesia also runs two medical clinics in the Solomons, employing 23 staff.

The trust has always been exempt from the requirement to pay income tax, or at least that is what was thought until a New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Dick v Commissioner of Inland Revenue in 2002. That raised uncertainty about the trust’s status. If it was required to pay tax, that would result in a $2 million reduction in money available for its charitable work, or about 30 percent of its overall income. That would contradict the broader objective of the Government, which is working through New Zealand aid to assist the Solomon Islands in exactly the areas that the Melanesian Mission Trust Board is contributing to.

I do not personally have any association with the Melanesian church, but given my interest in the Solomon Islands the trust approached me with a request to sponsor a local bill to clarify that its income continued to be, as it was in the past, exempt from paying income tax. This bill therefore amends the Melanesian Trusts Act 1974 to ensure that from the commencement date of the principal Act, income derived by the Melanesian Mission Trust Board, including any income from business and distributions of income by the trust board, are exempt from income tax. I welcome the select committee’s acceptance of the need to do this.

I support the small amendment proposed by the committee in new section 4A(2)(c), to be inserted by clause 5, which provides that income derived by the trust board and distributions of income by the trust board are treated as exempt income under the Income Tax Act 2007. That ensures that the exemption is comprehensive.

The committee also raised a concern that the tax status of other charitable trust boards that were of a similar nature to the Melanesian Mission Trust Board remains unclear. It suggests that the Government, to save the time and money of such trusts, and indeed of Parliament, should deal with the general effect of the Court of Appeal’s decision rather than through individual Acts of Parliament. That issue is beyond my remit as the sponsor of this bill, but I am sure it can be considered by the Inland Revenue Department and its Minister to see whether there is a need for it and whether there is an advantage in doing so. However, I understand that there may not be many other charitable trusts in the same position, if any at all. Most charitable trusts rely on exemptions in sections CW34 and CW35 of the Income Tax Act 2004, which exempts income from tax if the income is non-business income or if it is applied to charitable purposes in New Zealand. The Melanesian Mission Trust Board is unusual in that it does receive income that could be characterised as business income under the Dick decision, and it applies almost all of its income for charitable purposes outside of New Zealand. There may, therefore, given the uniqueness of this position, not be a need for further legislation beyond this bill.

The bill is supported by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Revenue, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Once again I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its careful consideration of the bill, and I thank members for the support that they have shown in progressing the bill through its final stages today. I commend the bill to all parties in the House for their support.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): I want to make it clear that the National Party will be supporting the Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill. The Hon Phil Goff has outlined every aspect of the consideration of this bill.

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

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: The Hon Phil Goff spelt out in some detail the fine charitable work that the Melanesian Trust does around the Pacific, particularly in the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia, and I do not intend to repeat that.

Mr Goff also covered the issue that the bill particularly addresses, which is the problem that the Melanesian Trust has been operating for years—going right back two centuries ago; in fact, going right back to 1862—on a tax-free basis for its income, because under New Zealand tax law, income for charitable purposes is not taxable if it is either not business income or used for charitable purposes here in New Zealand. The income for the Melanesian Trust is clearly not used for charitable purposes in New Zealand; it is used for charitable purposes in the Pacific. So that consideration for it to be exempt from tax is not valid, so it has to be considered to be exempt from income tax on the basis that it did not receive business income.

The problem was that in 2002 the Court of Appeal, in a case called Dick v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, actually made a decision on this issue. The particular problem, which the Hon Phil Goff did not go into, was that in that case, Dick was actually receiving income from investment in four commercial properties. The Court of Appeal ruled that because the investment was in commercial properties, it meant the income from it was business income. The dilemma for the Melanesian Trust was that some of its investment was in similar kinds of properties, and therefore there was a risk that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue could in fact decide that the Melanesian Trust also had to pay income tax. Now, as we look forward, that would cost the trust $2 million a year out of its charitable activity, and it would make a big hole in what it does for the schools and medical centres up there in Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, and New Caledonia.

But, worse than that—and this is the final point I will make—the trust was at risk of being assessed for years going right the way back. If a decision were made that the trust was liable for income tax because its income was business income, it was at risk of income assessments being backdated for some years. Of course, that would be crippling.

The National Opposition is absolutely satisfied that this legislation is a sensible move. We support it, and we congratulate the Melanesian Trust on the fine work it does. There is no need to say any more on this issue; we have thoroughly examined it, and it makes good sense.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Ko tāku noa ake i te tuatahi ko te tuku i te poroporoaki ki tērā kua ngaro atu i ngā pakitara o te Whare Pāremata, arā, te toa i tū ki mua i te pā tūwatawata e tū ake nei. Ohorere ana te ngākau i taku rongo kua wahangū koe koro, e Tumu i tēnei rangi. Hoi anō, e hoki ki Hawaiki nui, Hawaiki roa ki Hawaiki pāmamao. E koro, haere, whakangaro atu.

I tērā wiki i whakarewahia tētahi hongere whakaata hou, ko Te Reo tōna ingoa. Ko tōna pūtake ko te reo Māori me kī, kia rangona te reo Māori e kōrerotia ana. Nō reira, me mihi ki a rātou nā rātou tērā kaupapa i whakatinana kia puāwai i te rangi nei. Koi nei ka whakaaro ake kia whakaputaina tēnei kauhau ki roto i te reo o ōku tūpuna kia whai ai i taua tauira.

Ā, ki te mema hou nau mai, e rarau. He rawe tōu kauhau inapō. E Sua, talofa lava, haere mai.

Ko tēnei pire ki te Whare i te pō nei he take āhua māmā noa iho, arā, te hiwhinga ka puta mai i te Melanesian Mission Trust Board me ngā tohatoha whai muri o te whiwhinga a taua poari kia noho kore taake. E tautoko ana te Pāti Māori i tēnei take. Ki ō mātou whakaaro me noho kore taake ngā take āwhina tangata. Ko ngā tūmanako āwhina ā-iwi, ā-mātauranga, ā-whakapono ka whai kiko mā te hoko whenua, whare karakia, kura, whare, ā, te whakapai poti, ētahi atu waka, tētahi pūtea tiaki pīhopa, minita me ngā kaiako.

Me te mea nei he māmā noa iho tērā, arā, ka whakapau te Poari o te Melanesian Mission Trust i te whiwhinga tangorīhi hei koha ki te Hāhi o Melanesia me kī, ngā motu o Horomona, Vanuatu, me Kanaki. Kāti, he pērā tonu te āhua?

Ko te take nui i puta mai ki a au, ko tērā e pā ana ki te whakamahinga o te whiwhinga tangorīhi. Ko te whenua i Mission Bay me Kohimārama he whenua i whakawehea, i rīhia mō ngā whare. Ko tōna hanga he āhua rite ki ngā rīhi a Glasgow, arā, he mea mutunga kore, he mea whakahou, he mea āta tirohia anōtia. He āhua ōrite ki ngā mea o Glasgow. Nō Aotearoa te hanga o ēnei momo rīhi, arā, kia noho kōhatu ngā rīhi ki tētahi nui, ki tētahi rahi rānei ia tau, ia tau, ā, ka noho pēnei mō ngā tau 21. Kāore tōna taketake i te tino mōhiotia engari, arā noa atu tōna pānga.Ka hipa ngā tau rua tekau mā tahi, ka tirohia ēnei momo rīhi (a Glasgow) arā, ki tētahi paihēneti o te wāriu o ngā whenua, ki te utu rēti rānei mō tētahi atu tau 21 anō.

Ki taku mōhio, i whakakorengia ngā rīhi o Glasgow i te United Kingdom i te tau tahi mano, iwa rau rua tekau mā rua engari i Aotearoa nei, i tēnei whenua i tēnei pito o te ao, ka mau tonu, ka mau tonu i a tātou. He tino aronga tōku ki ēnei momo rīhi pēnei i ngā mea o Glasgow, arā, te pūtake tonu o te whiwhinga mō te Melanesian Mission Trust i te mea, hāngai ai ki te oranga ōhanga o te maha o ō tātou kura Māori noho.

Arā a Te Aute, tērā kura Māori noho rongonui o tō mātou kaiārahi e rua. Whakahīhī ai a te Tākuta Pita Sharples ia rā engari, kore rawa he paku kōrero āna mō ngā haukerekeretanga a te Kura o Tīpene i te maha o ngā kēmu whutupōro. Ā, aroha mai, kai te āhua kotiti taku kōrero. I Te Aute, i te pātaitia te tika o ngā whenua e wātea ana i raro i te ture kia hokoa. Arā a Hato Pāora, i te tau kua hipa ka ākina a ia kia hokona ō rātou whenua pāmu kia whiwhi pūtea ai hei whakahou i ō rātou kāinga noho taiohi. Arā a Tīpene, arā noa atu ngā tāne o te puna mātauranga pēnei i a Hone Harawira me ētahi atu o tēnei Whare, a Shane Jones, ko au tonu. Ko ngā kaitautoko ā-pūtea o Tīpene, ko te hāhi Mihingare. I te wā e tuwhera ana te kura, ko tā rātou he whakatikatika i ō rātou rawa kia taea ai te whakahou me te whakapaipai i ō rātou kāinga noho taiohi.

He take nui whakaharahara tēnei, arā, mō te pūnaha whenua tangorīhi, he pūnaha kei a ia ētahi hapanga kino mō ngā taha e rua, otirā, mō te whenua noho ā-kāinga. Ko te tino raru, ko tērā ki te tangata nōna te whenua, arā, te heke haere o te moni ka hoki mai mō te rangatiratanga o te hua me te kore piki o te rēti mō tētahi wā roa engari, ka tae ki te wā arotake, ka pā he pikinga o te rīhi ki ngā whakaritenga paihēneti hei kawe mā te kaipupuri whenua. I te nuinga o te wā, kāore he hononga ki te whakamahinga o te whenua i te wā nei, ki te wāriu rānei o ngā whakapainga ki te whenua.

Koi nei te āhuatanga o tēnei pire e pā ana ki te Melanesian Mission Trust Board, he take wānanga tonu mā mātou o te Tōrangapū Māori.

Ko te whiwhinga nō ērā momo rīhi a Glasgow i ngā tapa tāone tino minatia o Tāmaki-makau-rau, arā, i Kohimārama, i Mission Bay kei te āwhina i te hāhi Mihingare i Melanesia, ā, nā reira, ko tā mātau pātai e pā ki te raruraru mō te ōhanga kei runga i te Melanesian Mission, mehemea he patunga anō hoki a ia o tēnei momo whakaritenga rīhi.

Nā, arā anō tētahi take. Ko te mea pai o tēnei momo pire, ko tō tātou tirohanga ki ō tātou kōrero hītori ā-motu nei i te wā i tae mai a tauiwi ki konei. Ki taku mōhio, i whakatūria te Melanesian Mission Trust Board i te tau kotahi mano, waru rau, ono tekau mā rua e te Pīhopa Mihingare a George Augustus Herewini me John Coleridge Patteson, te Pīhopa Mihingare Tuatahi i Melanesia. I tae atu a Pīhopa Herewini ki Tāmaki-makau-rau i te toru tekau o Haratua i te tau kotahi mano, waru rau, whā tekau mā rua. I ako tonu tērā i te reo Māori i tōna haerenga mai ki konei. Nā wai rā, ka tino mātau te tangata nei ki te reo, ka kauhau mai, ka whakaako mai ki roto i te reo Māori, i te reo Pākehā rānei e ai ki te āhuatanga o te wā. He tangata rere kē a Pīhopa Herewini i te mea, ko tōna aronga nui ko te mātauranga me te whakapono. Nāna tonu ēnei i tuku ki ngā Pākehā me ngā Māori. I taua wā, ko te aronga nui o te mihingare ko te mahi ki waenganui i te tangata whenua, kaua ki ētahi atu. Na tōna aronga ki te Māori, ka taupatupatu a ia ki te hāhi, ki ōna hoa Pākehā hoki. I a ia i te kāreti o Hato Hoani, i kaha tana āki kia noho ōrite ngā tauira Māori, Pākehā me nga Melanesian i ngā mea katoa, arā, nga kāinga noho, ngā wharekai, nga hākinakina me ngā akoranga.

Nā tōna whakahē kaupapa whenua o taua wā, ka puta hoki te riri ki waenganui o ngā Pākehā. I te pakarutanga mai o te raru i Waitara me te pakanga ki Taranaki, i kaha whakahēngia a Pīhopa Herewini mō tōna tautoko, whakaruruhau i a Wīremu Kīngi. Kāore e kore, kei te maumahara koutou i whakahē a Wīremu ki te hokonga o ngā whenua o Taranaki ki te Kāwanatanga. Anei tāna: “that no Maori owned land, the land was owned by all the people to be used communally and individually and not to be possessed. Under Maori custom no land could be sold without the consent of all the people. As leader he must make a decision in accordance with the people's demands”.

Nā, nō te tīmatanga o te tau kotahi mano, waru rau, ono tekau, te hokonga o te whenua i oti ai me te kore whakaae a te iwi, ā, nō whai muri tonu mai te hunga rūri whenua i uru atu ai ki te poroko whenua. Ka poto te wā whai muri mai o tērā, ka tae atu ngā hōia ki Waitara, ka pakaru mai rā te pakanga. Ahakoa ngā taumahatanga o taua wā, ka tautokoria e Pīhopa Herewini te whakahēnga ki te take nei.

E pēnei ana taku whakamārama mō te hītori nei nā te mea ko te mea mīharo ki a au, ko te hono o ngā taketake o te Melanesian Mission Trust Board me ngā mahi o te Kāwanatanga ki Waitara, tētahi o ngā raru whenua e kore e warewaretia.

Hei kupu whakamutunga, ka mihi ki te tāpaetanga a te Melanesian Mission Trust Board me ngā mokamoka i hōmai e rātou mō te māharahara, ka ahatia tērā i kīa rā e rātou, ko te whiwhinga kore-umanga. Mārama ana tā rātou whakatau mai ka whakahekea te pūtea o tētahi whitu miriona taara ia tau a te Hāhi Melanesia mā te rua miriona taara ki te taakehia te whiwhinga o te trust board. Kua whakatakotohia haeretia e au ētahi hītori mō te Melanesian Mission me āna mahi engari, ko te hapa o tētahi rua miriona taara pea te meka kotahi kāore rawa i tau ki tōku ngākau.

Kei te pire nei tō mātou tautoko o te Tōrangapū Māori me te mihi kau atu anō hoki ki te Melanesian Mission Trust Board kia ū tonu, kia mahi tonu hoki rātou ki te tohatoha whiwhinga mō ngā take e pā ana ki te āwhina tangata. Kia kaha rā. Kia ora tātou.

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

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker. My task in the first instance is to make a meek farewell to that person who will no longer been seen at his post around the walls of Parliament, that warrior who has manned the palisades that stand before us. I was shocked when I heard of your passing today, Ancient One, Tumu, but return to great Hawaiki, long Hawaiki, and distant Hawaiki. Oh Ancient One, go forth, depart from view.

Last week a new TV channel called Te Reo was launched, its purpose being to hear the language spoken in Māori. So I acknowledge those responsible for establishing the channel and bringing it to fruition today. To follow that example, I thought that this address should be delivered in the language of my ancestors.

And to the new member, welcome, settle in. Your speech last evening was stunning. Welcome, Sua, welcome.

This bill before the House tonight is seemingly a straightforward one to ensure that income derived by the Melanesian Mission Trust Board, and subsequent distributions of income by that trust board, are exempt from tax. The Māori Party supports this matter.  We believe that tax exemptions should be granted for charitable purposes. The charitable, educational, and religious purposes provided for are described as the purchase of land, churches, colleges, schools, and buildings, the repair of ships, boats, and other vessels, and the maintenance and endowment of bishops, clergy, and schoolmasters.

That all seems fairly straightforward where the Melanesian Mission Trust Board uses leasehold income to fund the Church of Melanesia, a mission covering the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and New Caledonia. But is it all so straightforward?

What really prodded my interest was the issue around the use of leasehold income. The land in Mission Bay and Kohimārama was subdivided and leased for housing in the form of perpetually renewable Glasgow-type leases, subject to periodic rent reviews. These “Glasgow” leases are a particular New Zealand construct that fix the leases at an amount per annum that do not change for a term of 21 years. Their origins are not clear but the impact has been huge. Once the 21 years are up, these Glasgow leases are reviewed either to a predetermined percentage of the land value, or to a market rental for a further 21 years.

I understand that “Glasgow” leases apparently were abolished in the United Kingdom in 1922, while here in Aotearoa, this far-flung outpost of the world, it still perseveres. I have a particular interest in Glasgow-type leases, which constitute the major source of income for the Melanesian Mission Trust Board as it relates to the economic survival of many of our Māori boarding schools.

Consider Te Aute College, that iconic Māori boarding school of our co-leader. Dr Pita Sharples skites about it every day, but fails to mention the many rugby games lost to St Stephen’s College. My apologies—I am digressing somewhat from my address. At Te Aute, the legality of sections being available for sale was being questioned. Consider Hato Pāora College, which last year was forced to sell the farm property in order to gain revenue for the redevelopment of its hostels. Consider St Stephen’s, and its many boys from this educational pool like Hone Harawira, and others in this House like Shane Jones and myself particularly. The sponsor of St Stephen’s College, the Anglican Church, had to reorganise its assets in order to upgrade and maintain its hostels when St Stephen’s was opened.

This is a crucial issue with the leasehold land system, a system that has serious disadvantages to both parties, particularly for residential land. The most obvious tension is that the lessor receives a declining return for the ownership of the asset, with no rent increase over a prolonged period, but when the rent is reviewed, the lessee faces a rental increase in percentage terms that often bears no relationship to the existing use of the land or the value of the improvements on the land.

So this is the nature of this bill in regard to the Melanesian Mission Trust Board, an aspect that we of the Māori Party will continue to debate.

The income from the Glasgow-type leases in the highly sought-after Auckland suburbs of Kohimārama and Mission Bay helps to support the Anglican Church in Melanesia, so we have to ask the question as to whether the economic plight of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board is in itself a victim of this type of lease arrangement.

Now, there is another matter. The good thing about this bill is how we view our national historical accounts in the period of early European settlement here. To my understanding, the Melanesian Mission Trust Board was established in 1862 by the Anglican Bishop, George Augustus Selwyn, and John Coleridge Patteson, the first Anglican Bishop in Melanesia. Bishop Selwyn arrived in Auckland on 30 May 1842. When he arrived here he learnt te reo Māori.  In time he became fluent in Māori, preached in Māori, and, depending on the circumstances, taught in Māori or English. Bishop Selwyn was unusual in that education and religion were great interests of his. He delivered both to Pākehā and Māori. In that period the main focus of missionaries was to work with the indigenous people and no one else. His commitment to the Māori people, however, did bring him into conflict with both the church and fellow Pākehā.  While at St John’s theological college he insisted that Māori, Pākehā, and Melanesian students should share equally in everything such as accommodation, meals, sports, and studies.

Because he was critical of land policies of that time, he generated anger among Pākehā as well. When the Waitara dispute and the Taranaki War broke, Bishop Selwyn was condemned for his public defence of Wīremu Kīngi. It was he, members will recall, who vigorously opposed the sale of the Taranaki land to the Government. This is what he said: “that no Maori owned land, the land was owned by all the people to be used communally and individually and not to be possessed. Under Maori custom no land could be sold without the consent of all the people. As leader he must make a decision in accordance with the people's demands”.

Now, the sale of the land was completed in early 1860 without the consent of the people, and, soon after, surveyors entered into the block. Shortly after that, Government troops arrived in Waitara and war broke out. Despite the difficulties of that period, Bishop Selwyn supported opposition to this matter.

My explanation for this historical event has gone this way because connections between early origins of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board and the actions of Government in the Waitara Block truly amazes me, as one of a number of land disputes that will not be forgotten.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the Melanesian Mission Trust Board submission, and the detail they provided around their uncertainty as to what to do with what they described as non-business income. They spelt it out very clearly—that the funding of the Church of Melanesia, some $7 million per annum, stands to be reduced by approximately $2 million if the trust board’s income were taxable. I have outlined some of the history and context of the Melanesian Mission and its functions, but the one single fact that does not sit very well with me is the loss of some $2 million.

This bill has the support of the Māori Party, and we wish the Melanesian Mission Trust Board the best in their ongoing commitment towards the distribution of income for charitable purposes. Be resolute. Greetings to us all.]

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction): Ā, kia ora anō tātou. E te Pika tēnā koe i a tātou e noho nei i roto i tō tātou Whare i tēnei pō. Taku mihi tuatahi, me huri atu ahau ki te kura mai i St Margaret’s College nō Ōtautahi.

As I said in Māori, greetings, Madam Assistant Speaker. This evening I would like to acknowledge the presence of the students from St Margaret’s College in Ōtautahi, Te Wai Pounamu, and welcome them to our legislature. I welcome the students from the deep south. No doubt they are sporting the colours—if not on their blouses, then somewhere else—of the Crusaders. I welcome them to this House. I am not entirely sure whether St Margaret’s refers to Saint Margaret of Antioch or to other far-flung elements where St Margaret was mentioned in church history, given that these students are here this evening witnessing a brief set of speeches pertaining to the Melanesian Mission Trust Board.

I follow my fellow Māori colleague, Te Ururoa Flavell, who in far-flung days was known as “Jimbo Flavell”, and I cannot help but refer to him as “Jimbo”. However, he sports the name Te Ururoa, which belongs to my Ngāpuhi people from Whangaroa. Hongi Hika, who wandered through the country—and who, I must say, was responsible for settling the Anglican Church in Aotearoa—had as his key whāinga, or strategist, Te Ururoa, from the village of Pupuke, in the upper reaches of the Whangaroa Harbour. It is a pleasure to support Te Ururoa Flavell and to follow him, because we too both attended St Stephen’s Māori boys school, which existed as a consequence of the Anglican Church. I am not entirely sure that it was the Melanesian Mission Trust Board, but organisations such as that one enabled us to get the fine education that Tau Henare stares at in very admiring ways at each opportunity he has. Unfortunately, that admiring quality of his did not stretch to the Ngāti Porou speaker today, otherwise known as Parekura Horomia.

The Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill, which has been brought by my senior colleague Mr Goff to this House, deserves our support. The trust board does unstinting good work in areas of the Pacific that we in Aotearoa should have a particularly keen interest in, not the least of which is Vanuatu. I myself have a strong interest in Vanuatu, having looked after some of its mokopuna and put them through school in Tai Tokerau. They lived with me and my children, but they also attended the boarding school that we went to. We should be mindful of the fact that Vanuatu has a great birth rate and, hopefully, it is benefiting from our regional employment scheme that causes us to draw people from the Pacific.

A little bit of history would not go astray. The Melanesian Mission Trust Board has many of its property assets located around Kohimārama. Kohimārama, as my tuakana Tau Henare possibly knows—or taina, depending on whether the cock is crowing or the morepork is calling—is an area where the Māori chiefs met in the 1860s to determine whether they would uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Kohimārama is not a word that derives from the Māori language; it was actually transported here as a consequence of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board, and, in respect of its roots, it is a Melanesian expression.

The work that the trust does derives from the income and the skilful utilisation of the capital assets scattered around that area of Auckland. It is good that the bill clarifies the trust board’s tax status, because, after all, we do make large contributions to that part of the Pacific. If we are able to support an organisation or an institution such as the trust, that will enable the trust to continue to allocate income to meet the needs of those families in places such as the Solomons and Vanuatu, which was formerly known as the New Hebrides.

Of course, I have a small claim to fame in relation to Melanesia. It was my tupuna, Reverend Rēnata Tangata, from the iwi of Ngāti Kahu, who, for reasons best known to himself, was encouraged by the Anglican Church to go there as a missionary. He went through Melanesia as a missionary—tangata tūturu nō te ao Māori, as one would say, the original full-blooded Māori—before the Dalmatians discovered the Ninety Mile Beach and the Māori princesses of my iwi, Te Aupōuri. He went there to spread the gospel, and there are some delightful accounts in my iwi, Ngāti Kahu, about the efforts of Renata Tangata, who went through Melanesia spreading the gospel on behalf of the Anglican Church. So there is a small connection there that makes me feel that I should not suffer a sliver of doubt that the Melanesian Mission Trust Board does a great job that all New Zealanders ought to be proud of. If that board was not doing that job, perish the thought that further burden should fall on our tax base.

We ought to celebrate those organisations that are dedicating their capital, and the income derived from the skilful stewardship of such capital assets, to enhancing the lives of others. If there is anything in New Zealand popular culture that has slipped from public gaze, it is the status that we should accord those organisations that work because of a mission that is not accurately captured in terms of its value by fiscal numbers or a financial abacus. These people deserve our support. These people are part of only a small organisation that is driving the development of our whanaunga—and I say that in that Māori sense from Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa.

I remind the House that Vanuatu, which is a great recipient of this assistance, has one of the highest birth rates throughout the Pacific. It has a large population that is highly youthful, and we have a responsibility in terms of ensuring that we are good neighbours but that we provide an opportunity for those people. We are providing that opportunity not only through supporting this bill but also through enabling them to come to such places as Otago, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, Motueka, Blenheim, and other such far-flung places whose residents no doubt wake up in the morning and get a shock when they see 20 horticultural workers from Vanuatu wandering around the main street of whatever town it is in Otago. It is not quite what your average Pākehā would wake up in spring, autumn, or winter and expect to see. However, such is the changing nature of our life in Aotearoa that we are bringing such people here.

It is with some disappointment that I note that when they came here they did not play rugby; they played soccer. I did my best to enrol the Vanuatu mokopuna who stayed with me in the far north in rugby. Unfortunately, the iwi of the north taught them only to smoke and not to play rugby, but that is another matter.

So, without a sliver of doubt, or a modicum of hesitation, I stand to support the earlier speakers—in particular, Te Ururoa Flavell, who no doubt suffered from a paucity of content, and who consequently had to use both languages, but we will overlook that. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Bill read a second time and a third time.

Bills

Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 12 March.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): Given the nature of this bill, I seek leave for the bill to be taken as one question so that we can have a wide-ranging debate over all provisions. I understand from the sponsor of the bill that that would be acceptable.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Leave has been sought. Are there any objections? There are no objections; leave is granted.

Part 1 (continued), Parts 2 to 6, schedules 1 and 2, clauses 1 and 2, and new clause 1A.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I am very pleased to be able to support my fellow South Auckland electorate MP, along with our other colleague Ross Robertson, on this bill of George Hawkins, and to help the Manukau City Council take a stand against graffiti. I really thank the Committee for the ability to have a wide-ranging debate about this, because the bill as presented was a very small bill, but in lots of different parts, and we would have ended up having very long speeches on such matters as infringement notices. That would not have helped the standard of debate.

It is fascinating to me as a person who lives in South Auckland and works in South Auckland to find that there are still people today who think that graffiti or tagging on other people’s property is not a problem. I was absolutely astounded today to find out what the Children’s Commissioner thought of this. I was astounded that she thought so highly of her comments that she went and put out a press release today, where she said that tagging law does not need to change. She was actually giving a submission to the select committee in relation to the Government’s other bill on this matter, but the words were really meant for this bill, as well.

This was what she said: “I have heard from young people on the matter of tagging and graffiti and I believe their voices need to be heard and respected.” She went on to say other things like this: “I am aware that there are strong public opinions regarding the issue of graffiti and tagging”, but she then went on to say that “these public spaces are often environments that children and young people are alienated from.” Well, I suggest that she comes down to Papakura and has a look at the skating bowl. That is completely for young people and children, but almost every weekend it is completely covered in tagging. So the very space that is not meant to alienate, but in fact is meant to include and be for young people, is taken over by other young people who do not wish to have that space free for others.

She also said: “I acknowledge that graffiti and tagging can have negative connotations and outcomes”, but then she went on to say that “For some people, graffiti and tagging are seen as legitimate art forms.” And this is the bit I really thought was worthwhile saying: “There is history and social commentary behind these art forms.” Well, I suggest that she stops doing all her trips around the world—eight last year on the taxpayer—and stays at home in New Zealand Aotearoa to understand what it is for people to have their properties debased, defaced, and ruined by this sort of so-called social art and history. She can be at home with the rest of us and understand that we have to live in the real world. In South Auckland, and in Manukau in particular, we have had an absolute gutsful—I say sorry to the Committee for being so rude—of that sort of behaviour—

Mark Blumsky: Gutsful!

JUDITH COLLINS: —an absolute gutsful of it. And I have to say we are sick of it. As Manukau City ratepayers—and I should disclose my interest as a ratepayer—we spend about $1 million a year, and the cost is rising, on this. But we are really not getting very far with it. We have the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust, a wonderful organisation that I know the electorate MPs all support. We have those people out there working hard, and the Manukau City Council working hard. We even have Work and Income occasionally helping out with things. We do everything we can to help, and to improve the environment for young people to grow up in—and, by the way, for old people to grow old in. We do everything we can, then we have it ruined by the sort of drivel put out today by the Children’s Commissioner. That woman needs to get real and understand that we have to live in it; we have to live with this.

Pita Paraone: Where does she live?

JUDITH COLLINS: She clearly does not live in Manukau, I tell Mr Paraone—she clearly does not live in Manukau. But we need to say congratulations to Manukau City and congratulations to the Hon George Hawkins on his efforts. The National Party is very proud to be supporting this bill and helping Manukau look after Manukau.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East): First of all, at the outset, I acknowledge the work that my parliamentary colleagues have done in supporting the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. In particular I acknowledge my colleague of long standing George Hawkins for his 18 years working for Manukau and its people, and Judith Collins for the work that she has done. Of course, we have other Manukau members of Parliament, as well.

It is not surprising that we actually have a special part, Part 2, “Sale of spray paint”, in this bill that outlines the guidelines necessary to control the sale of taggers’ weapons of wanton destruction, especially when we consider that in Manukau City we have over 300,000 tags—yes, 300,000 tags. We have already heard from Judith Collins what that costs us as a city. The incidence of graffiti per year in our district is not good enough. In fact, it denigrates our city. Manukau is where New Zealand touches the world; it is the face of the future and we need to do something about it. I can tell the Committee how despondent I felt when I saw a tagged tree near one of our Manukau parks, our reserves. Not only does tagging damage our environment but also it plays havoc with our lives in the stress and strain felt by individuals as they wake one morning to see their fence, house, or letterbox tagged.

It is time that we got tough on, and got to grips with, graffiti—that ugly, odious expression of bravado at best, and gangland marking and ill will at worst. It is like a dog lifting its leg, marking out its territory. Graffiti perpetrators are brazenly declaring their contempt for others, and South Auckland has endured the squalid scrawls for far too long. People tell me that one of the reasons they do not travel by train is the unsightly visual vomit they are exposed to as they travel from Takanini through to Te Māhia—with the mire of Manurewa, and the wanton and woeful on goods trains at Westfield. Passengers tell me they fear that the vandals are in control. This territorial marking marks many and makes them feel vulnerable, because much of the graffiti marking is gang-related. It is marking their territory. I am at a loss to see how this self-expression can be considered to be anything but criminal damage—one group imposing itself upon another. Constituents who have come to me about this problem are utterly opposed to the ulcer of graffiti that is screaming from otherwise healthy community possessions. We regard it as the first symptom of decline, and it must be nipped in the bud. The people of Manukau have a propensity to serve others, they care about the quality of living, and they want this House to pass legislation to support their local efforts.

Graffiti also is a safety issue, and many perpetrators put themselves and others at more risk than those risks that cause us to severely restrict the sale of fireworks. This is also a problem of waste: of police and other specialist professional resources, and of the cost of withdrawing trains whilst the tagging is cleaned up. George Hawkins has brought this bill to the House, and it is born of his experience of overseeing policing, his service in the Manukau community for more than 18 years, and his service here in Parliament.

The best way to deal with graffiti, or tagging, is multi-pronged. First, we need to ensure that the offensive tag is removed within 24 hours, so that the fame and power reasons for doing graffiti are quickly removed. We need to prosecute the crime vigorously and ensure that the perpetrators are made to be publicly accountable by doing community work. There is an old saying that communities can see the writing on the wall. To me, measures taken against graffiti tagging are barely the tip of a laborious effort, because when the kids get bored with spray-cans, they will find another way of declaring their arrival as a face in our cities.

MARK BLUMSKY (National): I thought that that was an incredibly poetic speech from the previous speaker, Mr Ross Robertson. I agree with a lot of what he said and it was a wonderful commentary. But the thing that he missed was that this bill entered the House in 2005 and, bugger me, it is now 2008. What has happened? Hearing the member’s wonderful speech about people wanting this measure and that it has to be done, and about dogs lifting their legs and everything else, I would ask why Labour members voted against the Manukau City (Control of Graffiti) Bill when it came through the select committee process. The National Party supported it, but members on the other side of the Chamber voted against George Hawkins’ bill. I would suggest that there is a huge amount of hypocrisy in what we are hearing here. I just cannot believe how long this bill has taken, because graffiti is a very serious problem. Graffiti is a cancer that destroys our society. It destroys our landscape, because we do not see it spreading, and it is vandalism—total vandalism. It affects how safe people feel, it affects trade, and it affects property prices. It is a very destructive cancer.

In 2004 Sir Barry Curtis wrote to the president of Local Government New Zealand and said that he had a remit to take something through the local government conference in 2003. That remit started this whole process. That was in 2003. I have to take my hat off to Sir Barry Curtis, because if he had not started this and if George Hawkins had not picked it up on his behalf, then we would not be here debating this bill today. I would say to Sir Barry that he has got his act together incredibly well, and Len Brown is following him very much so. I really do congratulate him on his attitude to attack graffiti.

I also take my hat off to Bob Harvey, because Bob and his team at Waitakere are also committed, and have been from day one, in the fight against graffiti. I had the pleasure of being taken round Waitakere with Bob’s team, and I tell members that we have to take our hats off to the energy and commitment those people put into cleaning up graffiti. They know what graffiti is doing and they know how bad it is. Bob might not be able to write good letters to MPs, but he can sure as hell do a good job on tackling graffiti—and that relates to a bill that progressed further through the House earlier tonight.

When I walk around even the streets of Wellington, I cannot believe how much graffiti is taking off and is becoming uncontrolled. I know that the Manukau City Council has spent millions of dollars on fighting graffiti. The Wellington City Council is now spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on fighting graffiti, and it is just a shame. It is just a disgrace. Judith Collins talked about the skate park in Manukau. I can tell the member now that we opened Waitangi Park in Wellington—as Chairperson Hobbs knows—and it is a wonderful piece of city space with a very good facility for kids to do their skateboarding, but, blow me down, taggers whacked it with graffiti on day one. We just need to walk around the city of Wellington to see graffiti on doors, buildings, and everywhere. It has to be stopped.

I say to George Hawkins that his bill has been the catalyst for what is going through the parliamentary process as we speak. This bill needs to be bigger than Manukau. The member needed to start it at Manukau, and he has started it at Manukau. The rest of the country owes him a debt because of the fact that he has done this, but the Government also needs to be ashamed that it did not support the member. It did not support the member’s bill. Government members did not pick up this legislation in 2005, and a cynic would say that maybe they thought they should do something because someone was killed recently. Maybe they thought: “Oh my gosh! Maybe we should do something about this graffiti.”, and they have. But they have gone just halfway. The bill that is going through the other select committee is not good enough. It will not fix the problems. Members should go and talk to mayors like Kerry Prendergast and ask her what she thinks of the legislation going through the House and whether she thinks that it will make a difference to graffiti. There is something missing here; there is no country strategy. What has happened is that there has not been the input that is needed into this, because George Hawkins’ bill was not picked up. The Government has been too slow and it should be ashamed. But I thank George Hawkins for this bill.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): Can I first of all thank the colleagues who have spoken already in this debate. I acknowledge Judith Collins, because she has been very active in trying to get something done about graffiti; Ross Robertson, a fellow Manukau MP; Pita Paraone, the New Zealand First member for his work; and all the Manukau MPs. I especially mention Su’a William Sio, who is the newest member of this Parliament, but he knows just what an impact graffiti has on the Manukau area. I take on board what Mr Blumsky said about our needing a bill to cover all New Zealand. I think that that is very, very important.

I will also mention Sir Barry Curtis, because he became Mayor of Manukau in 1983, and I became the Mayor of Papakura. I can well recall going to a meeting at Manukau City in the 1980s where some graffiti artists were telling us why they graffitied. There were photographs of the inside of one of their homes, where they had graffitied the refrigerator, inside and outside. They had graffitied the television and they had graffitied the walls. So this is not a new problem; this is Manukau City being a catalyst to get legislation.

Will legislation solve the problem? No, not in itself, it will not. But it shows that a community is frustrated by graffiti. Judith Collins mentioned the skateboard rink that gets attacked, and people get very annoyed about these things. One thing that really does annoy me is when the Government introduced its legislation and the news media filmed around that area, but it also filmed some of the kids who are the taggers, bragging that they would carry on. Taggers make their tags, they say, so that they become famous. Of course, then the news media put them on television, which only encourages them. The news media have a greater responsibility than just to have the news encouraging these people. Setting them up in the eyes of their friends as heroes is something that television journalists need to think about a little more carefully. When we see these young people, some of them would do other damage if they could. It is not just the graffiti. Sometimes it is bending letterboxes over. Sometimes it will be—

H V Ross Robertson: Bus stops.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: —doing over bus stops, as my colleague Ross Robertson mentions. He knows—having an electorate in Manukau City—and I know, just how many elderly people feel when their letterboxes are left bent over and lying flat, and their fences are graffitied. Some people may say that graffiti is art. I have heard it said in this Chamber. Well, that is absolute rubbish. If they want to create art, then they should do it on their canvas, not on property owned by someone else. Perhaps one of the solutions may be that councils look at different ways of dealing with these young people. They should stop them feeling alienated, and do something with them.

In the end, it is a problem for Manukau, but I acknowledge that it is a problem in other parts of New Zealand. My colleagues from west Auckland also said that for those who travel on the rail corridors of Auckland the graffiti is an embarrassment and it is very hard to get rid of because of the danger of locomotives coming along the tracks. These young people do not think of danger. They paint on motorway overbridges, they paint on high buildings, and thereby put their own lives at risk. The tragedy of a young tagger losing his life in my electorate of Manurewa is something I think we should bear in the back of our minds.

PANSY WONG (National): I am delighted to be able to take a call to support the MPs from South Auckland. Last Monday I attended the first Manukau economic summit for this year. It was very heartening to hear the Mayor, Len Brown, articulating that one of the frustrating things about the tag name of South Auckland is that it is a turn-off for the business community and the people who live down there, because it gives the impression that it is a city full of problems. I want to congratulate the Manukau City Council. That is why it took up the initiative and said it wants to focus on beautifying the city. One has pride living in a city only when the physical environment can match the people who live there. I want to congratulate the council, and I also want to send my sympathy for the frustration the council has felt in terms of waiting to start work with one of the biggest problems it faces—the tagging or graffiti issue. The council sought help from central government, the Labour Government, in 2004 but without much luck. Eventually it was forced to draft a bill that is seen to be a champion.

It is just as well the council has chosen George Hawkins MP, because he has relentlessly stayed with this bill. He has taken it all the way, for the past 2 years. I would like to see the Parliament support the Manukau City Council, which has tried to build the pride of its people in the city, and support an MP who has staunchly championed this bill through the House. I hope that when the bill passes its Committee stage tonight, it does not see another setback. For far too long we have seen the Labour Government not listening to community concerns, but at long last—this is 2008, election year—the Manukau City Council may see the bill, which it started 2 years ago, come to a happy ending, to give it additional tools to tackle the problem in Manukau City. I also want to welcome our newest member to the Parliament, Su’a William Sio, the former Deputy Mayor of the Manukau City Council. I think it will be a good gift to him to see a bill that was started 2 years ago, when he was on the council, pass through the House.

One has to reflect on the ironic arguments that have been put up by Labour members on the Local Government and Environment Committee. They criticised the Manukau City Council legislation for breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, when it is proposes banning the sale of spray-paint to people under 18 years of age. We then find the same provision in the Government bill, and we have to see what brings about that U-turn in attitude.

I take great pleasure in taking a call tonight, mainly to send a compliment to the Manukau City Council, which is totally committed to ensuring pride in the city is started by cleaning up those acts. It is sending a very strong statement to all those budding artists—as my diligent and effective colleague Judith Collins would say—to practise on their own property, and leave other people’s property and public property alone. I think respect and collective responsibility in the communities start in a small way. That small way is about respecting other people’s rights and property. In taking this call I want also to send my respect to the MP George Hawkins who for the last 2 years has not given up championing the cause for the city that he is part of.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Before I call the next speaker, who will be Pita Paraone, I just make this request again. When I sit in the Chair, sometimes the conversations and the movement around the Chamber, with people standing up, just gets really loud. I think it shows a disrespect to each other. If members are going to have conversations, can they keep them really, really quiet.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Engari i mua i te haere tonu o waku kōrero i roto i te Whare i te pō nei, e tika ana kia tukuna atu ngā mihi ki tēnā, tētahi o ngā kaimahi o te Whare e hia te roa. Nā reira e Tumu, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe. Ahakoa ka nui hoki o te mamae ki tō wehenga engari, mōhio ana au i a tāua ko tēnei te āhuatanga, te kaupapa o tō tātou Matua Nui i te Rangi, nāna i hōmai, nāna i tango.

Engari, ahakoa kei te pōuri hoki i rongo mātou i te hinga atu tētahi o ngā hoa rangatira o tētahi o ngā kaimahi i roto i te Whare nei, kei te mihi tonu ki a ia. Nā reira e te tuahine e Tangi, haere hoki atu. Tēnei te mihi atu ki a kourou i takahia te ara whānui a Tāne, e kawe atu i a kourua ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātou mō te tangata. Nā reira, kua ea te wāhi mā kourua, ki a koutou hoki, ka hoki mai ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā anō tātou.

Ā, tēnā hoki i a tātou engari, he mihi tonu ki a koe e te whanaunga, Su’a. Ahakoa i puta mai tō kōrero tuatahi i roto o te Whare nei i nanahi engari, tēnei te wā tuatahi i riro i a au ki te mihi hoki ki a koe. Nā reira, haere mai.

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

[Greetings to you, Madam Chair. Before I go on with my address tonight it is appropriate that condolences are extended to a long-serving employee of Parliament. So I acknowledge you, Tumu. Although your departure has created much grief, you and I know that our Father in Heaven giveth and taketh.

As we mourn your loss, it has come to our attention of another who has passed away, wife of one your colleagues here in Parliament. Condolences to you also, sister Tangi. Farewell. Acknowledgments to you both as you walk the great pathway of Tāne that will take you to the permanent home for all of us mankind. The part for you two and those departed has been met, so I come back to us, the living: greetings.

Greetings again to us, but to you in particular, Su’a. Although you made your maiden speech in the House yesterday, this is my first opportunity to acknowledge you also. Welcome.]

Just by way of explanation, I tell the Committee that I am just extending my welcome to the new member, Su’a William Sio. I think it is appropriate that I acknowledge him, seeing that he has announced his stepping down as Deputy Mayor of the Manukau City Council, which this bill is all about. I have no doubts that Mr Sio will have a lot of thoughts pertaining to this bill.

I also want to say that I declare a vested interest in this bill. I have done so every time I have stood in this Chamber to speak to it. That vested interest is that I am a citizen and a ratepayer of Manukau City, and of course I have some strong views about the group that this bill is all about. Like the rest of the citizens of Manukau City, I have to meet the costs of dealing with the problem this bill is all about.

I say straight off that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. It addresses a long-standing problem that, dare I say, not only Manukau City but also a whole lot of other cities and communities around New Zealand have had to confront. In that regard, I am somewhat disheartened that we have not heard from other metropolises around the country expressing their support for this bill. It is agreed that the bill is unique to Manukau City and it addresses the issue for Manukau City, but I have no doubt that other cities could adopt such legislation.

Tonight we heard that over 300,000 pieces of tagging—for want of a better description—are faced by Manukau City and make up the bulk of the problem. This bill looks at restricting the sale of spray-cans, but we all know that more than just spray-cans can be utilised to tag people’s property.

The sad part about it is that this problem usually takes place on other people’s property. The previous speaker made reference to that, and I think that that is the real issue. I believe there should be areas where if people want to tag, they can—but not on other people’s property. We used to have a problem with skateboarders, and the answer for that problem was to set aside particular areas for skateboarders. Unfortunately, I think we will be pushing the barrel a little bit to extend that answer to taggers.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I think it is right to say that every politician wants to leave a legacy. It is my hope that, as he completes a truly splendid career in this House and in this Chamber, Mr Hawkins be remembered for the efforts he took on behalf of the citizens of Manukau City to see this issue of graffiti properly addressed.

We are faced with a most curious irony here. As I understand it, the Government plans to support the passage of the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill tonight. That is a strange and quirky outcome in the context of the deliberations that took place before a select committee that was clearly dominated by Labour members. We all know—and others have spoken eloquently about this—of the curse that is graffiti. I think we also know of the unstinting efforts by the honourable member to see this scourge addressed in a practical way. What a tragedy it was that the Labour-led Government did not find it in its cold heart to support this legislation. It instead opted for a decision based on a majority position that the bill be reported with a recommendation that it not proceed. I do not know whether it lies within the heart of the Hon George Hawkins to make some further comment on these issues, but I invite him, on behalf of the committee, to stand and explain how this bill—now apparently, but belatedly, warranting Labour support—will mesh with current proposals that the Government has to deal with graffiti.

We know there are limitations in this bill, and we know there are limitations in the Government bill. Those issues have been addressed in earlier comments made by members in another debate. But this bill represents a fine start that should be supported. I believe it is right to say that it is broadly not appropriate for criminal-creating provisions to be locally based. Where criminal offence provisions are created, they should be broad brushed and applied across the country. As those who have supported the bill and the work of the Hon George Hawkins said, this bill might have been a start to trigger a series of local bills that would eventually see the Government take up this issue with the credibility and cogency that the Hon George Hawkins has exhibited in advancing this cause.

I note the minority views of the committee, where it said: “The National Party and New Zealand First recognise the problem experienced by and support the Manukau City Council in its endeavour to control graffiti within its city limits. The National Party has no confidence that the Labour Government’s anti-graffiti proposals will achieve what is required and the suggested implementation timeline of four years is too long. The National Party and New Zealand First do not support the suggestion that if this bill were to be passed that addressing the issue of graffiti would then be on a piecemeal basis.” In the dying period of the Hon George Hawkins’ rule over his electorate, I urge that there be a strong statement of support and a strong endorsement for all the work he has done so credibly and with such commitment in the past period.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): First of all, I join previous speakers in acknowledging and paying respects to Tumu Pūtaura, who was a security officer for 21 years. Along with other members, I pay my condolences to his family. I acknowledge that Tumu Pūtaura’s 21 years of service reminds us of the people who give service to Parliament by sitting in the Chamber, but there are many others who give service to Parliament, the parliamentary precinct, and the functioning of Parliament in other ways. It is very timely that I should specifically identify and give my very deep, heartfelt thanks to our wonderful men and women who conduct the security service in particular, along with others. Our thoughts and our prayers are with Tumu Pūtaura’s family at this time.

This bill is very appropriate in terms of coming from the Manukau City Council. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of Su’a William Sio, who is now the former Deputy Mayor of the city of Manukau. I think it is very appropriate that, as a former deputy mayor, he should be participating in this particular debate. I also take the opportunity to join with the previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth, in paying a huge tribute to the Hon George Hawkins. Richard Worth was acknowledging the massive contribution of the Hon George Hawkins to Auckland politics and to the city of Manukau. The only difference is that Dr Richard Worth talked in the context of some sort of farewell. Well, folks, if we look at George Hawkins in the Chamber tonight, we see that there is no farewell about him. He is hot to trot, and he will continue to make a huge contribution to the people of Manukau and to Auckland.

I was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee that sat through this bill, and I enjoyed National’s contribution. I saw on the video monitor Mr Mark Blumsky, himself a former Mayor of Wellington. The reality is that the National members of the committee, when they considered this bill, acknowledged some of the issues, the problems, and the challenges. With due respect, I say that I think they went back to their caucus and said: “This is the approach we are going to take.” If members look at the proceedings of the select committee, they will see that National members made a constructive contribution, but it is misguided and wrong for them to suggest that Labour members did not care about the issue.

The problem we had at the time was in terms of the fact that this was a local bill. I have shared with the Hon George Hawkins and Ross Robertson, two fine members, the point that although this was a local bill, we needed to take a parallel look at a nationwide strategy. It is just a basic thing—if people go into the Warehouse and buy a spray-can, they do not go to the Warehouse in neighbouring Auckland City or Waitakere because they cannot buy it in Manukau, but they can buy it everywhere else in greater Auckland.

Parallel with this bill is the Government legislation that is now currently before the Law and Order Committee, which I sit on. We are giving consideration to that bill, and we want to come back to the House with the bill as soon as we can. It will dovetail very, very neatly with the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill.

I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the fact that Mayor Barry Curtis, the Manukau City Council and community, and certainly my own community of Hamilton City—especially with the work that we are doing in the Hamilton City Council—have been huge catalysts for the bill, and also for the Stop programme that is being developed. I also pay tribute to Len Brown for his excellent leadership.

Like other members of the Committee I have walked around Manukau at 1 o’clock in the morning with some really great security officers. I have looked at the tagging, and I have talked to the Māori wardens. [Interruption] I am talking about MPs on this side of the Chamber—I do not know about people on the other side—being on the job and talking to Māori wardens. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to those wonderful community workers in places like the city of Manukau and elsewhere in the country. These people walk the talk and make a wonderful, wonderful contribution. I will be asking for their views and input in respect of this bill. I did not just sit in a select committee and make nice speeches, like some of those National members did; I got out amongst the people. That is the example I follow from George Hawkins and Ross Robertson, who, as members, get out amongst the people. I acknowledge their role.

RON MARK (NZ First): I have been in my office watching members on the television. This new parliamentary internal television system is a wonderful thing. It will provide great DVDs during the election, will it not? We will be able to say: “Oh, he said that today? Let me play a DVD and show what he said in the House.” I am so looking forward to that moment because the inconsistencies here tonight have been just mind-boggling. Members have been waxing on lyrically. I confess that when I was sitting in the Opposition benches I was probably one of the Hon George Hawkins’ greatest antagonists when he was the Minister of Police. But he must be feeling sick to the stomach with the some of the waxing that has been going on from some of the National MPs who have been saying how highly they regard him on the back of this bill. That is not what they used to say about him when he was the Minister of Police attempting to do the very same thing. In fact, there was no credit given to him at all for the work he did trying to maintain the fingerprinting of juvenile delinquents and offenders. The tremendous work he did there was quietly brushed under the carpet.

There are also inconsistencies in Labour’s position. This bill, and the minority report that I have just read, were destined for the rubbish bin. I am now hearing talk that it will be revived. It is interesting for me because I am the chairman of the Law and Order Committee where we are currently hearing submissions on the new Government tagging bill. Now, everybody wants the legislation. Everybody now wants it. We have a former Deputy Mayor of Manukau here. He must be a very confused man because all of his colleagues were against the bill. They were against all the great work his city did. They were against all the arguments he put up. They told George he was talking rubbish. They said he was a typical rightwing nutter in the Labour Party and told him: “Sit down and shut up. We don’t want to hear from you.” But I say to George Hawkins that he was right. He always was right.

There are inconsistencies from the Māori Party. It is wonderful. We heard from Pita Sharples about the artistic ability of taggers and how we should not deny people the opportunity to express themselves. Compare that with what happened in September 2005 when a young 16-year-old was caught defacing—of all things—Pita Sharples’ own hoarding. What was the Māori Party reaction? Its members kidnapped the tagger. They kidnapped this kid. They threw him into—[Interruption] I ask members not to believe me but to read the reports in the newspapers. Mr Sharples and his cohorts kidnapped this kid and held him hostage for hours—a 16-year-old. This is the same man who said “Don’t lower the age of criminal responsibility.” Now I get it; we just kidnap all the young offenders and lock them up. This is Dr Pita Sharples, who for years has had a wonderful photograph on the Māori Education Trust Board website of himself with a full korowai, moko, mere, and feather in the hair. That child did not accept that he could spread his artistic works over the finest buildings and memorials of this land but he must not dare graffiti Pita Sharples’ hoarding. He must not dare do that because Pita Sharples is special. Pita Sharples stands above all those things. Pita Sharples says people can express their artistic ability on other people’s homes, other people’s cars, other people’s fences, and other people’s businesses, but not on his pretty face.

Here are all the newspaper reports about that; there are dozens of them all about a 16-year-old kid who did nothing more than express his artistic ability on Dr Pita Sharples’ face and for his troubles got kidnapped, locked up, and held hostage until John Tamihere and other people negotiated. That negotiation would have been interesting. I wonder whether they were going to send in the Special Tactics Group—a group from the police—to rescue this child. I wonder whether that crossed their minds and whether Pita Sharples would have leapt up and said: “It’s an abomination. It’s terrorising us—me. It’s terrorising. It’s the big long arm of the Pākehā law coming down and psychologically raping us all.” No, he said nothing because Pita Sharples was so angry that he got graffiti on his face.

Tame Iti, who also expresses this sentiment about Pākehā law, has graffiti on his face every day. Some of us would ask what gives him the right to wear a moko; I do not see any warrior qualities in that man whatsoever. But it is his choice. He can graffiti his face, he can graffiti his car, and he can graffiti his house, and Dr Pita Sharples can support all that.

But we now know—because Dr Pita Sharples does not support this bill—that the line gets drawn on Dr Pita Sharples’ own hoarding. The message is very clear out there for people in the Northern area when the election comes around. As far as Dr Pita Sharples is concerned, people can graffiti anything except his hoardings. Thank you.

I seek leave to table a wad of press comments about the kidnapping of the 16-year-old graffiti artist.

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

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration): Before I talk briefly about the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill I will, firstly, pay tribute to George Hawkins. If people listen to members on the other side of the Chamber they would think they were listening to a eulogy. Those members have forgotten that George Hawkins will be back again and again, and some of them could actually learn from the diligent work of a local member—I know I certainly did. What George Hawkins has done in respect of this bill, unlike the member for Monaco—I am sorry, Dr Worth—over there is that he has taken up the cudgels on an insidious issue. It is an issue that is an invasion of people’s property rights and we have all been victim of it. There is a particular property down the road from my house with a big green concrete fence. I would say that for the last 8 years that particular fence has been graffitied nearly every week or every second week. The owner goes out and paints over it again and again. What Mr Hawkins is attempting to do with this bill is drive a local issue out of his electorate, and what the Government has then done with its own bill is to take many of those ideas, add to them, and take them out nationwide with its Stop Tagging Our Place programme.

I will just draw a contrast with the work that is done. There is a collision of ideas on this side of the Chamber. There is some good enthusiasm, and members are actually thinking about local problems and local constituencies. I look over the other side and I see the hollowed-out group over there. I ask what they did during their 9 years in office—9 years—to address this issue. They did nothing, and I challenge “Barmy Bob”—old Private Jones or Captain Mainwaring—over there in his seat. In the 2½ years that he has been squawking like some sort of a male version of a bantam hen, I ask what he has done in Tauranga—

Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That member has been in the House a reasonable time now. He should know that he should address members by their correct name.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The point is taken—by their correct name.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am quite happy to ask Mr Bob Clarkson what he has done in 2½ years in this place. Has he proposed a private bill on graffiti? Has he gone out to his community groups and proposed an idea? He may have gone round the rest homes, of course. I do not think people will find much graffiti around the retirement homes or the rest homes, or the cemeteries. He may have been round those places a bit. But in his electorate he has done nothing. In the 9 long years that the National Party reigned supreme in this country it did absolutely nothing on this issue. Now we get Dr Worth and others getting up—as, I think, Mr Mark pointed out—with their glowing, inconsistent rhetoric and gushing compliments. [Interruption] Of course, they do not like it. Mr Blumsky will be gone. What has Mr King done in his electorate over the graffiti issue? Part of his electorate borders mine in Waipara. They have problems there, but what has Mr King done? What has Pansy Wong done? What has the member who comes from somewhere up Ōtaki way done?

Bob Clarkson: What have you done?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No—we have a member who tonight continues the good old Kiwi tradition of good members of Parliament and who actually listens to the mayors—Len Brown, Sir Barry Curtis, and others—and says: “OK. Let’s turn some ideas into some practicality.” [Interruption] The squawk-boxes over there could learn something form that. It is called “work”; it is not called “hot air”. It is not called “sitting on your backside, taking the dollars, and not doing anything for your constituents.” I invite those members to get up and tell us how many members’ bills or local bills they have proposed in the last few years—2½ years for some and 9 years for others. I think we will find it will be a very, very short list.

It is a bit rich for those members to get up and try to propose empathy with the people of New Zealand who have had their properties or their places of commerce and their shops covered in graffiti. I have been victim of it myself, like Mr Sharples. I remember that during the last election I had horns painted over my hoardings. But the great thing about the graffiti on my hoardings was that it gave me more hair, which, I have to say, I was exceptionally gratified about. Some people said it improved my looks. Some people would call that art indeed. But there is a difference. Somebody talked about graffiti art. In my electorate the Belfast Bowling Club commissioned some work by young people. The club’s fence had been done over week after week so it commissioned the young people to do a fantastic mural, and from that day it has never been touched. But I invite the cynics and the geniuses on the other side of the House, who now try to jump on the bandwagon of this bill, to get up and tell us what they have done in their constituencies on the issue.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): It is good to see that some people believe in the myths and stories that get published on the front page of the Dominion Post. I get accused of kidnapping, and I get my face on the front page—there I am in bed, sleeping, and I find out the next day that I am a kidnapper. But never mind.

I would like to explain why the Māori Party opposes the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. We oppose the bill mainly because of the reference to giving the police extra powers. I do not believe that is necessary. I believe that the police have all the powers they need to carry out their duties at this time. I feel that we always come down heavy on the youth. When there are problems we attack the youth instead of looking at the major problems in our society. We build big communities that are poor. We do not put in the resources. The teachers drive in, teach, and drive home again. There is no community spirit as there is in the country towns that are thriving. The people meet together and they are all joined up somehow or other. But in those large communities most of the people who provide the services drive in and drive out again, and it makes it very hard to have a good community spirit. The lack of resources, the lack of industry, the lack of transport facilities, the lack of after-school activities, and the lack of user-friendly clubs mean that it is a struggle for the local people in some of our communities to carry out their roles and get full support. We do our best.

It is really interesting. Everyone watches the Warriors—though not last week, of course. They watch the Pacific Islanders excelling in rugby league and in the All Blacks and all the other teams and they feel really proud, yet they look upon their very children as people who need to be policed, chased, and harassed in the community for their misbehaviour. We have a lot of things to look at in our communities, and I believe that tightening up every time something goes wrong is not the right answer. We have just let the situation get out of hand. There are the “quick rich” in our cities now. If we look at the board of governors at places like King’s College, we see that in the old days the people on the board used to be the old families and 50 percent rural people. Now it is all the “quick rich” from in town. That is the sort of thing that is happening. The people who are asking for favours now are the people who had the best advantages when they were young, and they are the old people now. They got cheap loans. They could buy houses and sections for $9,000. They had a free education—in fact, they got paid to go to university—and they are the people that many of our politicians are pandering to and looking after instead of dealing with the community as a whole and building up a strong foundation for our youth.

I feel a bit sad that a lot of the bills we have had in the last year have been about punishment. Now I hear that the Sensible Sentencing Trust wants to tie people to chains and let them hammer away at the side of a road, and put them in tent villages. That policy started in the United States. It failed. They have the worst incarceration rate. In fact, they lead the world in incarceration, and it is interesting that it is the black people, the coloured people, who are most representative of the people in prison. We have to rethink how we look at a society’s communities. If we take a freezing works out of a town, it takes years for that town to build up again. We have to reinvest in rural towns and build up their structures in order to give the communities a life. I hate graffiti—even on my own face. I hate it on walls and fences of any kind, especially tagging, which is the worst kind of graffiti. But I do not see it as the greatest sin in the world and that we need to have an Act of Parliament to deal with it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Do you know how much it costs to clean it up?

Dr PITA SHARPLES: There he goes. He is measuring everything by cost again. What about the cost to the community?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What if it happened at your place?

Dr PITA SHARPLES: No, the cost is the community cost.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No it’s not.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: Totally. The community has to live, and some places cannot afford all the flash benefits we give out here, like the Working for Families package and KiwiSaver. They cannot afford the measures that would give them a better quality of life. Those are the communities I am talking about, and a lot of their children are doing this.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: This is Dreamtime.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: Not at all.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction): I rise to correct the impressions in the minds of the multitude of listeners this evening, in the unlikely event that they feel there was one redeeming element in Dr Pita Sharples’ speech. The clear line ahead is that we should support George Hawkins, and I must also acknowledge the effort of the other MPs from the Manukau area. I have on earlier occasions been possessed of the thought to refer to one of those members as a pink bat. I am now searching for how I might describe that in our Māori language. I remember that my tūpuna from Ngāpuhi fought a great battle at Ruapekapeka, which means “the nest of the bat”.

However, having said that, I note that Mr Hawkins and the other MPs of Manukau live on a regular basis with the effects of tagging. It is a crime. It diminishes status and the sense of community. It spreads fear, and it causes people to doubt whether anything can be done to arrest this type of pollution. So I salute the mahi those members are doing together to challenge the taggers. But we know that young people are prone to great flights of fancy and end up doing things that they regret in later life. If members have doubts about that, they should just look at Hone Harawira, my relation from Te Aupōuri tribe.

That aside, Mr Hawkins has brought to our attention as parliamentarians the fact that tagging and graffiti that is allowed to spread unabated wears down ordinary mums and dads, because they know that many of the people behind this anti-social behaviour are in gangs. Gangs are only a minority, but the fact is that if we do not challenge their influence, then we are undermining the spirit of communities that fear that their own children will be forced into options or decisions that arise as a consequence of our lack of diligence in allowing gangs to become normalised.

That is why I will never ever agree in this Parliament with Dr Pita Sharples that we should indulge gangs and what they represent. I salute the man for the work he has done in the revival of our culture, and for being a great supporter of urban Māori initiatives and a proud son of Kahungunu, but I will never support his desire that we should indulge or acquiesce with the spread of gang culture, which is, firstly, proliferating through the acceptance of tagging; secondly, overlooking the cancerous effect of drugs; and, thirdly, turning a blind eye to activities that are passed off as graffiti but that are in actual fact a very sinister crime against the spirit that binds a community together.

So I salute Mr Hawkins and—perish the thought—the other MPs who, although they may not belong to the illustrious party that comprises the Government, have also made efforts to arrest this attack. I accept that Mr Mark alerted the country to the fact that Dr Sharples, during the last election campaign and in a fit of anger when he saw an object poking out of his mouth that was not a cigarette—as a consequence of the efforts of a tagger—saw red. It is a pity he does not vote red, but that is another matter. I accept that he was moved to capture that young person and almost dispense some summary justice, but the reality is that we need to ensure that the message is amplified. We should have zero tolerance for tagging yet still embrace the rangatahi so that they see a better way.

But I say to Dr Sharples that there is no way we should indulge, justify, or apologise for the activities of gangs. They exist on the basis of threats, intimidation, and violence. They celebrate the fact that they can get their way because “if you stand in their way, they will do you away”. Well, I say to them “Go to hell!” Kia ora tātou.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): The taggers are generally not from gangs. They are usually two or three individuals who communicate with two or three other individuals in different parts of the town and they go throughout different communities and put their mark on the place like, as someone described it, a dog does. That is basically what they do. They are not the gangs that Shane Jones is talking about at all. Shane Jones is quite wrong, and he knows that he is wrong, to say that I indulge gangs and encourage them. I do not encourage gangs and I do not like their criminality. I have said a number of times in this Chamber that if gangs indulge in any criminal, threatening, or bullying behaviour they must be dealt with by the police or by any activity that is legal.

But what I am doing is working to defuse and change the activities of many of the gangs, and I will keep doing that. If the member wants to say that that is indulging the gangs then that is fine, but at the end of the day anyone who breaks the law has to be dealt with properly. As for Shane Jones saying that I also support the drug activities of gangs, I remind him that we brought the whole P issue to this Parliament and put it before a select committee—when I was not in Parliament—and 2 months later Parliament classified it as a class A drug. I have raised money and taken the P case up and down this country twice, from Invercargill to Kaitāia, pointing out to people, and giving demonstrations of, the evil of P. I have a team doing it now and I gave a demonstration myself at the Manukau Institute of Technology just a week ago. I am a fighter against drugs and I deplore the member associating me with supporting any kind of drug activity.

I just want to get those things straight and to say that, yes, we have to stop the tagging, and we already have powers to do that. I think that we have to move in and do it; that we have to strengthen the communities and not just leave it there and attack the kids. Kia ora.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): This has been a very interesting debate and I thank those who have contributed to it. It is not often that we get parties working together at a local level. In Manukau MPs from different parties have come together because we want to solve a problem.

I acknowledge the work of my colleagues. We do not always agree. I suppose I seldom agree with Judith Collins and people like Pansy Wong who have been working on this issue. I refer to my colleague Ross Robertson in particular and to Su’a William Sio—he has been here for only a few days, but he has been working on this problem for a long, long time. It is interesting to note that Dr Sharples and I have different views on graffiti, but in some areas we come together. We have to steer youth, some of whom may be gang members, in a different direction.

I said earlier that I do not think this legislation alone will solve the problem of graffiti. It is a very complex problem that involves young people having access to alcohol. I know of one dairy in South Auckland—and I have mentioned it to the police—that sells liquor to kids in school uniform. These are the same young people that we see running around the streets at 2 o’clock in the morning. Drugs come into it too, and I think that is one of the problems.

It is a very complex situation and we need answers. Of course, what has happened is that people in Manukau City are frustrated by it. We see elderly people going to get the New Zealand Herald in the morning who see the tags of various people sprayed all over their fence, and they do not have the money to get the tags removed. A large number of people in South Auckland in particular cannot afford to buy fence stain.

I pay tribute to the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust, whose volunteers paint out other people’s tags. That shows us something about the spirit of Manukau, which I think is really great, and we can also see it in this Chamber where members from different parties have come together to try to solve the problem.

I want to mention my gratitude to Dr Richard Worth—

H V Ross Robertson: Are you sure?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes. I am sure he knows that I will be here longer than him and that I will keep my seat. I am sure that he is gracious enough to lend his vote to helping a community like Manukau.

I do not know what happens to people who have their photograph on hoardings.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I do!

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Clayton Cosgrove did, but I have never been bold enough to have my photograph on my hoardings, and I have been lucky enough to have them left alone.

Tagging is a community problem, and I think that the media has to be more responsive to what is happening. Instead of just seeing it as a problem, the media should perhaps be doing some research to see how the problem of tagging has been solved in other countries. I know that Manukau looked at what happened in Australia.

The bill has taken some time to get through the House, but I think that people like Mark Blumsky, who has been the Mayor of Wellington and who, along with other members, came and saw the problem, realise that Manukau is different from many other centres. That is because we have a very young population. We have to find ways of redirecting these young people and this bill is one short step on what I think is, unfortunately, a very long journey.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West): I rise to take another call on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. I want to acknowledge that contribution by George Hawkins, and I want to acknowledge the fact that not only has he been a member of this Parliament for a number of years but he has 30 years of public service experience. He was the former mayor of Papakura and he brings a cumulative weight of knowledge and community experience to this Parliament. I know that the now former Deputy Mayor of Manukau City, our good colleague Su’a William Sio, who is with us tonight, will support that.

I spoke before about the former Mayor of Manukau City, Barry Curtis, and his very strong entreaty to us as a select committee when we went up there, and his strong lobbying. I take this opportunity to acknowledge George Hawkins, obviously, for his work in presenting the bill with the support of Ross Robertson. But if ever a mayor has had an impact in this country and in this Parliament, it is Barry Curtis; he marshalled together all of those forces to really bring this problem home to us. Certainly, although it is fair to say that Hamilton does not have the degree of graffiti and tagging problem that Manukau has, it still has a serious problem. In that sense, I acknowledge the people who say that legislation on its own is not the magic bullet, but it is part of the tool box. Its part of that tool box is obviously the community buy-in and involvement to basically clean up neighbourhoods and create a sense of community.

I acknowledge the many good schemes in Manukau, which I alluded to in a tribute I paid to the people who are out there working in the community after we have gone to bed—I talked about the Māori wardens still out at 1 o’clock in the morning and about other people who are really involved in rebuilding neighbourhoods. I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the community of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in my city, who, of course, as part of a nationwide community day put out in Hamilton 1,600-plus members of their church community. They went all throughout the city, particularly in the Five Crossroads area of Hamilton East but also specifically in parts of my electorate of Hamilton West, as well. I pay a huge tribute to the members of the church. The scale of their organisation was amazing, but so was what they achieved with the neighbourhoods. In particular, when they left the neighbourhood of Five Crossroads the place was spick and span; it was scrubbed up and it was kind of year zero—there was a sense of starting again. The community was really buying in, saying it was great and that they wanted to keep it like that. There was a wonderful, wonderful spirit. Now, that was not legislation, it was not law; that was just a community church organisation getting out there and working with the city council. That is the other dynamic. Certainly, I will acknowledge that Manukau has many examples of that community spirit. The law comes in and underpins that spirit and gives a legal protection—a legal oomph—and then we put that across to the Stop Tagging Our Place strategy, as well, which is a multi-agency, multi-range strategy that also comes into play.

I also take the opportunity again, in the context of this bill, to pay tribute to people like Olly Te Ua, a member of our Hamilton City Council staff, and other members of the Hamilton City Council for their excellent work. We have to say that we cannot see this in some kind of social isolation. For example, dare I say, I think that the Government’s recent major funding boost for community-based organisations will help. The extra funding and emphasis we have put into education and into schools, giving every kid the right to go to a decent neighbourhood school, will help as well. The B4 School checks will help, and the work we have done to have greater rights for victims of crime is also important in this regard. Dare I say, even stability in terms of housing helps—and, yes, we have some huge challenges around housing affordability in this country. I do not want to sound partisan, but that issue is not helped by the former National Government selling a whole stack of State houses during its tenure.

RON MARK (NZ First): I do not think I can let tonight go without mentioning one person in particular.

Hon Shane Jones: Shane Jones?

RON MARK: I think we will hear a lot more about the Hon Shane Jones over the next few years, I say to the member. I will mention a lady by the name of Lindy Palmer. I say to her and to all of the residents in Tuakau that help is on the way; there are some people in this House listening. Specifically, the work that the Hon George Hawkins has done thus far with this bill, the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill, is an indication that some people are listening.

The reason I mention Lindy Palmer is that she is one of a number of residents in Tuakau who have written to New Zealand First, saying that, at the end of the day, they are simply terrified of living in their own neighbourhoods because of taggers who are defiling their property. She described to me an incident where her fence and her neighbours’ fences were tagged. On the couple of occasions when she and her neighbours actually confronted the young people who were doing this work, they were physically threatened. On one particular day a group of young girls were out in front of her home, simply picking all the blooms off her roses, throwing them straight on to the footpath, and crushing them. She told them to stop it, and the response from those young girls was: “Bleep bleep bleep. You can’t tell us what to bleep bleep do. If you do, we’ll smash you over.” Now, this is a middle-aged lady—a mother with children—in her own home being threatened by young people on the footpath. Imagine how terrifying it is for a woman such as her to wake one morning and find there is a tag under her bedroom window.

I just ask Dr Pita Sharples to think about that for a moment. How would he feel if a female member of his family were threatened in such a way? How would he feel if a female member of his family lived in a neighbourhood where young people, who were running riot with their tagging, were so bold and so brazen that if anybody objected to their behaviour, he or she was threatened with physical violence? How would he feel if a female member of his family were to wake up one morning and find tagging under her bedroom window on her home? Does Dr Sharples think that would make her feel a part of her community, or safe in her community? Would Dr Sharples feel that he should be loving, caring, and sharing to all these young brats that are up and down the footpath, destroying his neighbourhood? Here is the irony. It is not just our neighbourhood; it is their neighbourhood. I draw a comparison with what has happened in Hampshire Street in Christchurch over the last few years—that is in Lianne Dalziel’s electorate. I ask members to consider Hampshire Street as it was a few years ago and then look at it as it is now.

I say to members that this bill does not obliterate all of the good projects that are currently in hand, be it Project Legit, Stop Tagging Our Place, or the flying squads. The bill does not in its passing say that we shall not do any of these things; no one is saying to not do the good work of which members have spoken. We are saying that we should do that and do this, because this is necessary.

I think one of the greatest tragedies is that we seem to have people in our midst who do not like putting in boundaries to protect our young people. The great irony is that if members talk to young people, they will hear that one of the things that young people do not respect is adults who are weak, who do not show them boundaries, and who do not act when they cross those boundaries. Having been a young person myself not so long ago, I too pushed boundaries. I think there are many members in this Committee who in their youth pushed the boundaries to see how far they could go. It requires a strong community and, more than that, strong Government, strong local government, strong leaders of those communities, and strong members of Parliament who are prepared to say to these young people: “We will help you in doing some of the things you want to do that are non-destructive and productive and that keep you occupied and give you pleasure. But we have boundaries; should you decide to cross them, we will not hesitate to act.” That is what this bill seeks to do.

But I also say that this bill actually seeks to protect some young people. Some people cannot help themselves. If they can get access to things like spray-cans, knives, bottles, and alcohol, they will self-destruct. As responsible legislators, we cannot ignore that fact.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare i tēnei pō. Kua oti kē i a au te kōrero mō ētahi take. Kua ara ake ki te kōrero mō te wā pōto nei mō tēnei take.

[Greetings to you, Mr Chairperson, and to all of us in the Chamber tonight. I have already addressed other matters, but rise for a brief moment to talk about this one.]

I have chosen to take a short call, following on from our party’s co-leader, Pita Sharples. I will not take very long, but I will try to highlight a few issues that I have heard talked about in the debate. The debate has been good in some parts and lousy in others. In my own town of Rotorua the premier ancestral house of Te Arawa—Tama te Kapua—was tagged about a month ago. When reporters came to see me about that tagging they asked for my response, and inevitably I gave them one, which was not all that nice in the sense that I did not endorse any actions by any taggers. I do not think that very many of us are in the game of endorsing tagging. So members should take it, as mentioned by our co-leader, that it is not as though our stand with regard to this bill is about the notion of endorsing tagging in any way, shape, or form.

As I have been listening to the kōrero about the question of what a tagger is, my colleague Pita Sharples referred to the fact that taggers are not gang members, yet on the other side of the Chamber other members have said taggers are gang members. Some members have said they are of a certain age bracket. My colleague Pita Sharples, who has been associated with some projects to look at these sorts of issues, says taggers are probably young. I think the member in the chair, Mr Hawkins, mentioned the notion of many of them being involved in using drugs and alcohol. Or really are they just, as Māori would say, plain haututū—or hōhā, for some of us? Are they looking for something to do? It could be any of those issues.

We have not necessarily come to grips with where tagging sits, but the biggest question for me is whether giving the police in any way, shape, or form the opportunity to round up these—probably—young ones will really solve the problem. Is it really about that? Mr Gallagher said that many church groups and others—and Mr Mark referred to this as well—have positive initiatives that deal with the issue, after the fact. That is probably the real issue. But I do not know whether the notion of having the police deal with these sorts of issues will do very much for the notion of police relationships with people who possibly already have negative attitudes towards the police. It could become like what happened with regard to the Tūhoe nation at the end of last year. Does anyone really think that the police action over their arrival in the Tūhoe nation will develop positive relationships with Tūhoe? I do not think so.

The big thing for me is the question of whether we really think the actions we are taking tonight will stop the problem. Does this legislation really mean to say that people will not go and get spray-cans or access to those sorts of things in order to enable them to tag? For my part, I do not think so. Therefore we need to look a lot wider at the issue. Firstly, we need to deal with the issue before it happens, such that we take care of that issue and the concerns that people like Mr Mark talked about. Secondly, we need to deal with what happens to those people afterwards. Other members have talked about some initiatives with regard to that.

I note that students at one particular school in Auckland apparently decided, for one reason or another, to put each other into the world of technology through Bebo and to show the world how they are beating each other up at their school—I think it was St Paul’s College. Those images were shown to the whole wide world on television this evening. I think to myself: “Well, is it just about tagging, or do we have a bigger issue here?”. If young people at school, in a controlled environment, are able to go about doing that sort of stuff, with no teachers or staff around, and not just once or twice but on many occasions, then I suggest to the Committee that the issues we are talking about are far bigger than those that have been discussed tonight.

We need to look at the bigger picture. We are dealing with this one notion about tagging, and sure it happens in Manukau. To me, this bill is a piecemeal approach to something that is far and away a bigger problem. We should look at that picture, as opposed to looking at just this one thing in isolation.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration): I will just take a short call. I was not intending to, but I feel it is appropriate to address something that Mr Sharples said towards the conclusion of his speech. I do not think that he, or his colleague Te Ururoa Flavell who has just spoken, once mentioned the victim of this sort of insidious offence; the victim in these debates always gets sort of lost in a bunch of rhetoric. We do forget about the victim—the person who has been dealt to.

But Dr Sharples made an interesting comment. He said there is no cost to the individual. I think Mr Sharples would acknowledge he said that. He said that the cost, when people’s property is tagged or graffitied, is a sort of esoteric, mystical, community cost. Well, I invite him to have a think about that statement, because I suspect that every electorate MP and the other MPs in the Chamber who have had constituents who have been graffitied, would understand that there is not only a monetary cost—the cost of the clean up—but there is an emotional cost to graffiti. There is also the problem of property value cost in many parts of the country, such as what happened in Hampshire Street a decade ago, as mentioned by Mr Mark. A suburb or a particular part of a community becomes a magnet for this sort of stuff, and that becomes an issue of property value cost. But to stand up in the Chamber and say there is no cost to an individual—that the cost of graffiti is somehow an esoteric community cost—is something I reject.

I also reject the idea that when anybody does this offence, it is the community’s responsibility. Well, the community has not done this; individuals have perpetrated these offences, and there is a huge cost to individuals in terms of property and emotion. And I suppose there is an intangible cost to the community. I invite Dr Sharples to reflect on that, because in my part of the world, in Waimakariri, the taggers have even gone the next step now, along with spray-cans, of getting out the glass cutters. They etch graffiti into shop-front windows and then the insurance companies, after repeated claims to replace the windows, start to turn around and say: “Sorry, there is nothing structurally wrong with the glass. It’s just been scratched or etched, and therefore the policy does not cover it and we’re not paying.”

So I invite Mr Sharples, as I conclude, to reflect on his statement. It is all very well to get up and use all the rhetoric, and to say there is no cost and it is all the community’s problem, and not to mention the victim once, but I invite him to go and visit a constituent in an ordinary home in any part of New Zealand that has been dealt to, with this. There may not have been any violence; it is a crime of vandalism, often. But he should put to that person the notion that there is no cost for the person. I invite him to reflect on that.

I conclude by congratulating Mr Hawkins, who in his way, along with the Government’s legislation, is attempting to address the facts that there are victims out there, that it does impact on them, that there is a huge cost emotionally and financially, and that he intends to do, and has done—along with the Government’s bill—something to correct that. It may not solve every problem. It may not stop every young hoon from graffitiing somebody’s property, but I invite Dr Sharples to reflect on the alternative: do we simply raise the white flag and say that we will do nothing about it, because it will not stop everyone? Do we raise the white flag, surrender, and say: “Well, everybody is doing it, therefore we may not be able to stop at 100 percent, and therefore we shouldn’t do anything about it.”?

Dr Sharples’ colleague who has just spoken—who made, I think, a good contribution—said we should get on to it before it starts. He used some very eloquent phrases but did not actually propose what they meant in reality. He talked about the relationships of young people with the police as being negative. I invite him to think about and contemplate on the relationships of young people with the victims, or the victim’s relationship with his or her community after having been impacted on by this. Does anybody remember, as I conclude, the victim in this debate? I invite those members to reflect on that issue when they talk very eloquently about young people and the perpetrators of these offences. There is a cost; it is being addressed through this legislation and that of the Government.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): In response to some of the questions that Mr Cosgrove raised, I want to make two points in respect of the costs back to those who might well have been the target of tagging. I reflected for a very short space of time, and thought that in Māoridom we have a tikanga that goes back in history to the notion of utu, and that is not utu in the sense of killing people off, in any way, shape, or form; it is more the notion of payback.

I was thinking about how I might address, in my case, in Rotorua, the notion that somebody would come and tag my tupuna whare. I was thinking about those people whom Mr Cosgrove just referred to. I thought that a good idea would be to bring those people, once caught—with their families—to face the people they had transgressed, namely, in this case, all of Te Arawa, to front up to my tribe and explain why they thought it was appropriate to deface and to tag my tupuna whare, and to work it through in that way. In Te Ao Māori there is a saying that goes: “Waiho mā te whakamā e patu.”: let embarrassment be the enforcer—the enforcer of crime.

Pita Paraone: That used to be the case.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: My colleague the member from Te Tai Tokerau is right. We would hope, if one can imagine that that person came in front of all of Te Arawa on one day, that certainly ka riro mā te whakamā a ia e patu.

[embarrassment will be his downfall]

But that is not always the case for everyone, and that is acknowledged.

I suppose what I am trying to get at is, yes, there is some payback, and we tend to forget about many of the ones who are left after the damage has been done. I hope that maybe we would be thinking about, as Dr Pita Sharples has raised in a number of speeches, the notion of taking those people back to face those who have suffered at the hands of various crimes, and in this case tagging.

What would it be like if we developed the notion of taking those people who have been caught back to face those people who have unfortunately had property defaced, and letting them work with those families and with those individuals on their property—to fix it up, to tidy it up, and to make it better? Would that not be a more positive way of dealing with this sort of issue?

The second issue that I raised a little bit earlier was this notion that is caught up in Part 6, “Powers of police”. This is one of the real concerns that we in the Māori Party have. There are two clauses in this part, namely clause 15, “Police or authorised person may require certain information”, and clause 16, in respect of the notion of arrest. Clause 16 states: “Any police officer, and all persons whom he or she calls to his or her assistance, may arrest and take into custody without a warrant any person whom he or she has good cause to suspect of having committed an offence …”.

With those words, the definitions are so far and wide that one could take on many people walking down the street. I suspect that in the case of Manukau City, many of those suspects may well be brown. That is the concern. It is not to say that they all are; it is simply to say that there is an element of history here that many of those people may be suspected and may well be brown. That is where the concern is. We need to look at that issue about the arrest, and in particular about authorising police simply to pick up people, grab their names and addresses, and any other details. That, for us, is a real concern.

The last thing I will say is that, as I understand it, the Attorney-General’s report did not give much attention to this bill, at all, and said that it needed to be written. If it is talking about reflecting, as Mr Cosgrove talked about earlier, one would hope that, perhaps, the Labour Government, and, indeed, Mr Hawkins, would reflect on the Attorney-General’s report. If it is good enough for him to say that it is not up there, then maybe we need to reflect on it but nevertheless come up with some scenarios that may, in fact, address the problem across the board. Kia ora tātou.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction): Kia ora anō tātou.

Nathan Guy: No!

Hon SHANE JONES: Ah, the man from Horowhenua has returned. “Horowhenua” means to gallop very quickly over the land. He will need to do that if he is to have any prospect of dislodging te mātenga whero, my colleague Darren Hughes, who is 30 years old and a very, very adroit man in a range of fields.

I need to respond to Dr Sharples, and say that Dr Sharples made a point or three that deserved support. He pointed out that we must not cast aside the youth, and I agree with Dr Sharples about that point. He also pointed out that those who are tagging are showing the habits of a kurī, or, in my own dialect in the far north, a kīrehe—a dog that wanders around having a mimi on every lamppost, tree, or vacant spot. In that sense, he is on the button, but he must accept that underlying this tagging activity is the force of the gang.

Gangs use tagging not only to recruit but also to intimidate, and not only to intimidate but also to frighten families so that they get to a point where they have less control over the rangatahi—their young children—than the gangs, which use tagging as either a badge of honour or a form of staking out territory. Gangs need territories and, just as we use 1080 to bomb possums, I look forward to the day when we can use 1080 in South Auckland and in my own Ngāpuhi rohe to ban and get rid of gangs.

It is not right to say, as Dr Sharples has intimated, that gangs are not involved in tagging. Mr Hawkins, Judith Collins, and a variety of others—and, indeed, my huānga here from Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, the proud representative of our Pasifika people in South Auckland—know through their efforts that behind all the misguided activities of the rangatahi lies a more potent force. The force that stands to gain as a consequence of this delinquency and criminality is not necessarily the young people but the gangs, because they need fresh members. They know that as long as we in the community or the elected representatives show any softness or any indulgence, or do not put down the aukati, the line in the sand, then they will treat us as a soft touch.

That is why, despite the fact that Dr Sharples says we must allow the young people to redeem themselves, and I thoroughly support that, we should have absolutely no fear in saying to the gangs that they have no place—and, in fact, they do not even belong—in civil society. What gangs represent is threatening and frightening mothers and fathers to the point that they cannot even counsel or offer an opportunity to their own young people without those opportunities being corrupted and distorted through gangs. That is why we must never normalise them, and we must make a stand against tagging and support the initiatives that Mr Hawkins, along with other Manukau MPs, has struggled to bring to the attention of this House.

To be staunch against gangs is not to turn, or whakaparahako, our backs on young people, but it is to show young people that if they associate with gang culture, then they are going to only one place—in the hīnaki, likely to end up at Ngāwhā. Kia ora tātou katoa.

MARK BLUMSKY (National): I move, That the question be now put. It is just a debate between these guys now, to be perfectly honest.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, it is. But we will allow Dr Pita Sharples to have a say.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): I would like to correct some of the things that Mr Jones said. This House is full of people who are sick of gangs; I can accept that. They are sick of the drug problem, youth gang fighting, and much of the stuff that is going on in communities. But let us be real about defining what tagging is. Taggers are not gangs—members should understand that.

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, oh!

Dr PITA SHARPLES: I tell Mr Jones that he can groan all he likes—

Mark Blumsky: So if they spray “Mongrel Mob”, they don’t mean that?

Dr PITA SHARPLES: No, just a minute—the Mongrel Mob are not the taggers, mate. Let us get this straight. There are strings of young people who form little groups—two from that community, two from that one—and they have a club. They go to mark a church in Te Atatū, a hall in another place, and so on.

Pita Paraone: They’re prospects.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: I work with these people; they are not. They are totally a tagging group.

Pita Paraone: Then control them.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: If the member is going to stay fixed like that about gangs, then we are not going to solve the gang problem in itself—if he is going to tie everything into one. Someone wants to tie the drug problem to gangs, and another wants to tie tagging to them.

Gangs are gangs, and we can disagree or agree, in part, on how to deal with them, but the tagging thing is a youth thing, a very young thing, and we should accept that. That has been my work; working with these people, catching them, and putting up groups, mostly in west and central Auckland, to clean up the tagging and stuff like this. I know these taggers, so when members say I am indulging gangs, I point out that I know of them—

Pita Paraone: Stop them, then.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: Well, that is what we are doing.

Ron Mark: You’re not; they’re tagging everything.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: You know, this is the kind of talk that I would expect from Ron Mark.

I simply say that if this society is going to keep creating communities that lack resources, that lack industry, that lack after-school activities for young people, and that lack proper programmes of education for parents on after-school activities and on their responsibilities for their children, then we can expect trouble from the youth. So I am saying now that it is time to stop the punishment mode that we seem to have been in all year, and it is time to look at ways of investing in communities and building a strong spirit so that those communities take care of the problem themselves. Kia ora koutou.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I rise to take a call in respect of this bill, because I think it is only fair for people who are listening in to know exactly what is going on here. We have heard some weaselly words coming from the other side of the Chamber, endorsing the sterling work of the member of Parliament for Manurewa, George Hawkins. And so members should endorse his work. He has taken a local initiative that came out of Manurewa and has brought it to this House in the form of this Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill.

What really annoys the Government is the fact that it never wanted to back the bill—it never wanted to back it at all. Government members spoke against it and did everything they could to not back it. But what happened? The bill gained some traction, so we have a situation tonight where a vast majority of people in this Parliament are supporting this legislation, and Mr Hawkins wants it to go through, but it will not go through tonight. If it does not complete the process tonight, as it had the opportunity to do earlier, it will not go through before the report back of the Government’s own graffiti bill, which was raised only to try to counter Mr Hawkins’ bill. The Government wants to put its own stamp on the issue.

So those members are perpetuating this debate—knowing that it is clear-cut, knowing where it is going, and knowing that it could have been done and dusted tonight—in order to prevent the bill passing through, purely so that this Government can shaft Mr Hawkins and create its own piece of legislation to overshadow his. As sure as eggs, what will happen is that when that report-back date—which at the moment is at the end of April, but with the leave of the Business Committee, will be allowed to go through to the Monday before we come back after the next adjournment, which is 2 days before the next members’—

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As the chairman of the Law and Order Committee I have to advise that matters before the committee, and that are discussed in committee, are in committee. They are not for debate in this Chamber, and they are not for wider publication. The member needs to be strenuously cautioned as to the boundaries that he is permitted to operate within, and the consequences of going outside those boundaries.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you for raising that, Mr Mark. If any of the work in the select committee were open to the public, then it could be commented on. I ask the member to be aware of that, please.

CHESTER BORROWS: Thank you for the note of caution. In any event, it is public knowledge that the report-back day for the Government’s graffiti bill is prior to the next members’ day, which is the next day this legislation can be debated. This is the Government’s way of shafting its own honourable member, George Hawkins, who did not take a fall, who did not take a bullet, and who is standing again in the next election, much to the Government’s chagrin.

The interesting thing is that the huge endorsement, for instance, that was given by the member for Waimakariri, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, about the movement of a local member to promote a local bill on behalf of his community, is exactly what this debate is preventing in respect of the debate around the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. This bill will also enjoy the support of the House, but the Government does not want to pledge that support tonight within the full hearing of the House.

RON MARK (NZ First): I take on board the comments of the member Chester Borrows, and I respect that member’s view. I am looking at the clock now, and I see that he has just used 5 minutes of the time when we could have been voting on the bill. We have another 15 minutes to go. We could still vote and we could progress the bill, but I cannot agree to that. I say to Mr Borrows that I am sorry, but I am not rising in order to eat up time; I am rising to comment on and debate the bill, because this is the House of Representatives. This is a democratic Committee of the whole House. Actually, this is one of the rare occasions, I say to Chester Borrows, when we have been able to engage in debate and it has not been controlled by the member’s party in collusion with the Labour Party. If the member wants to broach questions about limiting the debate, then I would draw his attention to his party’s refusal to let New Zealand First participate fully in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Simon Power: Get over it, Ron.

RON MARK: “Get over it”, the member says. Well, I would tell him not to come preaching his piety about debate being unnecessary when his own party stifles debate.

I want to comment on Te Ururoa Flavell’s comments. I would say to Mr Flavell that I do not disagree with most of what he said in his kōrero, but I have to say that when the member gets to the illustrious heights of being in Government and carrying a ministerial portfolio, he will be faced with challenges as to how to spend the money he will be given. He tells me that we should be putting more money into more projects, and Dr Pita Sharples says that we need to be addressing the after-school hours activities.

Dr Pita Sharples does not read a lot of real Pākehā history or the history of this place; he reads the history that is convenient to his argument and his long-term objectives. But if he did read that history, then he would know that New Zealand First, when it was in coalition Government with National, instigated the latchkey policies. We poured tens, no, hundreds of thousands of dollars—wrong; we poured millions of dollars—into latchkey programmes. What were they designed to do? To create activities for young people after school, to catch them in the period between 3 o’clock and 6 o’clock while their parents were still at work. Why did we do that? We did it to address the very issues of which Dr Sharples speaks.

What Dr Sharples is preaching here is not new. It is being done now, it has been done for a decade, and we are continuing to do more. My question to the member would be, how much more money does he think this country can continue to pour into social programmes that are still not generating the results that he says they will magically bring? There is only a finite amount of money, and somewhere there has to be a carrot and a stick. Dr Sharples’ policies are all about carrot, carrot, and more carrot, and if that is not enough, he would give young people more carrots and cheesecake as well.

Dr Pita Sharples: Building communities.

RON MARK: Building communities is what we have been doing. When we were in coalition Government with National—with Wyatt Creech, who was a great Minister of Education—we forced through those policies. With Labour we have taken other initiatives, and we have supported initiatives from the Green Party—from Sue Kedgley—and from other parties that speak the same sort of language as Dr Sharples.

The trouble is that Dr Sharples needs to get off his high horse and stop thinking that he is the saviour and the great messiah. Other people have come to this House and are doing that work, and the member should recognise it. He should recognise it and applaud it. But he should also recognise that we cannot do everything that he is asking for forever, so we must do both things.

I give my pledge to Dr Sharples that New Zealand First will continue to support social programmes designed to bring equality to families and young children. We will do that through having free health care for children, and if we can get that up to 12-year-olds, then we will. If that releases more money to low-income families for them to be able to educate their children better, then we will do that too. We will strive for more equality—[Interruption] He does not want to listen now. This is typical academic arrogance at its best. The member turns his head—it is on the TV cameras now. He turns his head to one side and turns a deaf ear, just like a 12-year-old child with a graffiti pen in his or her hand. “I don’t want to hear. Whatever! Talk to the hand.”, says Dr Sharples. That is what he preaches. That is what he is teaching, and that is why this bill must go through.

But I pledge to Dr Sharples that despite all his protestations, other parties—National, Labour, and New Zealand First—have been doing that work for decades and will continue to do it for decades. We will not run around, lambasting people and preaching that we are the great brown saviours of this nation and that we have the only solutions to problems.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 182 and 183 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Parts 1 to 6, schedules 1 and 2, to omit clause 2, and to insert new clause 1A be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to, and new clause 1A agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 6, schedules 1 and 2, and clause 1, as amended, be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Noes 12

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

Parts 1 to 6, schedules 1 and 2, and clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill

First Reading

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I move, That the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill be now read a first time. I am proud to sponsor this bill through the parliamentary process because it is the outworking of a democracy that allows local people to provide for the safety of people by creating law to be enforced locally, for the benefit of local people. Wanganui has taken it upon itself to address a problem that is not specifically a Wanganui problem but is a problem in many other provincial towns and metropolitan centres around New Zealand. Wanganui has suffered a stigma by taking responsibility in this way.

This week, before the Wellington District Court, 12 Mongrel Mob members appeared at a depositions hearing charged with the murder of a 2-year-old child, Jhia Te Tua, who was shot with a .303 rifle as she slept in her home. The shots were reputedly in retribution for similar actions by her family towards another gang, Black Power, weeks before, and occurred after an altercation on that day. This tragedy came at the end of about 18 months of high police activity in respect of gangs in our city. Repeated confrontations in the streets and in other public places over 18 months frightened people and intimidated others to a point where they felt uncomfortable in going about their day-to-day business. Thankfully, at the end of the 18-month period that culminated in the shooting of this child, gang activity and confrontations around Wanganui have waned, to a degree.

Wanganui is a proud city and one with a huge history from the earliest Māori settlement and the early colonial settlement by Pākehā. Before road and rail travel developed, Wanganui was the hub of North Island travel, and before that it was the hub of overseas trade by Māori who were shipping produce to Auckland, Otago, and Australia in their own ships and by their own entrepreneurial skill. Sadly, Wanganui is not known for those historic achievements. It has not become known for achievement, although in my maiden speech I referred to fashion courses, graphic design, fine arts, and university-level qualifications that fashion houses and movie companies pay a premium for in Europe and the USA. Wanganui is not famous for its engineering businesses that sell around the world and are well known internationally for the products they build, including some built into space shuttles and marine craft around the world. The media are always drawn to Wanganui by poor outcomes such as those in health, law and order, and race relations, and by anything else that is bad news.

Wanganui is taking responsibility for those we call our own. This bill seeks to ban gang patches in certain public places, including the central business district and various parks and reserves around our city. It seeks to remove those patches because they intimidate and frighten people who are walking around doing their day-to-day business, and they tend to inflame situations when those of another persuasion are there at the same time. It seeks to impose fines on those people who continue to wear gang patches when they have been told to remove then, and it seeks to list the gangs whose patches are prohibited.

The legal purists say that criminal law should not be made for local application, but we need to remember that bills like the Manukau graffiti bill are precursors for nationally applied legislation, as we will see in respect of the graffiti legislation—just like the liquor ban legislation was, and like countless other laws were before it. Where a local authority has the will to make legislation and uses provisions within our legal system to draft and present a proposal, it has every right to expect that central government will allow the law to be enacted for the benefit and protection of that local community.

The Wanganui District Council has done far more than put some words on paper and submit them to this House. Council members spoke to local police, who were pleased to enforce the law as it was, but in speaking to the legal section at police national headquarters, they were encouraged to put the matter before Parliament so it would have the sanction of Parliament. Council members wanted the police’s powers to include the power to remove gang patches and to make an arrest for non-compliance.

At the appropriate time, I will move that this bill is referred to the Law and Order Committee.

After putting the proposal set out in this bill past the police national headquarters and the local police had taken legal advice on it, a referendum was held. It was responded to by over 50 percent of the local electors, ratepayers, and residents of Wanganui City, and 65 percent of those who turned out and voted, voted in favour of this legislation. There was a public consultation period, pursuant to the rules for a local legislation bill, and then the bill came to Parliament. Having jumped through those hoops, the Attorney-General has scrutinised the bill for conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and has found that there are a number of inconsistencies. I doubt whether anybody is surprised at that.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.