Thursday, 31 July 2008

Thursday, 31 July 2008

Thursday, 31 July 2008

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): When the House resumes next Tuesday, priority will be given to the completion of the Committee stage and the third reading of the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill. The third reading debate is a 3-hour debate and includes consideration of an Imprest Supply Bill. The Government will also seek to progress the first readings of bills currently on the Order Paper, probably also the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill, and possibly the Policing Bill.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can the Leader of the House indicate whether the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill will be considered to be a confidence vote by the Government? Secondly, can he further update us on the progress of the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill, which is still sitting on the Order Paper?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): A bill like the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill is always a matter for a confidence vote. It is the most fundamental confidence vote that exists. I realise the member has been trying to spread a story that for some reason the Government has been postponing the vote.

Gerry Brownlee: That’s right.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. As the member is well aware, and as was explained to the Business Committee, the Government has had to progress the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) this week. It is necessary to amend the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act before tomorrow, when it comes into force, because a number of practitioners would have found themselves practising illegally—a matter that would not, of course, concern the member, but would concern those practitioners.

Points of Order

Ministerial Statement—Weather Conditions

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask, in terms of Standing Order 348, whether the Leader of the House, the Minister of Civil Defence, or any spokesperson from the Government will be making a ministerial statement today on what appears to be a rapidly deteriorating weather situation in the South Island, with threats of evacuation for certain parts of that area.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I will discuss that further. I suspect the Minister is himself engaged on those matters at the present time.

Privilege—Freedom of Speech

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know you are following due process, but I wonder whether you can give the House any indication as to when you will be ruling on my complaint on a breach of privilege.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his question. As he said, I am following due process. I will act fairly to all parties in this matter.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Foreign Affairs, Racing, Minister—Confidence

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Racing; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Hon Bill English: Will the Prime Minister ask her Minister of Foreign Affairs for yet another assurance that he and his party have behaved lawfully at all times, in light of yet another newspaper story suggesting that more questions need to be asked about Mr Peters and his party’s handling of political donations; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister takes the view that it is better for political leaders not to know too many details about donations made to their parties, because they will then be less likely to be influenced by those donations. In any case, in the case of this morning’s story in the Dominion Post, it said itself that there could have been one or more cheques. If there were two, then we could easily divide $19,998 by two and arrive at a legal sum for non-declaration purposes in 1999.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister concerned that a newspaper would run a story like that and not put up any evidence or documentation other than the allegation, yet have the meerkats running around taking notice of it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Democracy has many facets; that is one of them.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister think that Mr Peters has satisfactorily answered all the questions asked of him by the media over the last 2 weeks, and does that include yesterday’s verbally offensive refusal to answer questions put to him by the Dominion Post?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is not for the Prime Minister to judge the actions of a member acting in the role as the leader of a political party. I note, however, that Mr Peters at least fronts up directly to the media, unlike one party leader who uses his staff to bully reporters, editors, and, if need be, publishers. His name is Mr John Key, and every member of the press gallery knows that that bullying occurs.

Hon Bill English: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement in relation to the David Benson-Pope affair that “it’s not enough just to be capable, you’ve got to be credible.”; if so, what part of Mr Peters’ responses to date does she regard as “credible”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister has been assured by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that he has committed no illegality, and the member has yet to demonstrate anything to the reverse.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister see any similarity between the advertising campaign paid for by leading bloodstock breeder Patrick Hogan, overtly supporting New Zealand First during the 2005 election campaign, and the covert campaign run by the Exclusive Brethren Church in that year, and does she have any concerns about the connection between that campaign and the fact that Mr Winston Peters subsequently became the Minister for Racing?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it would be absolutely apparent to everybody that there was no covert campaign on behalf of the racing industry in 2005. There was a very overt campaign; it was overtly against the Labour Party at that time, including signs on horses at racetracks. The Exclusive Brethren, however, decided to follow a biblical injunction, and hide their lights well under any large number of bushels.

Hon Bill English: When the Prime Minister met with Mr Peters on Tuesday, did she ask him for an explanation for each of the allegations swirling around him; if so, did he answer in the same way that he answered the Dominion Post; and, if she did not ask him, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As far as I am aware, the Prime Minister asked for assurances that no illegalities have occurred, and received those assurances. I am not privy to that meeting and therefore cannot answer further.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister tell us why yesterday she would not answer the question as to what exactly Mr Peters told her on Tuesday that makes her believe that he has in no way acted inappropriately in relation to the $100,000 donation from Owen Glenn, the $25,000 donation from Bob Jones, or the $20,000 donation mentioned this morning?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister has responded to those questions, and continues to issue the challenge to the National Party to outline who the anonymous donors were who funnelled $2 million through the—

Gerry Brownlee: That’s not the issue here.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is not the issue here because it is a mere $2 million of anonymous donations funnelled through the National Party, buying influence in a whole range of policy areas.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it the Prime Minister’s view that if one makes allegations in this business, one backs it up with documentation, a modicum of understanding of the law, and one puts it together in a way where the conclusion is irrefutable, and that this kind of conspiracy run by these people will not succeed?

Madam SPEAKER: The last bit is not relevant.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I accept the member’s view and I think that in this case one could well say that people who collect cheques in glass towers should not throw stones.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in her Minister of Foreign Affairs, in light of his 2005 comments that moderate and militant Muslim groups “fit hand in glove everywhere they exist.”, and that “Underneath it all the agenda is to promote fundamentalist Islam.”; and what reassurance can she provide to this House that New Zealand’s foreign policy has nothing whatsoever to do with these embarrassing comments?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister of Foreign Affairs acts within the doctrines of Cabinet collective responsibility, in respect of the foreign affairs portfolio, and has significantly expanded the work of that portfolio. I would have thought that it is apparent to anybody that there are Islamist terrorists in the world today; it is important to draw a distinction between that and people who are Muslims.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—Samoa Visit

2. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What was the purpose of his recent trip to Samoa with the United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice?

Hon Dover Samuels: Speaking humbly.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking humbly, I went to Samoa last weekend both to accompany Dr Rice there at the conclusion of her visit to New Zealand, and to participate in a meeting between Dr Rice and the Foreign Ministers of Pacific Island Forum States. Some time ago, during one of my visits to Washington, I suggested to Dr Rice that she would find it well worth her while to make a visit to the South Pacific to meet with her Pacific counterparts on their home turf, face to face. New Zealand and the United States share a strong commitment to promoting good governance and sustainable economic development in the wider Pacific region and beyond, and she seriously appreciated the suggestion and the total visit.

Pita Paraone: What were the key outcomes of the meeting?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, the fact that the meeting took place at all was a key outcome. A new chapter in US relations with the Pacific Islands Forum nations is set to begin. The conversation ranged over a number of pressing issues that preoccupy the whole region, such as fuel and food prices, and climate change, and views were freely exchanged on possible ways of dealing with those challenges. In response, Dr Rice expressed strong support for the efforts of the forum to address key challenges through a regional approach—including, I might say, the situation in Fiji. She also thanked this country for, and asked me to pass on her compliments in respect of, the role we are playing as a responsible neighbour in the Pacific.

Dr Russel Norman: Did the Minister, in his meeting with Dr Rice, repeat the 2005 comment of the leader of New Zealand First that moderate and militant Muslim groups are “like the mythical Hydra, a serpent underbelly with multiple heads, capable of striking at any time and in any direction.”; and can he reassure the House, in line with the Prime Minister’s answer earlier, that he does not conduct the foreign affairs of this country in line with those embarrassing comments?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I was mindful of and thought about, in talking to Dr Rice, was a young novice MP who had just turned up in this Parliament, and who had shown no understanding of the big issues. However, I am bound to say that, now that I know he reads my speeches, he is about to get himself a serious education.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was not about me, whatsoever; it was all about what Mr Peters said to Dr Rice, and whether he talked about his view that moderate and militant Islamic groups are exactly the same. That was what the question was about.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like to add to his answer, please.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I am happy to add to it, in the sense that I did discuss with Dr Rice the characteristics of some politicians. I said that one of the characteristics that is most unwelcome in politics is the “dingo-istic” attitude that somebody is showing in this House!

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. What role is New Zealand playing in assisting the development of our neighbours in the Pacific?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is a very, very sensible question. New Zealand takes extremely seriously its obligations as a good Pacific neighbour. Since becoming the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I have overseen an increase in New Zealand’s Official Development Assistance programme of almost 70 percent between 2007-08 and 2010-11. That is by far the largest commitment to increase Official Development Assistance spending for decades, and will see New Zealand’s assistance reach 0.35 percent of gross national income by 2010-11. I am bound to say that I appreciate the support of the Minister of Finance in this achievement.

Keith Locke: Did the Minister express to the US Secretary of State New Zealanders’ opposition not only to the US’ illegal war in Iraq but also to the use of torture by the American military, and the long-term detention of people without access to fair trial, at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Dr Rice is an extraordinarily talented, highly educated woman. I kinda thinks she knows New Zealand’s views on Iraq. So, no, I did not raise them. I do know, though, that she respects the parliamentary independence that was expressed by this Parliament, which supported the Government at that time. I also did not raise the fact that when the communists invaded Afghanistan in 1980, someone now in this Parliament decided to support them; he also supported Pol Pot.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have ruled on this matter many times, and a member’s word should be taken. The member Keith Locke has said very clearly many times that he did not make those comments or support the invasion of Cambodia by Pol Pot.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He can deny it as long as he likes, but I have tabled documentation in respect of the allegations about Pol Pot and about the member’s support for the Russian Communist Government’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1980. He cannot now resile from those words, even though he may be sensitive about his past stupidity.

Madam SPEAKER: The matter has been raised in this Parliament before, and there is, obviously, agreement not to agree on it. Members have the right to express themselves freely in this House, and they do so constantly. If another member takes offence, however, then he or she should raise the matter at the time.

Rodney Hide: I think the issue is—just to help the House, and, I think, to help the Minister of Foreign Affairs—the difference between the fall of Cambodia and the actual rise to power of Pol Pot, because the two events are not concurrent.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, but this is not a matter for debate.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister still has not addressed the question about the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and the use of torture by the American military.

Madam SPEAKER: I think he did. As I heard his answer, he said that, no, the issues were not raised.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a speech called “The End of Tolerance” given by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

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

Neonatal Intensive-care Units—Cots

3. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: How does the number of resourced level 3 neonatal intensive-care unit cots in New Zealand compare with international benchmarks, and how many of those cots are available today?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: There are around 80 level 3 neonatal cots in New Zealand. This number differs from figures published this morning, because the neonatal website was incorrect. It has now been updated to include new capacity at Middlemore Hospital. There is an annual short-term pressure that that member plays politics over at this time of the year, every year. However, I assure the member the issue is being well handled. Strategies are already in place for dealing with this, which include increasing intensive-care capacity within units, utilising additional nurses within hospitals, moving babies and mothers to other units, and—where necessary—utilising care in Australia. These are normal processes for dealing with these annual short-term pressures, and have been around since I was a midwife 30 years ago.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was quite clear in asking the Minister what was the number of those beds currently available, and she did not provide an answer.

Madam SPEAKER: I thought the Minister did address the question. As members know, they cannot ask for specific answers to questions. If members wish that, please change the Standing Orders.

Hon Tony Ryall: What is the Government’s excuse this time for the crisis in neonatal intensive-care cots when it was warned 5 years ago that this crisis would happen, and since then it has added so few beds for the most at-risk new babies in this country?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: There is no crisis, actually, in neonatal capacity in this country. As I mentioned in my answer, this question is an annual event. This year we are experiencing yet another blip in increases in birth—

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: Well, birth rate blips happen—you know, we cannot “manage” people to conceive. I am very confident in our ability to manage the current situation. I congratulate the extra nurses who have come in to help, and I also acknowledge the tolerance of parents, whose confidence needs to be supported. Rather than turning this into a crisis, we are saying that if parents need to be moved because of their child’s care, then we will move the child and we will move the parent, as well. That is common practice.

Louisa Wall: Kia ora, Madam Speaker; tēnā koutou katoa. What steps has the Government taken to improve neonatal provision in New Zealand’s hospitals?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: Following a review of neonatal care in 2004—just in 2004—this Government has already expanded the provision of neonatal care. In 2006 Middlemore Hospital had its capacity doubled, from six to 12 intensive-care cots. Normal capacity in level 3 numbers will also increase to 86 when both Wellington and Hamilton neonatal units open in 2009, thanks to this Government.

Barbara Stewart: Has the Minister’s ministry investigated any possible link between the shortage of neonatal intensive-care cots and the increase in the number of non-resident women giving birth in New Zealand—74 every week, if the ministry’s figures are accurate—if so, what is being done to ensure that non-residents do not take advantage of our health system?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I am aware that work is going on around intensive-care units in the country to look at the number of non-residents who utilise cots, and when we know those figures, we will have a strategy around them.

Hon Tony Ryall: How many of those intensive-care cots are available today?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I have already answered that question. It changes hourly. On the website this morning it said “0”, but that number did not have factored into it the extra four cots in Middlemore Hospital. So that website has been updated today.

Hon Tony Ryall: How many now?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I cannot give the member the figure as at 2.30 from this morning’s figure, because it will have changed.

Hon Tony Ryall: The answer is one.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: No, the website was wrong, I say to Mr Ryall. The four extra cots were not mentioned on that website, but they are now. I do not know the figure now; babies are born quite rapidly. We have pressure on neonatal services and neonatal cots in this country.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is the Minister, as a midwife, not most concerned that, despite all the Government’s talk, it will still be well short of the internationally acceptable standard of care for these fragile little babies?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I think that the member has taken on someone here who knows a bit more about neonatal services in this country than he does, but I would just say, as I have already said, I am confident that the strategies the Ministry of Health has in place are very robust. But I have asked the Ministry of Health to explore the use of a national coordinator for neonatal intensive-care provision across the country.

Hon Tony Ryall: Oh!

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: It is a good thing, actually, if the member could only just listen. This will ensure that short-term pressures experienced can be identified early and staff as managers—

Hon Tony Ryall: You said that last year.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I said that the member mentions this every year. This will allow managers in current units to get on with managing the workplace on a day-to-day basis and the district health boards will step up to national coordination. What a good thing!

Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether there is a technical problem with the speakers, but I can barely hear the Minister or even just the endless carping from the member opposite. But either way, I ask whether we could do something about the sound—or maybe Mr Ryall could just be quiet.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I will ask that the sound be checked. But it was very difficult to hear the Minister. There was a level of chat in the House, but it was not exceptional.

Hon Tony Ryall: Is this not another inadequate Government response to a crisis in the health system when, in fact, there is only one cot available for a high-risk premature child born in the country today, and despite being warned 5 years ago, all the Government and the Ministry of Health are now doing is planning to hold “a meeting soon” for more talk, and apparently this afternoon we find there is going to be a new district health board - Ministry of Health manager to try to deal with the problem?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: Not a manager, actually, a neonatal coordinator—quite different, actually. [Interruption] No, and I just want to say that the member’s figure of one, which he keeps saying, is quite incorrect. What the member does not seem to have realised is that this figure ignores the flexibility that neonatal units have; one can move a level 2 bed up to a level 3 bed. That goes on all the time and those figures change hourly.

Katrina Shanks: Is the Minister aware that the Whanganui District Health Board is being subsidised by the local district council to try to bring obstetricians to Wanganui, and is this what the people of New Zealand can expect from a Labour-led Government—that local councils are forced to subsidise basic health services?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I am very aware that there is very good regional provision of services for obstetrics and gynaecology under way as a joint venture between Wanganui and Palmerston North.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table documents showing that in Wanganui there is now no specialist obstetric service in that provincial city.

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

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I seek leave to table the “New Born Unit: Hospital Cot Status”, which is available on a website.

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

Employment Relations—Transparency

4. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: What reports has he received on the importance of transparency in employment relations?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour): I have received recent reports that show the National Party, in a partly secret agenda, would review the Holidays Act, especially the issue of relevant daily pay, even though Kate Wilkinson has already said that that would result in a reduction of pay for sick people. I have also seen, as part of the National Party’s partly secret agenda, that it will attack workers’ rights and introduce a fire-at-will provision. With those two items in the half-page of policy that has been released, we wonder what National members are hiding in the 33½ pages that they are keeping secret.

Darien Fenton: Has he seen any other reports on the importance of transparency in employment relations?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have seen many reports that go to the issue of transparency, or for that matter to the lack of it, to do with National’s attack on workers’ rights. Colin James, quoting John Key, said there was a 34-page agenda, but then John Key’s advertising team has been at pains to correct the media. The secret agenda is only 14 pages, but National still will not release it. Now what we want to know is: was there really a 34-page agenda that has been edited down to 14 pages, or was it just a case of John Key getting it wrong? The other point that has to be made, of course, is: why was he too chicken to have the media—

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows he is not to use that word. Yesterday it was ruled out of order. Would the member please just give his answer consistent with the Standing Orders.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I hope that over the next 3 years as the Leader of the Opposition, John Key will develop the courage to let the media go to his Ōrewa speech.

Peter Brown: Keep your chin up, fellas.

Hon Member: Which ones?

Peter Brown: Maybe I should say “Keep your chins up.”

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are very quick to jump on me and others if we decide to have some sideline comments about other MPs when asked to ask a question. Nothing was said about the deputy leader of New Zealand First, Peter Brown, doing that.

Madam SPEAKER: I assure the member I would never wish to jump on him. I do, however, note that I have also said in this House that when there are interjections they do create other interjections. Would members please settle.

Peter Brown: Is he aware many casualised employers out there have seen a report indicating there could be some legislative protection; if he is aware of that, can he advise when such a bill might well emerge into this House?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Over the next few weeks it certainly will be tabled, and hopefully it will receive its first reading and be sent to a select committee before the election. I do want to thank the member Peter Brown for being very open about the policy of New Zealand First in the employment relations area. It is a marked contrast to the 33½-page secret agenda that the National Party is hiding.

Māpua Site—Resource Consent

5. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he accept the conclusion of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report that the Ministry for the Environment breached its resource consent for the remediation work at Māpua?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): I will be considering the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report, along with four further reports that have not yet been completed—an occupational safety and health report, a health report, a final auditors’ report, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s final report. I will receive advice on these.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s statement: “contaminants including DDT, lindane, nitrate and ammoniacal nitrogen have exceeded consent thresholds since April 2005.”; if so, why did his Government allow the consent to be breached in that way, putting the health of workers and residents at risk in Māpua?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: As I have indicated before, I will be receiving the final auditors’ report and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s final report on these matters. At that time I will be in the position either to accept the report or not to accept it. I just want to say that for someone who wanted to halve the budget for this clean-up, it is a bit rich that that member now criticises it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did his ministry ignore the requests from the Tasman District Council, and the advice from the site auditor and the peer review panel, to take action to reduce contaminant discharges in groundwater, despite this being a consent obligation as was concluded by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will be receiving advice that will go to the accuracy of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s conclusions and any response to them. When I have received that advice, after I have the final report, I will respond.

Moana Mackey: What reports has the Minister seen about alternative approaches to managing clean-ups of contaminated sites?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have seen a series of reports that are available to every member of this House and the lobbies, which show that Nick Smith voted against $9.88 million plus GST to clean up the Tui mine, and $2.929 million excluding GST to clean up the Waiwhetū Stream. He voted against the Māpua costs, and just before they were approved he approached the former Minister in an attempt to halve the Government contribution. It is rich for that member to now criticise any lack of progress in this area.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Why has there been little or no consultation with the Motueka iwi resource management committee regarding the remediation process, when the Resource Management Act states: “During the preparation of a proposed policy statement or plan, the local authority concerned shall consult the tangata whenua of the area, who may be so affected, through iwi authorities.”?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think it is probably because this was not a matter of a policy statement or plan; it was a matter of a resource consent application. But even given that, I would have thought it would have been appropriate for the local authority, when it originally made the application—noting that it was they who did it, not the ministry—to consult with iwi.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What does the Minister say to Ruby Bay woman Sherry Prauner, who during the remediation became seriously unwell—as did a number of the workers—when he was told by his ministry that there was nothing to be concerned about and that all consent requirements were being met, and when Ms Prauner now finds out from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that she was lied to, and workers involved in the clean up were subjected to unacceptable levels of contaminants?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour will be reporting on that matter. I am certain that if there is evidence of possible contamination of people, then proper tests and proper medical support will be given.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister stand by the statement on the Ministry for the Environment’s website that the Māpua project was “leading the way”, and that “locals are very supportive of the project”; if so, how does he reconcile that statement with the residents’ association’s anger, its concern that residents have been treated “as guinea pigs”, and the fact that its trust in the ministry has been betrayed?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will remind that member that this clean-up—the resource consent for it and the starting of it—was done by a local authority at his behest. If anyone should take responsibility for it, it is Nick Smith.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with the Soil and Health Association that an independent environmental monitoring and enforcement agency be established to address what the association has described as “cavalier attitudes to chemicals, community health, and environmental protection”, as we have seen at Māpua; in the people who have been exposed to dioxin from the Ivor Watkins Dow factory in Paritūtū, New Plymouth; in the workers from the 30 contaminated sites in the eastern Bay of Plenty, which saw Sawmill Workers Against Poisons identifying those sites; and at sites in Port Nelson and other areas—and if he does not agree, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There are two points here. The member has shown a number of areas where the Government has been active in clean-up, in identification, or in resolving long-term health problems as a result of poisons. As to agreeing with Stefan Browning, I think that that will never happen. The man is a person who promotes eco-terrorism.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the ministry should never have been the holder of the resource consent—a decision that was approved by Marian Hobbs when she was the Minister—and does the Government now accept that that decision was a mistake?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am sure that will be a matter of review. But if we look back at the circumstances of her approving it, we see that it was approved because the local authority approach had collapsed and the project had fallen apart. Members should remember that the person who promoted the original approach was Nick Smith.

Pacific Region—Governments

6. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What actions, if any, has he taken to promote honest, transparent, and accountable Governments in the Pacific region?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): There are many areas where New Zealand’s approaches to its bilateral relationships, including its development programmes, promote good governance. Fiji is the most obvious example of where I have been closely involved, following the military coup in 2006, in promoting a return to democracy. More recently, I participated in the ministerial contact group that visited Fiji and sent strong signals to Commodore Bainimarama about the need for him to meet his commitment to hold a free, fair, and open election by March 2009.

Rodney Hide: How can New Zealand have any credibility in advocating for openness and transparency in other countries if he will not explain what happened to the money in the Spencer Trust; and why will he not take the opportunity he now has in the House to explain what happened to Sir Robert Jones’ $25,000 that he, Winston Peters, solicited?

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, questions must relate specifically to ministerial responsibility. As far as the question relates to that, the Minister may address it, but the Minister is not required to address anything that deals with party matters or with offices held outside the ministerial portfolio.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I respect that ruling, but there is a point here. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Peters, on behalf of New Zealand, is advocating for openness and transparency, and indeed a free media. There is a question mark about how he can do that job as a Minister when he does not practise what he preaches here in New Zealand.

Madam SPEAKER: No, the first part of the question, as I ruled, is in order as it relates to the Government’s policy, for which the member has ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have been at pains to point out to Pacific countries that they must abide by the rule of law. That is important. I have also given them some examples of how that is not done. Why, for example, has Mr Hide never explained why it was so necessary to divert the New Zealand Herald from an incident on Waiheke Island, where ACT was holding a caucus retreat, to one of Richard Prebble’s Wellington residences being used as an electorate office—which Mr Hide told Audrey Young about? Why did he do that?

Madam SPEAKER: I am not sure what relevance that has.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It has every relevance, because it goes to the issue of transparency and honesty, and we are going to have that from Mr Hide today.

Madam SPEAKER: This is why the questions and the answers must relate to ministerial responsibility. The first part did; the second part did not.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am quite happy to give the answer if I can ask the question.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated; that is silly.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister believe that it is honest, transparent, and accountable government for a Minister of the Crown not to answer questions about a $100,000 donation he or his party received from a donor who was also the major donor to his party’s coalition partner, and can the Minister account for donations of—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Every lawful explanation has been given, and the member has no right to come here, as he does, with such unclean hands on this issue and think he will get away with some little inquisition. I am sorry, but he has demonstrated over the last few years that he knows nothing of electoral law, or of any other law—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I go back to the ruling I gave before, which is that there must be ministerial responsibility. If the member wishes to frame his question so there is a clear accountability for ministerial responsibility, then that is fine, but the question cannot relate to any other role the member may have.

Ron Mark: Supplementary question.

Madam SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English has not yet finished his question.

Hon Bill English: When the Minister advocates for honest, transparent, and accountable government in the Pacific, what would he say about a Minister in a Government in the Pacific who could not account for a $100,000 donation to that Minister, or for a series of donations from sectors for which he was responsible; and can he confirm whether the Mad Hatter’s tea party he referred to yesterday was a meeting of the trustees of the Spencer Trust?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I will deal with the National Party next week, but today I am going to deal with Mr Hide. As an example, I have told people around the Pacific that when one takes office space from a businessman, such as is disclosed in this correspondence, one is bound to declare it. The ACT party has taken $20,000 per year in Wellington from a senior businessman, and nowhere is there any declaration of that in anything to do with the Parliamentary Service—as by law the ACT party is required to do.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As interesting as that answer might sound to Ministers in the Pacific, it really does not, in any way, answer the question that was asked of Mr Peters. The answer did not address the question, so he would have been better to just sit there and say nothing. The question was about what advice Mr Peters would give to Ministers who are unable to explain large donations.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, I say the fact is that one can, by way of analogy, demonstrate to Pacific politicians what cannot be done inside the law from the way that Mr Hide and the ACT party acted. I am saying ACT received $20,000 from a businessman, here is the evidence of that, and ACT never declared that in respect of its Wellington office.

Madam SPEAKER: That is the difficulty with those sorts of questions; very long bows start to be drawn.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier on you ruled out questions that related to any activity that may not be directly related to the Minister’s responsibilities, and now you are allowing answers about matters that have absolutely nothing to do with the Minister’s responsibilities.

Madam SPEAKER: No, the member asked a question, he rephrased the question, and I allowed it because he had rephrased it in a way that related to ministerial responsibility. The Minister replied by way of analogy, and he has just explained that. The answer may not satisfy everyone, but it was consistent with what is required.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister give the House two more examples of honest, open, and transparent governance?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Without any difficulty. By way of analogy, I have made it very well known that an MP who has had, for example, a Remuera office for 9 years and never declared that on any documentation will be in trouble. Also, I point out that an MP—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please be seated. The question must relate to the Pacific region. If the question and the answer could be related to that, then that would be within the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Madam Speaker—[Interruption] Oh, they will when they see the documentation, of course. That is the difference between that member and me. We are in the Pacific; New Zealand is a Pacific nation. I am giving a pathetic Pacific example: Mr Hide. The second part of my answer is that it is not honest or transparent to pay huge legal fees—like Jack Hodder’s big legal fees—to get a change of member, from Donna Awatere Huata to an Asian member, and for the Asian chapter to pay for those fees. That, again, is what Mr Hide condones and has kept secret all this time.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister tell us, in the interests of transparency, whether he can think of any other instances of weird behaviour—in the Pacific or elsewhere—that he can reveal to the House for us?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: When it comes to the issues of honesty and transparency, surely that would extend to telling the people of New Zealand who paid for ACT’s thousands and thousands of dollars’ worth of free telephoning at election time. I ask Mr Hide whether the name Rod Deane rings a bell.

Rodney Hide: Can I answer the question?

Madam SPEAKER: I have called for a supplementary question.

Rodney Hide: He actually said that I should not ask these questions—

Madam SPEAKER: Is this a question?

Rodney Hide: —because he would come after me—

Madam SPEAKER: Is this a question?

Rodney Hide: —that is it; that is actually it. That is why I should not ask questions—because he will ask whether I know Rod Deane. How can the Minister of Foreign Affairs advocate for openness and transparency when, hypothetically—

Simon Power: By analogy.

Rodney Hide: —by analogy, there is a Minister here who has said New Zealand First “has had no big-business backing since its inception”, yet the Dominion Post has a New Zealand First deposit slip for $19,998 that shows New Zealand First has received big-business backing? I tell Mr Peters to answer that one.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest of ease. As I told the journalists on the way to the House today, any moron who knew anything about a political party and its expenses would be able to explain the Dominion Post’s big disclosure on Thursday morning. I actually read it last night, of course; I work long hours, as members know. I was very pleased to see that my description of that journalist is proving to be more correct each day. But here is the real point. It is important to note, in the interests of honesty and transparency, that prominent businessmen from the Business Roundtable—whom I am happy to name—who donated to the ACT party were known around the ACT party office as “the girls” and had to be given whatever they wanted. I ask Mr Hide whether that is true or false.

Rodney Hide: In the interests of fostering transparency and openness in the Pacific, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs declare that the $19,998 revealed in the Dominion Post today was not a donation from big business; or can the Minister not do that because it is the truth and he is a liar?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. The member should withdraw and apologise for the last comment. He knows that is unparliamentary.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact is, of course, that anyone who wanted to make an inquiry there would inquire of the party’s treasurer about that fact. But, of course, no such inquiry was made. That is Mr Kitchin’s style, of course, but I will tell members more about him as time goes by. In the meantime, on the subject of honesty and transparency in the Pacific, I say Mr Hide never did tell Richard Prebble that it was he who told the New Zealand Herald about Mr Prebble allegedly cheating the Parliamentary Service by claiming that his Wellington residence was an electorate office. Mr Hide did that because the New Zealand Herald was on to another story, and that was the last thing he wanted to be published when he was out at Waiheke Island at the retreat.

Ron Mark: Are there any other examples of a failure to apply the normal standards of honesty, transparency, and accountability that he might like to highlight in his discussions with Pacific Foreign Ministers?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have been at particular pains to point out to Pacific States the importance of their knowing who they have got coming through their country. One example of this matter would be a totally undesirable immigrant called Peron, who was brought into the Pacific on Mr Hide’s recommendation, and who was introduced to the ACT convention after Mr Hide had become the leader, with the request that those present all stand and clap him. This person has since been kicked out as a result of his promotion of utterly and totally objectionable publications—a friend of Mr Hide.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister tell us where else the twin tests of honesty and transparency have not been met in the Pacific region?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is a very good question. I think it is important to stick to honesty and transparency in the Pacific, so we should point out that thousands and thousands of dollars—millions, in fact—are owed to creditors who are not being paid for a golf course development near Queenstown that Mr Hide promoted. Mr Hide turned the first sod. How appropriate was that?

Rodney Hide: Why does the Minister of Foreign Affairs not actually practise what he preaches to the rest of us; and will he declare to the House that the $19,998 was not a donation from big business, and that he was not misleading New Zealanders, but was being honest and transparent, when he said that New Zealand First “has had no big-business backing since its inception”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Hide and a number of people in the media in this country have been going on about this matter for 2 weeks, and they have ended up with doughnuts, because they have not got any of the facts, they have not made the proper inquiries, and their understanding of the law is pathetic in the extreme. But the good news is we are not going to be deterred by that. We know what they are trying to do: get rid of us before the election, and, in fact, have a snap election now. That is what their real purpose is. I have news for them and for the journalists in the press gallery, and it is all bad.

Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Herald column from 1 March in which Mr Peters is quoted as saying that New Zealand First “has had no big-business backing”.

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

Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table—and I have been reading Mr Peters’ speeches—a speech made by Mr Peters on 24 June 2008, in which he railed against corruption in other States.

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

Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table a speech made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on human rights, democracy, and prosperity.

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

Rodney Hide: Finally, I seek leave to table a speech made by the New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters, on 25 May 2005, in which he said that New Zealand First does not serve the interests of big business—

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

Ron Mark: Are there any other words of advice that the Minister might impart to Foreign Ministers of other Pacific Island nations in respect of how honesty, transparency, and accountability do work and how they do not work?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is a marvellous question. They do not work when an MP does not disclose that for 9 years his Remuera office has been the subject of declarable donations, or that the rent for his Wellington office space—according to a businessman and landlord—was $20,000 per year, which was never declared; or, worse still, that Mr Prebble, when his party leader, received a letter, which the New Zealand Herald knew about, about an incident at Waiheke Island, and, to divert the New Zealand Herald, Mr Prebble was potted by Rodney Hide on the question of his parliamentary residence in Wellington being an ACT office. That is dishonest in the extreme.

Rodney Hide: Would not the best way to advance openness and honesty in the Pacific be for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take the opportunity in this House to seek leave to explain whether he sought $25,000 from Sir Robert Jones, and to explain what the Spencer Trust is and where the money went? That would actually promote honesty and transparency in the Pacific far more than the old windbag going on these drunken trips does.

Madam SPEAKER: No. The member knows that using such abusive language is not acceptable in this House. He will withdraw that reference, please.

Rodney Hide: I withdraw.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the member decided to descend to that level, I will tell the House what is not being honest and transparent—anywhere in the world, in fact. At a recent parliamentary function, an MP pretended that a woman friend was his new girlfriend, introduced her to the press gallery as such, and also introduced that same person in a Koru lounge as such, when he knew, demonstrably and palpably, that that information was not correct.

Hon Members: Who’s your girlfriend, Rodney!

Rodney Hide: Madam Speaker—[Interruption] Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Point of order, Rodney Hide.

Rodney Hide: It was not you, Madam Speaker!

Madam SPEAKER: That comment was uncalled for; everyone knows I have taste and style.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that, Madam Speaker, and I know that my style is not yours.

Madam SPEAKER: What is your point of order, please? Then Gerry Brownlee, point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Entertaining as that commentary from Mr Peters might have been—it almost rivalled the Alice in Wonderland story—he has no ministerial responsibility for that sort of thing. So could we get an answer from him, and could he address the question that was asked?

Madam SPEAKER: No. Please be seated. I have valiantly tried to define ministerial responsibility, but the questions were technically within the context of the Pacific region, so they were, in fact, answered.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So that’s the answer—to say that?

Madam SPEAKER: No, do not be ridiculous.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am, after all, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and I have just explained a very foreign affair that is going on right under the nose of the press gallery—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not sensible. Look, we are coming close to bringing this House into disrepute, so would members please calm down.

Rodney Hide: Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: If it is not a point of order, the member will have a very short stay in this House.

Rodney Hide: I think I might sit down at this juncture, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Right!

Immigration Service—Mary Anne Thompson

7. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement on 3 July 2008 that the circumstances in which family members of Mary Anne Thompson obtained residence appeared irregular; if so, what were those irregularities?

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Yes. The detail of these matters is being addressed in the various investigations that are currently under way.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Was one of the irregularities discovered by the Oughton inquiry the fact that residents’ permits were granted to the applicants even though they did not qualify in terms of Government immigration policy; and is such a breach of Government policy an issue of relevance to the Minister of Immigration?

Hon SHANE JONES: The member refers to the Oughton report, which is now publicly available. The content of that report is now the subject of wide, sweeping inquiries. The member well knows that the issuance of residency undertaken by an official was beyond that official’s delegated authority.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that another irregularity that the Oughton report established was that legitimate applications from Kiribati citizens were declined because of apparently unlawful decisions made within the Pacific division of the Immigration Service; and is such a breach of Government policy also an issue of relevance to the Minister of Immigration?

Hon SHANE JONES: Of relevance to ministerial oversight is the fact that a review is currently under way in relation to the Pacific division. Allegations of the nature referred to by the member are being swept up in that, the State Services Commission’s review, and the Auditor-General’s exercise.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that another irregularity discovered by the Oughton inquiry was that staff members were recording “as instructed by”, on decisions they regarded as breaches of Government policy, when they were told to make those decisions by management; if so, are such serious breaches of Government policy issues of relevance to the Minister of Immigration?

Hon SHANE JONES: I repeat: the State Services Commission is undertaking a review, the Pacific division is currently under review, and the Auditor-General is exploring these matters. Any further concerns, allegations, and reflections of the fevered imagination of the member should be taken to the necessary reviews.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Which of the three recommendations in the Oughton report—first, that applicants who had missed out because of unlawful decision-making needed special consideration, something only the Minister could do; second, that an explicit protocol was needed to cover applications from persons who had relatives or extended family members in the department; and, third, there was a wider problem of staff being instructed to make unlawful decisions by management, without authority to give those instructions—is just an employment matter, as claimed by the Minister of Immigration at the time?

Hon SHANE JONES: One part of the member’s contributions is accurate: the Minister did receive a briefing in the context of an employment matter. The other issues referred to by the member—evident in the publicly available copy of the Oughton report—are now being swept up in the State Services Commission’s review.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct the Minister of Immigration who was briefed on those serious irregularities in August last year, following the completion of the Oughton inquiry in July last year, was the Hon David Cunliffe?

Hon SHANE JONES: As has been outlined in the House on several occasions, the previous Minister received a briefing in the context of there being problems of an employment nature. Secondly, they were addressed by the chief executive officer at the time; and if there are outstanding issues of the nature hinted at by the member, I am quite confident they will be exhaustively addressed within the report of the State Services Commission.

Working for Families—Reports

8. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports, if any, has she received on the Working for Families package?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have seen a transcript from yesterday’s Television One Breakfast programme where the Leader of the Opposition said he still regards the Working for Families package as “communism by stealth” but that his party will not change it. It is not surprising that his backbench are a little embarrassed that their leader not only confirms his view that Working for Families is a “communism by stealth” plot but also now supports it.

Russell Fairbrother: Has the Minister received any other reports on the Working for Families package?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. In the same Breakfast transcript Mr Key said that National’s tax policies would make changes to the Working for Families package. That statement follows similar contradictory statements made by Mr Key in an earlier television interview where he hinted at changing the Working for Families abatement threshold. He is either in denial about the no-change position because he has no new ideas, or maybe he is just being consistently not up front.

Animal Welfare—Resources

9. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister of Agriculture: Is he satisfied with the level of his ministry’s animal welfare resources; if so, why?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture): No; as I said in the estimates debate, I am not satisfied, but the present budget of between $2.5 million and $3 million for animal welfare will be, I am sure, added to incrementally over successive Budgets.

Hon David Carter: Does the Minister think it acceptable that there are only five Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry animal welfare investigators across New Zealand dealing with 50 million head of livestock, which is one officer for every 10 million animals; if so, why?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I do not think it is adequate, but I find it strange to have a question from the National Party on this matter, our having heard from National members that they want the bureaucracy of the Government to be cut drastically, and that they want the tax revenue that the Government receives to be cut drastically. Every day in this House I hear from Mr Carter that National wants more animal welfare staff, I hear from Mr Ardern that National wants more biosecurity workers, I hear from Mr Carter that National wants more policy analysts, and I hear from Nathan Guy that National wants more officials who can stop poisonous trees from growing over farmers’ fences, but, actually, National members would not have any money to do any of that—in fact, they would get rid of most of the bureaucrats we already have. I do not know how that works.

Hon David Carter: Does the Minister agree with the comment of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry investigations manager, Greg Reid, that animal welfare resources in New Zealand are “chaotic” and “running from bushfire to bushfire”; if so, what is the Minister going to do to fix that problem?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No; I do not agree with that official. I think that on my watch—nearly 3 years now—he is the second Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry official who has had a bad day at the office.

Hon David Carter: Why did the Minister tell the Primary Production Committee last year that he was deeply concerned about the lack of resources for animal welfare, and why did he promise at that select committee hearing to significantly up the funding, when in this year’s Budget he managed to get—and he is No. 3 in Cabinet—only an additional $68,000?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: They want more money!

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Here they go again! More money from less! That is good. Yes, I did not get more than an extra $68,000 for animal welfare. What I did get was $700 million for an agricultural research and development project. The member says what about the $68,000, and forgets about the $700 million. It is a bit like the biblical quote about seeing the splinter in somebody else’s eye but ignoring the beam in one’s own! In addition, we gave the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) $300,000. We got $23.3 million in the Budget for a National Animal Identification and Tracing system, which will protect our agricultural sector from being blocked out of important markets all around the world. I am sorry that we got only $700 million, plus $23 million, plus $300,000, and missed out in getting only an extra $68,000 for animal welfare! I think it very unlikely that Mr Carter will ever get anywhere near the Cabinet table again, because even his own colleagues must be underwhelmed by the kind of question he asks in this House.

Hon David Carter: Madam Speaker—[Interruption] Back to welfare! Following the serious drought of last summer and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s saying in this week’s New Zealand Farmers Weekly that some livestock are currently “heading towards starvation”, what responsibility does the Minister take for the massive under-resourcing of a core role of his ministry?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am not going to take any responsibility for the drought. Presumably, Mr Carter will take responsibility for droughts, floods, and pestilence of all kinds; he speaks to a higher authority, obviously, than I do, and he has more control over those matters! But what I will say is that for the first time in the history of New Zealand agriculture a national committee including all stakeholders in the industry—veterinarians, farmers, and everyone else—was commissioned, and met, and planned to deal with the drought in ways that the National Government had never done. Every single stakeholder in the agricultural sector in New Zealand has congratulated the Government on the way that it handled the drought. And I might—no, I will not; I will have the charity of silence about the comments those people have made about the performance of the National spokesperson on agriculture.

Hon David Carter: When the Minister stated in a speech in April of this year: “We should search for how best to ensure we meet acceptable levels of animal welfare.”, did he have in mind giving each welfare officer a greater workload than 10 million livestock to look after?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The welfare officials in the ministry, backed by the SPCA across New Zealand, do a magnificent job. But in times of adverse weather events like drought, and a downturn in the income of some people in, say, the beef and sheep industry—which we have had—stress becomes a huge factor in the way in which some farmers cope, or do not cope, as the case may be. If Mr Carter wants to luxuriate in the fact that a few farmers have gone down under stress, and some of their animals have paid the price for it, then he can do that; I am not joining him.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister confirm that during the 1990s animal welfare in this country was in a pretty serious state because the legislation was so old and decrepit; that, year after year, the previous National Government refused to introduce updated animal welfare legislation, even though it had been written; and that there was no movement until I introduced a member’s bill, at which time National members finally came to the party and we gave ourselves the legislation we have today?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I can confirm all of those facts, and I can further confirm that New Zealand is recognised as an international leader in the area of animal welfare. New Zealand’s work on codes of practice and its moves towards improved minimum standards are developments well in advance of the situation in most of our international trading partners. If Mr Carter does not know that, then he knows as little as I suspect he knows—as always.

Renewable Energy Projects—Construction

10. Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Energy: What reports has he received on plans for construction of renewable energy projects?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy): The Labour-led Government has set a clear direction for 90 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources by 2025. Industry is responding with new generation projects due to come on stream over the next 4 years totalling 1,400 megawatts, worth between $3.5 billion and $4 billion. More than half of that is baseload geothermal generation and nearly all of it is renewable. Industry, and New Zealand generally, is right behind this. The only group opposing it is National.

Hon Paul Swain: Has he seen any reports on preferences for fossil fuel rather than renewable energy?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have seen reports that a number of groups in the Rodney district have asked to meet a local MP to discuss their concerns about a large fossil fuel plant in their area. According to the residents, that MP has repeatedly refused to meet, saying that his electoral diary is “fully booked until after the election”. Mr John Key found time to meet the Waikato lobbyists, but he will not front up to the residents in his own electorate who are opposed to more fossil-fuelled electricity. New Zealanders overwhelmingly support clean, green renewable energy, but National opposes the emissions trading scheme, biofuels, and renewable preference legislation. As always, actions speak louder than words, and this latest refusal by Mr Key to meet people in his own electorate again shows that he, along with Mr Brownlee and National, has no real commitment to renewable electricity.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the official Ministry of Energy data showing that 75 percent of new generation built under Labour has been thermal.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table the list of current generation projects of over 400 megawatts of renewable—

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

Waitakere Hospital—Emergency Department Closures

11. PAULA BENNETT (National) to the Minister of Health: How many times in 2008 has the Waitakere public hospital closed its emergency department to new patients during normal operating hours?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I am advised that Waitakere public hospital has not closed its emergency department during normal operating hours. I am also advised that based on patient clinical need, it has diverted some ambulances and walk-in patients to other hospitals, but that it has consistently remained open for emergencies.

Paula Bennett: Why, then, does official information from the Waitemata District Health Board clearly state that Waitakere public hospital closed its emergency department 52 times in the space of just 5 months in this year alone?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: That is quite contrary to the advice I have received in answer to this question. I will seek further answers.

Lynne Pillay: What reports has the Minister seen regarding bed numbers operated by the Waitemata District Health Board?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: Bed numbers have increased dramatically since this Labour-led Government built a whole new hospital in 2005. In addition, 20 new beds at Waitakere Hospital have been put in place, and a further 48 beds will be open in November at North Shore. Current plans also include rebuilding the Waitakere maternity unit by 2011, and building a new tower block at North Shore with 212 beds by 2013—great progress under a Labour Government.

Paula Bennett: Has the Minister seen reports that 1,400 patients have been transferred to the North Shore, and does she know how many have not been transferred but have simply been turned away at the door without even seeing a medical expert?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I am advised that of the 24,000 patients treated at Waitakere, around 1,400 were transferred safely to North Shore. At all times patient safety has been the primary consideration. Clearly there is work to do, but that emergency department is not doing badly for one that opened in 2005.

Paula Bennett: What is the Minister doing about this crisis, when the Waitemata District Health Board states clearly: “Diversion of patients is a result of insufficient medical staff to maintain a full emergency department service.”, and can she assure the residents of Waitakere that if they turn up at the emergency department they will actually be seen?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: The Waitemata District Health Board reports that at present it has a full complement of nurses and it has also appointed three new doctors, who will begin within 3 months. When they arrive at the centre it will be almost fully staffed, with only one doctor vacancy

Paula Bennett: So despite all the extra funding and this Government’s so-called commitment to health, we still have patients who are being turned away at Waitakere Hospital, and how does she expect the hospital to fulfil its goal of providing a 24/7 service when currently it cannot even stay open between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m.?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I am advised that of the 24,000 patients seen this year, only 254 were given vouchers for White Cross, which is 2 minutes down the road. I think the member is being quite alarmist. This is based on clinical need.

Paula Bennett: How does the Minister then respond to the mother who turned up to the emergency department with her son, who was having an asthma attack, in her arms, but who was turned away and told to go to White Cross although she said she had no transport, and who had to carry him down the road, turning up there extremely distressed, with a child who was in an extreme crisis?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I am unaware of the incident in that case. If the member would like to get information on it to us, we will look into it with some urgency.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister confirm that under the entire 9-year regime of the previous Government the emergency department at Waitakere Hospital did not close once, but that the reason for that was that there was not one?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: Absolutely. There were no services at Waitakere other than maternity and a few medical service beds. This Government built a new hospital at Waitakere.

Question time interrupted.

Ministerial Statements

Evacuation—Amberley Beach

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I am sorry to interrupt question time. Mr Dunne raised previously with me an issue about whether there was an evacuation due at Kaiapoi. The best update I have is that the answer is no, but an evacuation has just begun at Amberley Beach, and two emergency centres have been established for roughly 160 residents, if they require them. I will bring further information, if there is anything further, before 6 o’clock.

Question time resumed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Marine Protection—Progress

12. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent progress has the Government made for marine protection around the New Zealand coastline?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation): Good news: I am pleased to say that a new 854-hectare marine reserve off the Wellington south coast has been established. Today notice of the reserve was published in the New Zealand Gazette, and the protections of this no-take reserve will come into force in 28 days’ time. I would like to congratulate the applicants, the Wellington branch of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and the Wellington South Coast Marine Reserve Coalition, on their dedication to this project.

Hon Marian Hobbs: With thanks to the Minister: how does this reserve add to the Government’s programme of work for marine protection around the country?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: This Government is committed to protecting examples of our unique marine ecosystems. Since 2000 we have added 17 new marine reserves.

Hon Peter Dunne: How, in the light of the embarrassing defeat that her department suffered through the Minister of Fisheries’ decision to decline to approve the huge marine reserve for Great Barrier Island, does she consider it now prudent to develop a framework by which no-take marine reserves comprise only one part of a graduated plan to ensure the sustainability of the marine environment, and that the process for deciding where to establish such marine reserves should be more transparent and ensure that the views of all stakeholders, including recreational fishers, are taken properly into account?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: We are certainly making progress on targets for marine protection. Within our territorial sea, 7.6 percent of the marine area is protected by marine reserves, and we are currently working to further increase that area through the marine protected areas mechanism, which creates a network of protection in 14 coastal regions throughout New Zealand. I think the member will be pleased with the progress.

Bills

Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. Ensuring that all parties involved in the labour market understand and can meet their obligations is vital to the market’s proper functioning and is critical to the future productivity of New Zealand. Unions and employer organisations provide a timely, practical, and cost-effective relevant service that educates and supports people in meeting these obligations. This bill will amend the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 to enable lawyers who are employed by employer or union organisations to continue the longstanding practice of providing vital legal services to their members. This practice has enabled integrated prevention and advice services, which includes legal services. It has contributed to New Zealand’s growth and to people’s access to justice—particularly working people.

The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 will come into force tomorrow, being 1 August. The Act represents a major reform of the way in which legal services are provided in New Zealand, and it will provide more effective regulation of legal professionals and much greater consumer focus and protection. However, as enacted, the Act will prevent unions and employer organisations from continuing their practice of using in-house lawyers to provide legal services to their members. This is because the Act makes the provision of legal services to the public by in-house lawyers—in other words, lawyers employed by non-lawyers—an act of professional misconduct. It is essential that we correct this unintended consequence before the Act comes into force tomorrow.

This bill amends the Act to ensure that employer organisations and unions continue to be able to provide this invaluable service to their members. This practice will ensure that members continue to have access to practical, cost-effective, and timely legal services that they might otherwise be unable to afford. Supplementary Order Paper 216 in the name of the Hon Annette King maintains this objective in the bill by clarifying that lawyers will continue to be guilty of misconduct if they provide legal advice to members on matters that are not relevant to the employer organisation or union.

New clause 10 is a further amendment to the bill. It was adopted from an amendment put forward by the New Zealand First member Dail Jones, and is a positive addition to the bill. Clause 10 amends section 107(1) of the Act to make the practice rules of the New Zealand Law Society binding on current and former incorporated law firms.

This bill is important legislation that will ensure members of employer organisations and unions will continue to benefit by being able to access longstanding integrated prevention and employment advice services, including legal services, through their organisations and unions. It has been great to see the amount of support there is for this bill, as people recognise the critical role that unions and employer organisations play in the effective functioning of the labour market.

On behalf of the Minister, the Hon Annette King, I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee and the House for expediting this bill, and particularly Mr Finlayson, Mr Jones, and Mr Chauvel for the work they have put into it. I also thank the chairperson of the committee and member for Waitakere, Lynne Pillay, who did a sterling job, as always, and the Committee of the whole House for its careful consideration of this bill. I commend the bill to the House for its third reading.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I am delighted to see that parliamentary history has been made this afternoon. That would be the first coherent speech the boy wonder from Ōtaki has ever made. I congratulate him on that excellent speech, even if it was written out for him.

As the Minister observed, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) is a small but important bill, and it concerns, as I said in the Committee stage, certain people in trade unions and members of business organisations being able to get access to legal advice. The problem has been canvassed in both the second reading and the Committee stage, so I do not think I need to dwell on it. I will make relatively few comments in this third reading speech, because in a sense it has all been said.

It is important that we get this measure through the House this afternoon. I do not know when it will be signed into law, although I note that clause 2 provides that the Act will be deemed to have come into force on 1 August 2008, and that is important because the substantive legislation finally comes into force on that date after a 2-year transitional period. Some people may not realise that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act comes into force then, and that the Law Practitioners Act 1982 will finally be deemed to have been repealed tomorrow.

The purpose of the legislation is to enable lawyers who are the employees of employer organisations and trade unions to be able to give a certain class of legal advice to members of unions and members of business associations. It is important to note that it is the clear parliamentary intention that those persons are not able to give general legal advice. For example, lawyers employed by a trade union will not be able to give free-ranging advice on conveyancing transactions, proceedings commenced under the Family Protection Act, or mergers and takeovers; nor, might I add, can they give advice on matters related to the dreadful Electoral Finance Act, even though at the moment they may be deemed to be third parties.

What they will be able to advise their members on is a carefully defined series of matters, and they are set out in clause 6. It is entirely reasonable that members of trade unions, for example, should be able to contact the lawyer employed by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union or the Dairy Workers Union, to ask for urgent and inexpensive advice on a matter relating to, for instance, the Employment Relations Act, and to obtain that advice. We have no problem with that. As I said in the second reading, everyone agreed with the principle; it was a question of making sure the words were right.

It was interesting to observe that initially the Government was not very interested in having a Supplementary Order Paper to try to deal with these issues. Indeed, the matter went through the select committee process very quickly indeed. The bill was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on 25 June, dealt with immediately, and reported back on 7 July. I have no complaint about that. However, I did say, on behalf of the National Party, that we may have wanted to look at a Supplementary Order Paper if we thought there were issues of detail that needed to be addressed. That is why I was so pleased that, during the Committee stage, the Minister Annette King gave notice of her intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. The work exemplified by that Supplementary Order Paper is contained in the amended clause 6, and I think it is a good piece of work.

So I thank the Minister of Justice for being open—on this occasion, at least—to the possibility of having a Supplementary Order Paper to address the concerns of various organisations. I also congratulate Mr Dail Jones on his work on this matter. He was a good member to work with on this issue, which is one not of partisan politics but of getting the words right. I conclude by also congratulating Mr Jones on managing to persuade the Government that section 107(1) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act needed urgent amendment. That is what clause 10 of this bill is all about. Quite sensibly, we dealt with that issue during the Committee stage, as well.

All in all, I am satisfied that the legitimate interests of all the various players are properly addressed. I, too, congratulate those members who have worked very sensibly on this bill, and I also thank those outside Parliament—in the Council of Trade Unions and the various unions, in other organisations like Business New Zealand, and in the New Zealand Law Society—for the good work they have done. With those relatively short comments, I indicate that the National Party will support the third reading of this bill.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): Mr Jones is certainly the toast of the day for his dogged pursuit of an important issue that he was simply not prepared to let go. The Government was eventually persuaded that remedial action was required, which saw Supplementary Order Paper 216, dated 29 July 2008, in the name of the Hon Annette King form part of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2), which, of course, we now see in its final stage. The third reading of this bill, which National supports, is really the final brick in the wall. The bill enables all the issues touching the legal profession that have been the subject of the substantive legislation to now be resolved.

The bill is, of course, part of a greater plan, because strangely the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 is not yet in force. There are not too many illustrations on the statute book of legislation that is passed but not brought into effect until after such a substantial delay. There are a number of reasons for that delay—primarily centring round the myriad of rules and regulations that were required, as part of the delegated legislation suite, to be brought into place. So it was that the Regulations Review Committee, last Wednesday, looked at a number of those rules and regulations. The committee intends to follow a number of issues arising from its deliberation on those delegated materials.

As I have said, this third reading and the passage of this legislation is very much part of a greater plan, because the substantive legislation affects every practising lawyer in this country—it changes how lawyers are regulated and how they are to practise. No longer will a lawyer get a practising certificate from a district law society; it will be secured directly from the New Zealand Law Society, and a central register of lawyers will be maintained by the society. The practising year is to change from 1 February to 31 January in any period, to 1 July to 30 June. Completely new rules have been in written in respect of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act requirements, reflecting the client-focused orientation of the new legislation and its associated rules and regulations. There are new rules that provide a reference point for considering complaints made to the new lawyers complaints service, which will be run by the New Zealand Law Society, and there are new rules to cover a whole host of issues, ranging from fees, billing arrangements, complaints procedures, indemnity cover, to much more besides. Law firms will be able to incorporate, and lawyers will be able to sell, real estate.

The substance of this bill was about dealing with a particular class of in-house lawyer—that is, the lawyer employed by a union organisation or an employers’ association—and the intent was to regularise a practice that had built up over a number of years, whereby the lawyers in those entities gave legal advice of a strictly constrained type. When this bill was initially introduced, those constraints were not present. But the effect of Supplementary Order Paper 216 is to put those constraints back in place and, in effect, preserve the status quo position. Now, in respect of the lawyers in those entities, they will be able to give a range of advice to members of those organisations in those members’ capacities as members, employers, or employees.

The effect of the substantive law change is not to be underestimated. For the first time in legislation the fundamental obligations of lawyers are spelt out. These issues in the past have really been the subject of common law rules, conventions, and law society provisions. The primary obligation, which is spelt out in the substantive legislation, is the obligation to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand. There are other matters. There is an obligation to be independent in providing regulated services. There is an obligation to act in accordance with fiduciary responsibilities. There is an interesting dichotomy whereby there is a primary obligation owed to the court—lawyers are officers of the court—without, of course, compromising the relationship that exists between the lawyer and the lawyer’s client.

National commends this legislation as it moves to its final stage. We simply note that the effect of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, with this embellishment on it, represents a period of convulsive change for the law profession as from 1 August—tomorrow.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): When I stood up about 10 working nights ago to speak against the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2), at about a quarter to 10, and New Zealand First was the only party speaking against the bill, I wondered whether I had misread the legislation in some way or another and had got it wrong. But I am very pleased to say that I did have it right, and although every other party in the House voted for the bill, New Zealand First alone voted against it because I could see that there was something not quite right about it. The issue has been raised by the Minister who moved the third reading that it was not an unintended consequence of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) that various provisions were made; we deliberately did what we did at the time, and I was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee.

However, reason prevails at the end of the day, and to be a lawyer is to be ready to compromise, to see the other person’s point of view, and to reach a good conclusion to a problem. We sat down together, and I was pleased with the support from the New Zealand Law Society, which was the only submitter that opposed this legislation. With the information supplied by the society, we came up with a solution that took the matter to the stage where the things the trade union movement and Business New Zealand wanted to do were covered by this bill, rather than by extending it to those various other areas that I had mentioned during my first reading speech, 10 working nights ago. That was the situation where a lawyer from a trade union or Business New Zealand might be asked to appear as counsel on a drink-driving matter or to give advice on a matrimonial property agreement, a relationship property agreement, or a trust, and things like that.

Eventually, we worked out what the real problem was and what the real solution was. Putting aside what had happened in the discussions on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, we came to a reasonable solution to the matter. I am pleased to have taken a part in it, and New Zealand First, of course, will support this amendment. New Zealand First is always willing to work—as are so many of the MMP parties; the smaller parties—to reach a solution to a problem. However, in this case we were all out on our own, and we were able to work with the Minister.

I thank the Minister for her cooperation and for getting the law draftsmen to prepare a very good amendment to the legislation, rather than the stark one that I had put forward earlier on and the one that Mr Finlayson was so ably working on, as well. I also thank the Minister—and the New Zealand Law Society thanks the Minister—and the House for allowing clause 10 to be inserted. It tidies up a minor drafting issue. Being lawyers, we like to dot our i’s and cross our t’s, and that just seemed to be one that had been missed over the last couple of years.

New Zealand First supports this bill. The House’s support for the bill will be unanimous, I understand. We are only too pleased to have taken part in what I think was an exemplary example of how quickly this Parliament can work in the best interests of the trade union movement, Business New Zealand, and the country generally.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. When I first looked over this bill with Angeline Greensill, the Māori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato, she reminded me of one of the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal’s 1997 Muriwhenua report, Wai 45, which mentioned the importance of decision makers giving equal weight to the Māori world view, the Māori values system, and Māori law and policies. The Treaty of Waitangi, of course, is based on the protection of Māori custom and cultural values, and, indeed, the guarantee of rangatiratanga recognises the right of Māori to own and control their assets. Those principles are always at the forefront of our thinking in the Māori Party whenever we consider any legislation, including this bill, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2).

So when we look at this bill, introduced some 5 years ago to make the legal profession more accountable, give clients more protection, and enable lawyers employed by organisations to provide services to their members, Derek Fox, the Māori Party candidate for Ikaroa-Rawhiti, said we should always look to see whether Māori are given the opportunity to actively participate in defining the law, whether Māori are encouraged to take responsibility for their own affairs, whether Māori will benefit from transparency in the legal profession, and whether this bill will realise the promise of article 3 of the Treaty by enabling Māori to be as involved in the legal profession as any other Kiwi.

When the law was first changed, it meant that lawyers employed by unions or employer groups could act only for the organisations themselves, not for the members. So this bill is necessary to enable those lawyers to provide legal services to the members of those groups and to allow members access to legal advice on issues such as liability, competency, and employment and industrial law. Rahui Kātene, Māori Party candidate for Te Tai Tonga, tells me that everyone, no matter his or her background, should have access to good legal advice, and that this bill will enable those who can ill-afford it to get access to quality advice, particularly workers in today’s increasingly difficult and legalised work environment.

Ms Kātene also pointed out a very serious flaw in the bill relating to Māori: that it had been drafted specifically for individual members and not for claimant groups. She insisted we record our concern that claimants before the Māori Land Court and the Waitangi Tribunal will not be disadvantaged by the passing of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2). Ms Kātene also challenged the Minister to urgently review the legislation, to ensure that claimants are not disadvantaged.

Finally, I cannot help but notice that the bill seems to have rocketed up the Order Paper, particularly during these turbulent times of controversy swirling around the Chamber, debates descending into nasty and vicious attacks, and questions about the Government’s credibility. One would have thought a vote on confidence and supply would immediately put an end to questions about the Government’s inability to deal with the financial shenanigans of coalition partners. One would have thought the Government might settle this controversy once and for all by calling for a vote of confidence in the Government’s access to money, by putting the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill up for a vote—unless, of course, the Government were scared that it might lose the confidence motion, and be forced to either call a snap election or turn power over to another coalition of parties. That would be a very interesting day in politics, indeed. Instead, these innocuous little bills get shunted up the programme.

This is the second amendment to the original Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. We respectfully suggest that in future the Government gets greater consultation on its bills so that we do not have to do paper-over jobs like this one.

The Māori Party will support this bill at third reading, but with a challenge that claimants before the Māori Land Court and the Waitangi Tribunal not be disadvantaged. Kia ora tātou.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I rise in support of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill essentially extends the type of organisation that a lawyer is permitted to provide services to during the course of his or her employment. I agree with my parliamentary colleagues who, in previous speeches on this bill, have described it as highly technical. However, as is often the case, the devil is in the detail. Technical as it may be, this amendment has important ramifications for those lawyers currently employed by unions, employer organisations, and health professional organisations to provide in-house advice to their employer’s members. Under the Law Practitioners Act, corporate lawyers were prohibited in their capacity as in-house lawyers from providing legal services to anyone other than their employer. When the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 was passed, Parliament decided to retain the status quo. The effect that that had on members of unions or members of organisations was that they then had to pay serious money to obtain the advice they needed, given their circumstance.

The Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) will reverse the position stated in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. The bill seeks to regularise the position of lawyers employed by unions and other employer organisations that provide advice to their employer’s members. Up until now, many in-house lawyers have been operating under the misconception that they were able to provide their employer’s members or clients with employment legal advice. In practical terms the benefits of this practice are fairly self-evident. The arrangement provides the in-house lawyer’s employer—say, for instance, the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union or Business New Zealand—with easy access to quality and cost-effective legal services for its members.

I am pleased to see that with the cooperation of the House this matter has been clarified and will provide certainty to those lawyers who are employed by unions, employer organisations, and health professional organisations. I am equally pleased to see that during the Committee stage the House agreed to amendments allowing lawyers to provide legal services to members of an organisation or union only in so far as they relate to their membership of that organisation. That amendment clears up the anomalous situation whereby it could have been possible for a union lawyer, who dealt primarily with employment matters, to provide advice to members on anything from a drink-driving charge to a breach of a protection order, or for anything else that they might find themselves before the beak on.

Although I did not have the benefit of sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee while it was considering the bill, I understand that it was considered under a very tight time frame in order to pass it before the principal Act comes into force on 1 August. I have to say I am surprised and a little concerned that we are debating this issue on the day before the principal Act comes into force.

The Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill was introduced into Parliament in 2003, and it received its Royal assent in March 2006. The Government has had over 2 years to clarify this issue, yet here we are still debating this matter on the afternoon of the very last sitting day before the Act comes into force, in order to rush it through.

One has to cast one’s mind back to other pieces of legislation that have been rushed through this House in an attempt to perform some particular whim of the Government—not necessarily this legislation, but others like the Electoral Finance Act, which will be the hallmark of the term of this Labour Government, and we will be pleased to see it go.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I too, like the member Chester Borrows, commend the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House on its third reading. I will not spend much time speaking on it, because it is very important that the bill gets passed. It is a good example of parties working together. I also want to commend the constructive submissions and the very prompt work from the union movement, the employers organisations, the Nurses Organisation, and the midwives. It is a very constructive amendment, and I am very, very happy to commend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): I rise to take a short call on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2). The commentary on the bill is obviously quite clear: “At present, unions and employer organisations employ lawyers to provide legal services to their members.”—and they have done so for some time. The commentary continues: “The Act provides explicitly that lawyers employed by unions and employer organisations will be guilty of misconduct if they provide such services.” Obviously, the purpose of the bill is to allow lawyers employed by unions and employer organisations to continue to provide legal services to their members. But, as my colleague Chester Borrows just related, it is very important that this is not to be a licence for lawyers to give legal advice on all manner of things, like drink-driving, and so on and so forth. So the provision that allows that advice to be given is limited to matters that are related to the business of the employer or member organisation that any individual is in.

The explanatory note of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper of Tuesday 29 July, as I say, clarifies “that a lawyer employed by an employer organisation or by a union may not provide legal services to a member of the organisation or the union if those services are not relevant to the person’s membership of the organisation or union.” That is very clear and it is very important. It is important that we recognise the areas where lawyers can provide advice, but also that we are very explicit about the limits to the advice that is given. It continues: “A new subsection (1B) is inserted into section 9 of the principal Act to specify cases of legal services that are relevant to a person’s membership of an employer organisation or a union. These are legal services that”, firstly, “relate to the member’s rights, obligations, or liabilities in his or her capacity as a member or as an employer or employee”; secondly, to “any matter concerning or arising out of an employment relationship, as defined in the Employment Relations Act 2000. That term covers a number of relationships that are relevant in the context of employment law, such as relationships between a union and an employer, between unions bargaining for the same collective agreement, or between employers bargaining for the same collective agreement”; and, thirdly, to “any claim or action under an enactment specified in section 236 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. That section allows employers and employees to be represented by any person of their choice in claims and actions brought under a number of enactments listed in the section. The right to wider representation applies if the other party is the party’s employer or employee or if the action is taken in the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court.” It goes on to list those enactments, which include the Employment Relations Act; the Equal Pay Act; the Holidays Act; the Human Rights Act; the Police Act; the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act; the Minimum Wage Act; the State Sector Act; and the Wages Protection Act.

Fourthly, the new subsection also specifies cases of legal services relating to “compliance with any enactment or other requirement governing the performance of duties of the member in the conduct of the member's normal business or profession”, and, fifthly, relating to “any question or matter concerning the member’s professional liability, entitlement under a contract of insurance, or compliance with professional standards.”

I understand that this legislation comes into force tomorrow—1 August. It is rather ironic that at 4 o’clock, 2 hours before the House rises, we are now doing the third reading that will enable that to happen. I have not sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee, so I am not entirely certain as to why it happens that at the last minute—

Lindsay Tisch: Poor organisation.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Well, I was coming to that. I am not certain why at the last minute—just the day before the bill is to become law—we are now doing the third reading. My colleague Lindsay Tisch has obviously answered my question. That was the answer I was going to give anyway. I suppose it was a rhetorical question.

Lindsay Tisch: Say it again.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Well, basically the reason is poor organisation by this Government—the Labour-led Government. It is typical of the way it has done things—or not done things—during the 9 years of its long tenure on the Treasury benches. It is no wonder that those 9 long years look to be coming to an end. Obviously, it is because of things like this. This has been described as a technical bill, but in essence it is a hugely important matter. As I say, only a Government that does not know what it is doing would have us doing the third reading on the afternoon before the legislation is to become law. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Bill read a third time.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 29 July on the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill.

Vote Education Review Office agreed to.

Vote Health

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): I tell members that if there is one area that best sums up the way that this Government is failing, it is health. If we look at Vote Health, we see that nothing in it will make any difference. Expenditure on health has increased from $6 billion a year to $12 billion a year under this Government, yet people still are not getting the care they need.

We heard of several great examples during question time today. At 9 o’clock this morning there were no neonatal intensive care cots available throughout the country. The Government spends $12 billion a year, yet we cannot make one cot available for the most sick, most vulnerable babies born in New Zealand today. That is absolutely disgusting.

Then, in question No. 11 today, we heard my colleague Paula Bennett ask the Minister of Health how many times the Waitakere Hospital accident and emergency department had been closed in the last year, and the Minister answering on behalf of the Minister of Health got up and said none. Paula Bennett then said to the Minister that actually it was closed 52 times. That is absolutely incredible. The Waitakere Hospital accident and emergency department, which is the department that the constituents of the Minister of Health have to go to, was closed 52 times in the last year. There is $12 billion of health expenditure a year, and the Government cannot even keep the Waitakere Hospital accident and emergency department open.

Do members know what this Government does? When that department is closed, patients are given vouchers to go down the road to a White Cross facility. Can members believe that? Despite the Government spending 12 billion bucks a year, Labour goes to the ACT party for health policy! It is absolutely disgraceful.

Let us look at what has happened in elective surgery. The Minister of Health has consistently told us he is going to provide more and more operations. Do members know what? In the area that I represent, which comes under the Waitemata District Health Board, less elective surgery was performed last year than in the first year of the district health board structure—actually fewer operations. When we consider that the population in the Waitemata District Health Board area has gone up by 14 percent over that time, we can see that people are getting even less surgery, on a per head basis, than they were getting 6 years ago. That is the legacy of the Labour Government in health.

I totally agree with the surgeon in Dunedin whom we heard about yesterday who said that the real tragedy about the health system under Labour is that working-class people cannot get access to the operations they need. If Labour members are not here to deliver a good health system for working-class people, I do not know what they are here for. All the Labour members over there are just reading their notes; they know that what I am saying is absolutely true. They are failing in providing elective surgery, and they are failing in providing neonatal intensive care.

I can tell members where else the Government is failing: it is failing absolutely dismally in mental health services. What has the Minister’s response been? It has been to launch another strategy. Last week the Minister launched his latest effort, Te Puāwaiwhero. He gave exactly the same speech that was delivered the last time Labour announced a strategy, which was 2 years ago. Under Labour, mental health provision has been nothing but strategies, plans, and frameworks. Meanwhile, ward 27 at Wellington Hospital represents another broken promise under Labour. This Government said that that ward would definitely be rebuilt and refurbished. What is happening? It is off the drawing board. What is happening? More and more people in the Wellington region are not getting the acute mental health services they need.

I have today lodged a written question for the Minister to answer: how many people have committed suicide since that plan was scrapped? I will be very interested to see the answer, because the reality is that when acute mental health services are not available, things start going off the rails. People need to be able to get into hospital in their time of need. In terms of mental health provision, there have been plans, strategies, and frameworks, but not the services that people need.

This Government cannot continue to make excuses, because, basically, the spending goes up and the care goes down. People cannot get the care they need, when they need it, under a Labour Government. I tell members that when I talk to people in my electorate, the Northcote electorate, I find that they are saying that this Government has not delivered. They may have voted for it last time, but they say that they will not make that mistake again, because, under Labour, promises are broken. The state of play of elective surgery is absolutely disgraceful. Labour promised more and more operations, and in actual fact we are getting fewer each year. The extra spending just has not worked. The people opposite have lost control of the situation. They have gone through three Ministers, and each one is more desperate than the last. Meanwhile, there is less elective surgery, more people cannot get access to mental health care, and there are no more neonatal intensive-care beds than there ever was. The situation is completely untenable. Things have got to change.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I am pleased to take a call in the estimates debate, and, in particular, on Vote Health. We are very pleased to see the continued investment that the Labour Government has made in health. We know it inherited a system that had become very run down under the National Government, to the extent that there were tills in hospitals. Most people who went to hospital were horrified to find that they could not afford to pay for their treatment. It does not fill us with a great deal of confidence when we hear Sir Roger Douglas say that when he comes back to office he will do to the health system exactly what he did to the railway system. That is not a nice thought for the people of New Zealand.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Well, he isn’t coming back with us. Is he coming back with you?

BARBARA STEWART: No, he is not coming back with us; he is expecting to come back under an ACT-National arrangement.

New Zealand First is very pleased to see the extra investment in health. We know that people need some certainty about their health care, and timely access to treatment. We hear from members opposite that the queues are larger than they ever were, but under the Labour Government there has been some movement towards dealing with that.

However, we were disturbed to read in the Dominion Post that Ministry of Health figures show that the number of babies born in New Zealand to non-resident mothers more than quadrupled between 2006 and 2007. The figures show an increase in births in our hospitals of 3,248 in the previous 12 months. We wonder why. If one does the figures, one sees that 76 such births a week are happening in our hospitals. That is a quite significant number. We have to ask why, and for what benefit, our hospitals are being used in this particular way. We in New Zealand First believed that the loophole had been closed and that the numbers of such births would be dramatically reduced, but for some reason they have not been. The automatic right to citizenship for babies born here stopped in 2006. Now, at least one parent must be a New Zealand citizen before any newborn is granted a Kiwi passport. We applaud the action that was taken on that front. For a long time there were maternity safaris to New Zealand under National, and at last that has stopped.

Although we are fully aware that it is up to the individual district health boards to recover costs from non-resident mothers who have used our hospitals, we know that that is very difficult and can be very challenging, because most district health boards do not have the resources to follow up on this particular area. It is not uncommon, as we read in the Dominion Post, for a woman’s maternity bill, including the cost of a baby’s delivery, to spiral above $12,000, particularly if the baby is premature and needs to stay in a neonatal unit. We know that the district health boards are funded to provide maternity services only for mothers who are New Zealand citizens or residents, or who have appropriate working visas or refugee status, or who fall under the reciprocal agreements with Australia and Britain. The women I am talking about fall outside of these parameters, and the matter needs to be followed up. We need to be sure that we can offer health services to our own citizens. I was pleased to hear Minister Chadwick say today that she will look into the situation with neonatal babies, and find out how many foreign mothers who come to New Zealand are using neonatal units. Quite honestly, we do not want New Zealanders to miss out in this particular area.

We know there are no simple solutions to the many and varied difficulties that are confronting the health system. We have to be realistic and face the realities of an ageing population. Improving technology and medicines are increasing life expectancy, and, of course, this places unique demands on the health system. We are very aware, too, of the workforce shortages that are being experienced. That is a big challenge, and the World Health Organization also pointed it out. We are also becoming overly dependent on foreign-trained medical personnel and the increasingly costly use of locums.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): After looking at the mental health portion of Vote Health, I believe that the Government has to take a whole lot more seriously the signs of crisis evident in regard to psychiatric services—in some parts of the country, at least. I was not at all comforted by answers I received in the House on Tuesday from Minister Jim Anderton to questions I posed around recent events involving Auckland’s and Wellington’s acute psychiatric units.

For a start, I find it astonishing that the Capital and Coast District Health Board announced last week that it has postponed, indefinitely, plans to replace Ward 27. That is 4 years after the district health board promised in 2004 that plans for a new ward would go ahead urgently. In recent years the ward has been renowned for its overcrowding and staff retention problems and for a number of serious incidents involving patient injuries and deaths. For example, Chad Buckle died after walking out of the ward with no one apparently noticing his departure.

Most recently, there has been the tragic case of Nicole Maconaghie, who died in June, not long after being discharged from Ward 27. Her mother said, and I quote from the Herald on Sunday: “I was told $80,000 had been spent on her and ‘we can’t account for any more money; she just has to get on and live the best life she can.’ ” Her mother is further reported as saying that she tried to tell those caring for her daughter that she would not be able to look after herself, but that she “felt like she was disposable from [the doctor’s] point of view.”

I am sure that the hospital and the district health board will contend that the family’s statements are not accurate, and that their apprehension of the situation is all wrong, but whatever the exact details are in this case, I believe there is an underpinning truth to the mother’s statements that this district health board’s acute unit, like some others, is often under stress; that staff do at times—and probably quite frequently—push people out into the community when they are perceived to have stayed in the unit too long; that there is an inadequacy of care once they are out there in the community; and that there is also a reluctance to listen to, or to really hear, the voices of family members who are desperately trying to tell staff about the real situation for their loved one.

The reason that both the Minister and the Capital and Coast District Health Board give for not building a new unit, when one is so manifestly needed, appears to be that a new 10-bed house for people with mental illnesses will open in Wellington this year. Using this as an excuse for not building a replacement unit is ridiculous; both are needed.

I turn now to the Auckland District Health Board, and I believe that the crisis there is even worse. The Te Whetu Tarewa mental health unit at Auckland is chronically overcrowded, and/or has patient numbers at its maximum. A number of deaths have been associated with the unit in the past year. There is pressure on staff to discharge people who are still very unwell. There is an inability to discharge people to adequate step-down or rehabilitation accommodation and health services. Waiting lists for the one in-patient rehabilitation unit in Auckland at the Buchanan Clinic are long, and, of course, sadly, many people will never access the benefits of its care. There are allegations by staff that there is an inability within Te Whetu Tarewa to keep male and female patients sexually safe, and that there are cases of sexual abuse within the unit. There is an apparent lack of recognition of the true levels of need in the Auckland District Health Board district, and there must be more resourcing, appropriately spent, even to begin to make the systemic changes needed.

The Minister is correct that work has been done on a proposal for structural change within the Auckland District Health Board mental health services. I do not know whether the document resulting from this review is the one he referred to in the House on Tuesday as being under injunction, but from what I know of the review—if it is indeed the one to which he referred—it is very unlikely that its recommendations will in any way, shape, or form go to meet the concerns surrounding both the operational and resourcing issues with Te Whetu Tarewa.

I call on the Government to take some responsibility for what is continuing to happen in our mental health services. There is not enough resourcing. Mental health continues to be the poor cousin of physical health. The problems are systemic and they are acute. People are dying. District health boards should not be left unaccountable in any genuine way for the deficits in their approaches. People with or recovering from mental illness, their families, and the staff who care for them deserve a whole lot better than what is going on right now.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki): I rise in this estimates debate to speak about rural health. How interesting it is that in the appropriation for Vote Health there is $5 million for rural health. One might think that that would perhaps address some of the issues in rural health, which include the safety of rural patients being compromised by shortages of general practitioners, and long waits for people to see general practitioners. Can members imagine the situation in some parts of New Zealand—it does not sound like a New Zealand setting, but it is true—where patients wait 2 weeks to get an appointment with a general practitioner? Is that the sort of system we are happy to accept? Of course it is not. There is a very heavy reliance on locums, and rural health services have been described in a report by the New Zealand Institute of Rural Health as being in a “fragile” state.

The institute has pointed out that, despite any input by this Government—despite the doubling of Vote Health over the past 9 years—it has not resolved the most significant issues present in the rural health sector today. We may think an appropriation of $5 million might be quite useful, but guess what? There is no idea in the Ministry of Health, or on the part of the Minister, as to what that money is for. It was just a way of saying to the sector: “Go away and keep quiet for a while.” That is not what the sector asked for or what all the recent reports have suggested is required. Those people are not quite sure what to do with the money. They know that the rural health sector needs money to be invested in it, but they know also that this is not what they asked for. In fact, they have completely lost faith in this Government. They used to think the Labour Government looked after rural health, but they have most certainly changed their minds.

Let me give one example of a symptom. When the Associate Minister responsible for rural health went to a conference recently where he was to be the lead speaker on one side of the debate up against myself on the other side, he deferred to a medical student at the very last minute. What does that tell us about the Associate Minister’s confidence to address the issues in rural health today? He deferred to a medical student to be the lead speaker in that debate. That says a lot, does it not?

So what has this Government been doing for rural health? We know that three reports directly affecting the sector are still outstanding. The first is a report into the PRIME system—primary response in medical emergencies. The second is a report into the rural ranking scale, which has been buried since the rural sector commented on it; it has been buried since last October. The latest we have heard from the Minister is that it will be out in November. That is funny—the election will be over by November, so I find that rather strange. The third is a report on the after-hours service. This Government says it has prioritised the after-hours service, and that it is right up there—so much so that it still does not have a full complement of district health boards reporting on what they are going to do about it! So it is now 3 to 5 years later, in the case of each of those reports, yet we do not see progress.

But the Ministry of Health is doing something! We should not worry, because on the ministry’s website we find 54 reports listed that deal with workforce issues! We would think that something must be happening, but, no, nothing is happening.

Lindsay Tisch: How many?

JO GOODHEW: There are 54 reports on the website.

Let me talk about the National Travel Assistance Policy. That policy was introduced in 2006, and was intended to deliver travel assistance to the rural people of New Zealand so that they can access health care. How has that policy been described? It has been described as “complex, cumbersome and slow”. It is no wonder my constituents ask how to fill out the forms and how to access the money. Honestly, most of them just give up and go away. But that must be what this Government intends them to do.

National has some ideas, though. We have had good support for our idea of voluntary bonding—note that I said “voluntary”—in return for student loan write-offs for doctors who agree to work in hard-to-staff areas. There was some confusion, at first, about the fact that it was to be voluntary, but it was welcomed once we explained our intention that it would be voluntary. Ever since it has been shown to work internationally we have supported the immersion of medical students in rural areas for their training. It has been shown to bring extra general practitioners into rural areas.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): It would be very interesting if the National Party had a constructive contribution to make in this debate. That party has no health policy, unless, of course, one refers to the supposed phone book - sized book of policy that the party’s geniuses have been dreaming up in the background but have not deigned to put into the public domain. I wonder—and I ask Opposition members to confirm—when National will give that phone book to the public. When will it trust the public with its 10 million good ideas for solving all the problems of the health system?

I was at the general practitioners’ conference in Queenstown 2 weekends ago. When Jo Goodhew was answering questions from the general practitioners, she gave the same answer to all four questions. I will tell members what she said: “Why don’t you GPs tell us what you would do? We’re looking for your ideas.” The first time it sounded humble, the second time it sounded vacuous, the third time it sounded desperate, and the fourth time it sounded tactical.

It is the same with accident compensation. The only reason the public knows National’s accident compensation policy is that one of John Key’s former workmates at Merrill Lynch—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. There is a constant barrage of drivel coming from the other side, and the public does not need to hear that. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Sit down, please; I think I can deal with this myself, thank you very much. There has been a barrage from both sides, actually. Members are meant to make pithy points, not repetitive ones, but it is not helpful to make a judgment about the interjections. Thank you.

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. My colleague Jo Goodhew spoke on a matter of health; the Minister has deviated from health to talk about accident compensation. The debate is on the appropriation regarding Vote Health. It has nothing to do with accident compensation. The Minister should confine his comments to health, and not talk about other subjects.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I think the reference to accident compensation was a passing reference. The debate has been on health. We will continue.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Accident compensation and health are, of course, intertwined, because people require both. The point I am making is that the only reason the public has any knowledge about one National policy is that it was leaked by a company that helped to write it. That stands in contradiction with the situation regarding its health policy, because either National does not have one, or it does have one but is not telling ordinary New Zealanders about it. I do not know which is worse. Personally, I think it is worse to have one and not be frank with the democratic process, because whether one votes for Labour, votes for National, or votes for anybody else, what is important is that one makes an educated decision. The public deserves to know whether National has ideas. How about it telling the public during the estimates debate, which is forward looking and is occurring just months from the election, what its policy is? Would not that be a good idea? But, no, National members will not do that.

The reason they will not tell us their policy is that the last time they were in Government their experiment in market health services was a dismal failure. Why cannot health services work as a competitive private market? Well, firstly, because profit is not a good motive for health care, and, secondly, because patients depend upon health professionals for their services. So there is an information problem that one cannot overcome with a market price.

Our vision is for a health system that is collaborative, that is patient centred, and that is geared up through investment in each of capital development, workforce development, and service development, and that is exactly what we have done in the last 8 years. The public know that they can trust Labour with health care—they always have been able to and they always will be able to—because our record is very different from National’s record. Our record is one of consistent investment and consistent improvement.

Sixty percent of health costs are workforce costs. We have invested very strongly in the health workforce. Nurses, doctors, care workers, radiologists, Public Service Association workers—all the way through the sector—almost every workforce claim is now settled. Only one is outstanding, and that is the junior doctors’ claim. We know what that is about, and it is not about the money.

Ladies and gentlemen, the issue for the health service is where we go to from here. The public of New Zealand do not want to know just what we have done; they want to know where we are going. I will not pretend that there are no issues to be confronted, but I will say that Labour has an active and consistent plan for getting there. On the workforce front, we will build a nationwide demand-supply forecasting engine within the Ministry of Health that ensures we can predict well in advance where shortages will come. We will be working with each of the health workforce groups to ensure that we have a combination of short-term, medium-term, and long-term measures—

Jo Goodhew: But you’ve had 9 years.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: —actions, not reports—that will solve not only the workforce problems of today but also those of tomorrow.

A health system also runs on money. There are no two ways about it. One can have all the fine theories one likes, but if one is not funding the system properly, one cannot do anything. Eighty percent of the health budget—and $2 billion of the $3 billion extra that we announced this year—goes into the district health board system to build health services that we can trust. I tell New Zealanders to line up the National Party members, look them in the eye, and ask whether they will keep increasing the health budget as quickly as Labour has increased it. What answer would they get? “I do not know; John Key has not told us yet.” Where is the phone book - sized book of policy, and what does it say? I ask what those members’ policy is and whether they have a bright idea to save themselves. I do not think so; if they did, why would they not tell it to us?

To run a health system we need a workforce and we need money. What is the other thing we need? We need health information. We need information to be able to follow the patient through the system. Labour is investing in information systems in the health-care sector so that we can do things smarter. We have an ageing population. We have to look forward to the future. How do we balance rising public expectations, an ageing population, and limited growth potential in the health budget? We do it by working better, by working smarter, by cutting out waste, and by having clinicians spend more of their time in front of patients, and we enable that by assisting them with good business planning and good information that follows the patients through the system. Those are some of the strategic enablers that we are working on.

Of course, there is work to be done in mental health care, but let us ask who has helped out there. The Government has been investing to fund the mental health blueprint over the last 8 years. It has been consistently funding—

Sue Bradford: Well, why don’t you make sure the money is spent properly?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: My colleague asks whether it is all done yet. No, it is not. But when I walk around places like Waitakere Hospital and I see its brand new mental health ward, I know that consistent investment is being made, year on year. Ms Bradford asked a question about the Capital and Coast District Health Board. I look forward to the day, which I hope is not very far away, when ward 27 will be rebuilt. I know the Buckle family, I know about that tragedy, and I want to see that ward rebuilt. But I respect the governance decision of the district health board, which has to balance that demand against the cardiac waiting list, against obstetrics and gynaecology services, against maternity services, and against getting the new regional hospital up and running. Given the situation that the district health board has found itself in, I think it is building a responsible forward plan, and I know that it wants mental health services to be part of that plan, too. That is very important.

In respect of primary health care, someone said to me that National was copying all of Labour’s policies. What is the difference? The difference is whether one wants Labour or “Labour-lite”. National, for the first time that I can remember, has actually put the words “primary” and “health care” into the same sentence. But all that those members could come up with was so-called integrated health centres—giving the problem to the general practitioners and letting them solve it. National members would not know a strategy if they tripped over one. Although the general practitioner clinics are—[Interruption] If Jo Goodhew had had a good idea, it would have been a good thing to tell it to the general practitioners’ conference, instead of asking them to come up with the solutions. General practitioners are essential, but they are not the only answer; the answer is to ensure that there are good linkages between primary health care delivery, with low-cost access, and population and public health policies that are working. That is why we are investing in Healthy Eating - Healthy Action. That is why we have been reducing the incidence of smoking. That is why we have campaigns against youth alcohol abuse. We are taking down the drivers of ill health, in order to keep people well.

How many New Zealanders now find that cost is a barrier to their accessing health services? According to the latest New Zealand Health Survey, which was released just a few weeks ago, the answer is 1.7 percent. Under that lot opposite, with their market health-care system, it would have been about—goodness me—50 percent, 30 percent, or something like that. The working-class, which National has finally discovered, suffered for a decade under that lot. They suffered in employment, they suffered in welfare, they suffered in health, and they suffered in education. That is why the people of New Zealand sent us into Government, and, whatever they decide at the election, we know that we have been good to our word and good to our programme. We are honestly putting our programme before them, with plenty of detail, and then it is up to them to choose. That is how democracy works. They get to choose, and we respect their decision. But we can contrast that, I say to the ladies and gentlemen who are listening, with the position of the National Party. Either its members have no policy, which is frightening, or they have a phone book - sized book of policy that they are not telling people about.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Madam Chairperson. Kia ora tātou katoa. The first sentence of the report of the Health Committee on the 2008/09 estimates for Vote Health should have made us feel pretty good. According to the Minister, health expenditure has doubled in the past 9 years and New Zealand is beginning to see the results of this investment. Although that is great and I am all for results, the funny thing is that the word “Māori” did not come up in the Health Committee report. Why should Māori be noted distinctively in this report? Because Māori are 18 percent more likely to get cancer and twice as likely to die from it; heart disease kills nearly twice as many Māori but they are only one-third as likely to have angioplasty; avoidable death rates are almost double for Māori than other New Zealanders; and, on average, Māori die 8 to 10 years earlier than non-Māori. Tema Whero—team Labour—is constantly crowing that the Government spends 1 in 5 tax dollars on health. So why is it that Māori obtain fewer referrals, fewer diagnostic tests, and less effective treatment plans?

The Māori health statistics I quoted earlier paint a lousy picture. Where is the plan to address it? That is the question. The report of the Health Committee happily covers district health board deficits, inherited deficits, and operational deficits, but the biggest deficit of all appears to be missing—that is, the systematic deficit that we might call racism. There was perhaps one vague suggestion of this in the transcript of the discussion that took place on 25 June with the Minister and his merry men of the ministry—well, to be fair, there were a couple of women there as well. When responding to questions about the aged residential care industry, the Minister raised the issue that wage rates are so low that turnover is very high, and he concluded that there are “some very valid concerns about working conditions for the workforce, many of whom tend to be Pasifika or Māori, and that is not a situation which is either sustainable or proper.” We will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and presume that it was the working conditions that were neither sustainable nor proper, not the fact that the workforce is dominated by Pasifika and Māori. It is, indeed, neither sustainable nor proper that such gaping inequalities and levels of deprivation and deficit characterise Māori health within our national health system.

What can be done to urgently turn the situation round? Well, first off, we have to get to grips with the reason why the Māori population is overwhelmingly dominant, not only in the low-wage sector of the health workforce but also in every negative statistic across the health system. To help, Dr Mātire Harwood, the director of Māori health for the Medical Research Institute, suggests that the basis for such inequalities is found in the fact that racism is thriving in the health system. She describes three levels of racism that must be confronted. There is the systematic racism that drives inequalities and health determinants, there is the one-on-one racism within the doctor-patient relationship, and finally there is the level of internalised racism that is observed in individuals—in this case, Māori feeling as if we do not deserve to have certain procedures.

Although the media profiled these revelations of racism, which Dr Harwood talked about just this morning on Radio Waatea, the faces of racism are not exactly unknown to the State. I am thinking back to the report some 20 years ago called Pūao-te-ata-tū—Day break, and it is fitting to refer to that ground-breaking report today on the day that Tūhoe have come to Parliament to sign an agreement with the Crown to settle their historic grievances. The group that produced Pūao-te-ata-tū was, of course, chaired by John Te Rangianiwaniwa Rangihau of Ngāi Tūhoe, who made a major contribution to the renaissance of tangata whenua through his work with Government departments, as well as through the wānanga he founded in culture and history for the people of the Tūhoe nation and wider. Pūao-te-ata-tū instructed the Government that the most destructive form of racism is institutional racism—the outcome of monocultural institutions that simply ignore or freeze out the cultures of those who do not belong to the majority. Why is it that 20 years after Parliament received this report we are still witnessing the desperate statistics that constitute the crisis in Māori health care, yet the Health Committee’s report neglects to even speak the name Māori out loud?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): I take just a quick call to say that I was very tempted to take a point of order on the grounds of my taking offence at the use of the word “racism”.

This Government cares very deeply about inequalities and about reducing those inequalities, and is very passionate about the health of Māori people. Investment in Māori health runs to the tune of many billions of dollars under this Government; under the population-based funding formula Māori have significantly higher funding per capita than non-Māori. Some of these improvements are showing up in the fact that, for example, under Labour infant mortality has declined in the total population by 28 percent, yet has declined in the Māori population by 43 percent. Infant mortality for Māori has declined by 43 percent during the life of this Government—that is nearly double the rate for the general population.

Of course there is more to do, but neither the member nor the public should be in any doubt that the Government’s heart is in the space of wanting to help Māori and work with Māori. That is not about paternalism; it is about understanding that the way to reach Māori communities is through iwi, hapū, whānau, and using Māori providers—by Māori, for Māori. That is why in this year’s Budget we have brought in a much larger funding stream for Māori provider development. That funding is on top of the money that is going to Māori health through the district health board system.

So this is just a short call to say that. I do not want to disagree with the member—I think Māori health is essential. Apart from anything else—apart from the ethics and apart from the principles of the Treaty that we adhere to—there is a reality here that by 2020 one-third of all New Zealanders will be Māori or Pasifika in origin, and if we do not have all our people healthy, educated, and productive we will all go down the economic toilet together.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I was not sure whether the Minister took a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): No, he did not. He called to speak, which he is entitled to do. He can take multiple calls.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. With regard to the statement made by the Minister around the word “racism”—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I warn the member to be very careful. That is a debating point. Are you going to enter into debate? If so, you will have to take another call.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: No, I just want to say that that reference was taken out of Dr Harwood’s report; that is all.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I say to the Minister that National has an idea and a policy that we would be really happy for him to copy. It is to free up money so that women can get 12 months’ supply of Herceptin. We would be very happy for the Minister to take that up right now for women; they need it. This is a critically important issue for women and their families.

When I was speaking as a new MP, this issue came to the forefront and began with such hope and such excitement. The results of large international trials were coming through and they were showing that breast cancer recurrence rates—that is, coming back in the bones, the brain, or the liver—were reduced. Let us face it. When cancer comes back in those organs there is a very poor outlook, and it is not surprising that the studies were also showing that there were improved survival rates. Medsafe moved really quickly, and New Zealand was the first country in the world to register 12 months of Herceptin usage. A few months prior to that, in December, the pharmaceutical company had made an application for funding for 12 months’ supply—a decision that Pharmac turned down outright, without consultation. That was the basis of the April decision by the High Court to direct Pharmac to re-consult and to review its decision.

Since 2006 we have had to sit back and watch 33 other countries, one by one, fund 12 months’ supply of Herceptin. I go back to 2006. The issue bounced around the various Pharmac committees, but it was clear over 2006 that Pharmac had become very interested in a very small Finnish trial that gave women only 9 weeks of Herceptin. The results were interesting—yes, they were interesting—but they were not statistically significant. But Pharmac did not seem to be bothered by that at all. In fact, Pharmac seemed to become quite fixated about the idea of 9 weeks of Herceptin, so from July last year women were funded to have 9 weeks’ supply only.

I have not met one cancer specialist yet who is of the opinion that 9 weeks is the standard of care and has the evidence to back it up. Pharmac even made an application to Medsafe for the 9-week regime, but Medsafe turned it down because it lacked the clinical evidence. It also agreed with the cancer specialists, but did not have the clinical evidence backing it at all. So to give the 9-week Herceptin regime some legitimacy, Pharmac decided to give women a clinical trial whereby half the women would get 9 weeks of Herceptin and the other half would get 12 months. It proposed that women would enter the international short-or-long-duration trial. But it does not seem as though that trial is going to get off the ground. It needs 3,000 women. Pharmac started recruiting in January this year, but until May this year—

Jill Pettis: Jackie, say it like it is. National cannot both give tax cuts and supply Herceptin for 9 months.

Dr JACKIE BLUE: I am telling the member how it is. Only 39 women have been recruited internationally, and the preliminary result, presuming the researchers can get 3,000 women—they want 600 from New Zealand—will not be available for another 7 years. This is really important. Women with aggressive HER2 breast cancer do not have 7 years to wait for these results to come through. They do not have the luxury of waiting for 7 years to see whether the 9 weeks is a goer.

None the less, we have the situation that from 1 July women are getting only 9 weeks of treatment. It is an unproven course, there is no trial, and I do not think there will be a trial, in my opinion. Here and now, women with HER2-positive breast cancer are being advised by their specialists that 12 months is the best standard of care internationally. Specialists have told me that they feel they have a moral duty to tell women all the facts. The facts are that 9 weeks is not proven, and 12 months is the better option. We can see what is happening. Women have been told the truth, and the fortunate few who have had the resources, the community support, or the house to mortgage are doing that to raise money desperately. They want to live, and they want to see their children grow up. A fortunate few can do it, but hundreds and hundreds of others do not have the community support, do not have the house to mortgage, and do not have the resources to do it.

This is the most vulnerable time in these women’s lives. Can members imagine being diagnosed with the most aggressive form of breast cancer and being told that 12 months of treatment is the better course, but they can be given only 9 weeks? They want to live—boy, do they want to live. Make no mistake, these women who have a suboptimal treatment of Herceptin face an uncertain future. They do not know whether the 9 weeks will be a goer. There is no proof that it will be. They want the best insurance, and the best insurance is 12 months of Herceptin.

Pharmac reviewed this decision yesterday. We understand that a decision is coming out next week. Pharmac called for submissions and there have been over 300. I read the submission from the New Zealand breast cancer special interest group, which represents the majority of breast cancer specialists in New Zealand, and it overwhelmingly backed a 12 months’ supply of Herceptin.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health): I had not intended to take another call right now, but there were some significant factual inaccuracies in Dr Jackie Blue’s contribution. For the sake of New Zealand women, particularly those who are vulnerable and worried because they have Herceptin-positive breast cancer—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I would trust Jackie Blue any day.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The public would not trust Dr Smith; nor would the courts. I suggest he just cans it.

The facts of the matter are that the FinHer trial is statistically significant for disease reduction. That is not in contention. What is also not in contention is that the mean efficacy of the FinHer trial is very close to—actually slightly better than, I understand—the mean efficacy of a number of the 12-month trials. What this debate boils down to is a technical debate about the additional value of additional sample size. It is an extremely complex debate, and I think that is why it is very good that we have an independent technical body that is advised by clinicians and that goes through a transparent and rigorous process to answer those questions. It is not about politicians debating in the House, and saying “Oh, I think the wind is blowing that way.” It is about serious rigorous analysis, as it should be, because this is about the lives of New Zealand women.

Pharmac is consulting. I understand that Pharmac will be making an announcement next week, and the Government will have something to say at around that time.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You will have to eat some humble pie, because Jackie is right. It will be time for humble pie.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I guess Dr Smith must be a doctor of philosophy, not a doctor of medicine; otherwise he would not be making such a fool of himself.

The facts are that this is a complex debate. The facts are that we have a very robust process under way, and I understand that Pharmac has been working very, very hard on this issue for some considerable time now and has heard all sides of the story. We will all have to wait to see what the announcement will be next week. Thank you.

JILL PETTIS (Labour): One of the things we have to be really careful of in the health sector—and most of us who have worked in the sector are aware of this—is not to exploit the vulnerability of a group of people who think they will get everything they want delivered to them. That member over there, Jackie Blue, who has worked in the health sector and in the area of women’s health, knows that National cannot deliver the tax cuts it is promising to New Zealand and deliver 12 months’ supply of Herceptin. I do not believe that at all—not for one single minute. National is not telling the women of New Zealand the truth, and I think that is despicable. National is telling them tattle and telling them that repeatedly. I despise it when vulnerable women are exploited for political purposes. I say to those 5-minute Tories over there—most of whom were not here in the 1990s, when the health sector was decimated by National—that they should give us a policy. I ask them to give us a policy—just one. There is none—absolutely no response at all.

I can tell the people of New Zealand who care about health issues—and a large number of New Zealanders do care about health issues—that under National the cash registers will be back in the hospitals again. There will be an increase in private insurance take-up—as there was when National was last in power because people were fearful of never getting their treatment. They were fearful they would never see it, so the health insurance take-up rate increased. Health insurance rates will increase again. National members’ mates in the insurance industry know that; they are rubbing their hands with glee, knowing that their profits will increase.

Under Labour health spending has increased to $13 billion, and we are delivering more services than National did. There are lower doctors’ fees—it costs $22 less than it did previously for most families to see a doctor now—and prescriptions are down to $3. We remember what it was like in the 1990s, when people left prescriptions sitting on the chemists’ shelves because they could not afford to pick them up. There have been 5,000 more elective surgery discharges this year alone, and those of us who actually run constituency clinics—those of us in Labour who actually see people—know that. We do not have to write letters to the hospitals, asking when Mr Brown or Mrs Smith is to receive his or her surgery. People know when they will receive their surgery, because the waiting lists are not a sham like they used to be under the former National Government, where people were just dumped on to waiting lists. People now know, once they are on the waiting list, when they will have their operation. National hid people on waiting lists; it gave them the panacea of being on a waiting list, saying “You’re going to get your operation, Mrs Brown.” Then Mrs Brown lived in totally false hope, because she did not understand that she was being manipulated and used by the former National Government.

As for cancer treatment, I remember—I am not a 5-minute MP like those 5-minute Tories over there are—that the former National Prime Minister Jenny Shipley ignored the advice of the cancer health specialists, the non-politicians, about the dramatic capital expenditure that was required on linear accelerators in order to treat the increasing number of people who required treatment against cancer. Jenny Shipley and the National Government of that time, in which Nick Smith was a Cabinet Minister, ignored that advice. When we came into Government, we found that massive capital expenditure on linear accelerators and on getting cancer treatment equipment into our key hospitals was required. The National members did nothing. They played politics. They played Russian roulette with the most vulnerable people in New Zealand.

We know what it is like to have friends and family members die from cancer. We know what that is like, and we know how vulnerable our nieces, nephews, and sister-in-law were when they lost their father and partner at the age of 41. We know what that is like. We do not play politics with vulnerable groups of New Zealanders, and I say the National members should not do that either.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Communications agreed to.

Vote Environment

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): We have an extraordinary situation with the Ministry for the Environment. After 9 years of the current Government, the Minister comes to the Local Government and Environment Committee and tells us that the ministry has a lack of focus, serious problems in meeting its objectives, and major operational difficulties. The question one has to ask is: who has been in charge for 9 years? If we look at each of the key areas where we should be making progress on the environment, we see that the Government is in a very serious pickle. Let us look at an area like climate change. The Government came into office promising to reduce emissions by 20 percent. In fact, we have found out that emissions are actually up by 20 percent on what they were when Labour came into office. If we look at an area like water quality, we see the Ministry for the Environment’s new chief executive describing the Government’s programme of action on water quality as a programme of inaction. Is that not unreal? The incoming chief executive to the Ministry for the Environment says that this much-vaunted programme of action is actually a programme of inaction.

Hon Shane Jones: You’re making it up.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Shane Jones says it is not true. Well, I have to say that Jim Anderton accepts that it is true. The Minister in the chair, Trevor Mallard, nods his head and says it is true. So we see splits in the Labour ranks already. Shane Jones does not even accept the view of the Minister.

Then we come further down the picture to what is a very serious issue, which is that in the report from the select committee the Government says the successful clean-up of Māpua should be noted. Successful? Well, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has said this: double the time, double the money, and breach the resource consents. Here is the Ministry for the Environment, which is in charge of the Resource Management Act, breaching its own consent. It said that it ignored requests from the local council to clean up and to comply with the consent. It refused and ignored the advice of the auditor, and of its own review team. What really concerns me about the situation of Māpua and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report is that the Minister is in denial. The Minister has not accepted the key conclusions, despite the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment doing a 2½-year review of that particular clean-up. What worries me is that if the Minister is in denial, how do we know that the same mistakes will not be repeated all over again when it comes to the Tui mine. I say to the Minister in the chair, Trevor Mallard, that he owes the people of Māpua an apology.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If one person owes an apology, it is that member.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, for the Minister in the chair, that seems to be a standard line. Labour has been the Government for 9 years, but everything is the fault of the National Party! When was the Māpua clean-up done? It was done in the years 2005-06. How is it possible for anybody other than this Government to have responsibility? The problem with this Government is that it is always everybody else’s fault, even though the decision to have the resource consent held by the Ministry for the Environment was a decision of the Minister.

I say to the Minister in the chair that he owes an apology to the people of Māpua for the botched clean-up. The Minister owes an explanation as to why the advice of the local council, the local authority, was ignored when it advised that the consent conditions should be complied with. They need to provide an explanation as to why more than 5 tonnes of copper sulphate, without a consent, was used in the clean-up process. An explanation needs to be provided to the local residents who wrote to the Minister and said they were getting sick. There were doctors’ reports of people getting sick, and the ministry ignored them. I say that Māpua is another sad chapter in the environmental failure record of this Government.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): If there is one person who should be apologising for the Māpua clean-up, it is the former member for Tasman, Nick Smith. He is the person who put inordinate pressure on the local council to get it moving. He is the person who put inordinate pressure on it to set up a scheme with conditions.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister is never responsible. Who’s the Minister?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There was no Minister responsible for the Tasman District Council making its application for a resource consent. But there was a lot of pressure from the local member, Nick Smith, for that to happen, and he should stand up—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where’s that in the report?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is not in the report; it is a matter of fact. When it became clear that the council could not meet the conditions, and that the whole scheme that the member had helped to design was falling apart, that member said: “Oh, we can’t do it this way. Please take it over, Ministry for the Environment.” He ran crying to the Ministry for the Environment, and asked it to take over the existing consent that he had pressured the Tasman District Council into obtaining.

Sue Moroney: He stuffed up.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, “stuffed up” is a very nice expression for it. I would say it was the height of a word beginning with “h”. Hearing him complain about it now—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell the truth for a change.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I object to that. The member made an unparliamentary remark, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Dr Smith, would you please withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The words I said to the Minister were “Tell the truth for a change.”, because everything he has said to date is a fabrication and is untrue.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I think that is playing with words, although that may well be what you said. I object to the words, too, so would you withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If anyone is responsible for people in Māpua being sick, it is that member, Nick Smith. It does not matter how much he denies it, it does not matter how often he denies going to the then Minister for the Environment and saying that the Government should not give all the money that it was proposing to give for the clean-up, and that it should give only half of it; that is what Nick Smith said.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh, he says that is not true. That is now on the record, and it will be the subject of a breach of privilege. That member has clearly misled the House in an interjection, because we have already had a statement in this House from a very honourable member that that was the case. Nick Smith approached Marian Hobbs, asked her to halve the amount that the taxpayer was putting in, and suggested that the district council should be required to put in the balance. That is what Nick Smith did. I think he might have spent far too much time too close to that clean-up. There is certainly some sign of an effect on his memory of the whole sad procedure. When this story is fully told, it will be another nail in the coffin of Nick Smith. Maryan Street will be cleaning him up.

NICKY WAGNER (National): New Zealanders identify very closely with the natural environment. They want to live in a country that is truly clean and green, and they look to the Government to deliver on the big environmental issues of the day. But this Government has failed, and it has failed in many ways. Yes, the Government talks of sustainability, and, yes, it pays lip-service to looking after the environment, but it simply does not deliver. The Ministry for the Environment struggled to deliver last year. For months it was distracted from its core business, and it showed. As Dr Nick Smith has already commented, the Minister himself acknowledged that the ministry did not deliver on its key objectives. The Minister blamed the small size of the ministry, but it would seem to me and most New Zealanders that a ministry of 262 employees, with a budget of $64 million—going up to $84 million in 2008-09—should be able to make some progress on our pressing environmental issues. These environmental issues are important and pressing, such as the management of fresh water, environmental sustainability, and climate change.

The Local Government and Environment Committee at estimates time was particularly concerned about the delays in the management of fresh water. We are still, very impatiently, awaiting a national environment standard for the measurement of water takes, and a national environment standard on ecological flows and water levels. They are well overdue. However, the long-awaited national policy statement for fresh water management was released last week, and that was a real disappointment. The draft national policy statement was, quite rightly, slated by several non-governmental organisations, including Fish and Game New Zealand, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and the Water Rights Trust from Canterbury. The final statement was no better. It is vague, it is wishy-washy, and any improvements to water quality will be a long way away and extremely expensive. In fact, believe this or not, at estimates time the Minister confessed that improvements in water quality may not be seen for up to 50 years—50 years! Worse than that, in some areas it is likely to get worse before it gets better. That is not what the people of New Zealand expect from this Government.

Time and time again, constituents tell me that water quality is the most important and pressing environmental issue for them. I come from Canterbury, and the region has real issues with water quality and water quantity. It has been identified that the “first in, first served” method of water allocation under the Resource Management Act has proved an insurmountable barrier to better water management. Therefore, looking for alternatives to the “first in, first served” method is important and extremely urgent. So it is a real disaster that the Cabinet paper concerning the water plan of action, due in March 2007—I shall say that again: due in March 2007—is still missing in action. It is no wonder that the Minister does not expect any improvement in water quality for up to 50 years.

Again in Canterbury, but also throughout the country, the public is concerned about the effect of intensive farming, particularly dairying, on water quality. One would expect the ministry to be very focused on this important issue, but, no, the baseline report on the environmental outcomes of dairying and the Clean Stream Accord, which was due to be completed in 2007—I shall say that again: it was due to be completed in 2007—is still not available.

It is no wonder that the Minister does not expect any improvements in water quality for up to 50 years. We had hoped that in 2003 when the Sustainable Development Programme of Action was launched, with much fanfare, we would get some real action and some subsequent improvements in the environment.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): In case the member Nicky Wagner had not noticed—and I know that there was not a lot of publicity about it, although a former Minister for the Environment, Simon Upton, seemed to notice it—the draft national policy statement was released last week, or possibly even the week before. I know that it is a bit much to expect that member to stay up to date, but to criticise people for not releasing something when it was released so recently is really—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, the issue was the Cabinet paper on allocation.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Dear, oh dear!

I want to refer to the Canterbury problem, because there is certainly a problem with the allocation of water in Canterbury. The core of the problem is that the Canterbury Regional Council does not have an operating plan—unlike, I think, every other regional council in the country. Some of them are up to their second iteration; they are on a renewal, 10 years on. Unfortunately, because of a lack of competence on the part of past district councillors in the Canterbury region, there is not a proper operating plan. There is a very real problem. It can certainly be argued that there already has been an over-allocation of water in Canterbury. That is bad for the economy, and there are dangers to the environment—certainly, in terms of recreational aspects. There are lots of problems as a result of that.

I find it slightly interesting that the member is criticising the problems with water in Canterbury and blaming them on the Government, when it is my understanding that that member was a member of the council that did not do the work that it was meant to do.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: She was a very good member.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: She was a very good member of a group that was not competent and did not do the job in the way that other—

Nicky Wagner: 50 years!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member cannot say 9 years to me. That member—

Nicky Wagner: Nothing is ever his fault!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Actually, I refuse to take responsibility for the Canterbury Regional Council not putting a plan in action. Maybe I should sack its members. I have the right to sack them for not doing it. But the trouble is that I would be sacking the people who are trying to fix it up now, whereas it was other people who should have done the job and did not do so. One of those people is sitting opposite me in the House, and she had the cheek and the gall to raise the issue now. I do not know whether she has been spending too much time with Nick Smith, sharing the same air as him—I do not know what the problem is—but I regret the fact that the National Party gives such a low priority to environmental matters that it appoints those two people to do the job.

MOANA MACKEY (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): I am happy to stand in this debate on Vote Environment. I thank the Minister for the Environment for the very good session that we had at select committee. It is true that the Ministry for the Environment has come under increasing pressure with its workload, in particular because of the importance that this Government has placed on environmental issues. I thank the Minister for the very frank and honest discussion we had at select committee. I noted with amusement the comments from Dr Nick Smith that the Minister never takes responsibility for anything; I think that at select committee the Minister very much took responsibility for some of the things that had not gone right in the past in the ministry, and said he was prepared to work on fixing those and making them better. So I do not think at all that that is a fair reflection, and I look forward to the work being done in the Ministry for the Environment in the future to make sure it can deliver in this increasingly important area of Government policy.

I have to say it is a bit rich being lectured by the National Party on environmental issues—a bit rich. If National will slash public servants across the board in all the ministries, then I ask Dr Nick Smith: who will be doing this work in the Ministry for the Environment? Oh, I am sorry; Judith Collins is right—National flip-flopped on that. It will not slash them any more; it will have a sinking lid—a sinking lid of public servants in ministries, regardless of what is needed. We have yet to be told a single job title that is included in this area—a single person who will be slashed. Somehow they are basing all their spending promises for the election on public servants who may or may not be out there, and now we have the sinking-lid policy. Well, that is very interesting, given that a number of the issues are due to the overextension of the Ministry, and given that environmental issues in this country will only get greater and have a greater need for people working on them.

I say to the National Party speakers, who tried to somehow suggest that a National Government would be better in the area of environment than a Labour Government, that theirs is the party whose leader did not believe in climate change, and theirs is the party that has opposed every single piece of meaningful environmental legislation that has come through the House. My colleague Sue Moroney talked about the drinking-water standards bill. Apparently we have to be lectured by Nicky Wagner about the quality of water, yet they voted against that bill. They are voting against the emissions trading scheme, and they are voting against the Biofuel Bill—they find some reason to vote against every single piece of meaningful environmental policy that comes into this House.

To stand up in this Chamber and somehow suggest that a National Government would be better for the environment is absolutely laughable. I want to know how good it will be for the environment to have a Government like National, which says it will gut the Resource Management Act. Judith Collins says yes—they will gut the Resource Management Act, and somehow they will protect our natural resources and our natural environment! Well, that just shows the double-speak we are hearing from that party over there. If members talk to anyone who has had environmental concerns, where industry has tried to run roughshod over the rights of individual people, or to people who are concerned about their local environment, they will see that the recourse they have is the Resource Management Act. The National Party should tell us exactly how much it will rip the guts out of that important environmental legislation. I think many of the National Ministers of the past who put that legislation into place and thought it was good legislation would be very unhappy at the prospect of it having its guts ripped out. I know there are many people in the community—

Judith Collins: Why do you have to be so crude?

MOANA MACKEY: Well, I say to Judith Collins that that is what her party has said. That is what National has said. This is par for the course for the National Party—when we tell the truth and talk about policy, they claim we are being rude and personal. I am not. The National Party has said that it will tear the guts out of the Resource Management Act. That is what it says when it is in front of its industry and farmer groups that want them to do it; when it gets in front of environmental groups that might not like it, it probably softens the language a little bit. Crosby/Textor has obviously told them to do that, to tailor their message to their group so it will get through a bit more and they will get everyone’s votes. I am sure that that is what they have been told.

It is astonishing. We can even look at the case of Māpua, where National members have voted against every single appropriation for the remediation of contaminated sites that has come before this Parliament. Then they get up in this House and criticise the work that this Government has been doing cleaning up the remediated sites. This is an area I used to work in. I was a team leader in a persistence organic pollutant lab. I worked on the remediation of Homebush Bay in Sydney so I know that this is not easy. I think sometimes people need to appreciate that the remediation is not nice and easy, and that there are nasty chemicals involved. Everyone knows that, but one makes a call that environmentally it may be better to do that than to have these awful chemicals lying in the ground and leaching into our water tables—that is a call one makes. But the point is that for National members to get up in this House and criticise this Government when they come from such a flimsy base as the National Party is absolutely—absolutely—abhorrent.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Labour

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): One of the extraordinary features that we have seen over the last few weeks is the panic that has beset the union movement and the Labour Party. Certainly, the Minister of Labour speaks from the unions’ play card whenever he speaks. Frankly, I am quite—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The suggestion that outside people dictate our actions, in the way that the member has just suggested, has long been ruled out of order. I think anyone who knows my relationship with the union movement knows that it is absolutely untrue.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That was the suggestion that the speaker was implying. Would you withdraw it, please.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I withdraw. I can only say that there was a remarkable similarity between the press release sent out by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and the words used by the Minister. I guess readers will draw their own conclusions from that.

I have to say that when the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill was introduced, Mr Little debated the issue quite responsibly, and was quite considered and deliberate. But now that we are much closer to an election, and his union has been registered as supporting Labour—that is why it has been registered; for being an affiliate of the Labour Party—panic has set in. Extravagant language is being used by him.

But I want to remind members what this is all about. National’s proposal was actually about boosting employment opportunities. The one thing that small-business people want—and this is what their working party has been saying to the Government—is more flexibility so that they can employ more people. What does the Government say? It says that it could not possibly do that. Do members know the ridiculous position that the Government has got itself into? It has got itself into the position of saying it wants to be the only OECD country that does not have any form of probation period. Members of the Government scream out from the top of their lungs that a probation period would be like having the ability to fire at will. Does the Minister of Labour seriously believe that the Scandinavian countries—so beloved by this Government—would actually have such a policy? No, they do not.

I suggest to the Minister that he looks at the bill and, indeed, the amendments in the bill as it was reported back in 2006. We understand that we have to be fair to people. We proposed that if there were a breakdown in the relationship in those 90 days, there would be mediation. The cant and the untruths being spoken by various people in relation to sexual harassment and so forth are simply completely false. No one would suggest taking away people’s procedural rights, under either the Human Rights Act or, indeed, employment legislation, on such fundamental human rights.

We know that Labour is desperate when it throws up spurious arguments that suggest that National has some terrible agenda, even though the Norwegians, the Swedes, the Danes, and, indeed, the Finns find our proposal perfectly reasonable. Those social democrat countries, which are beloved of Labour, find our approach perfectly reasonable. I say to the Government that it should take a lesson from the countries that it is always holding up in this House, and elsewhere in the nation, as an example and adopt best practice, because those countries have faster growth rates and higher levels of prosperity and skill than New Zealand does. One of the ways they do that is through more flexible and appropriate labour law.

I guess the Government is a little bit like the mother looking at her young son marching with others in the army, and saying: “You know, Johnny is the only one in step.” Is that not exactly the case with this Government? We are apparently the only country amongst the 30 members of the OECD that has got it right. How can the Minister seriously suggest that to the public of New Zealand? How can he seriously expect New Zealanders to take that as a legitimate proposition?

Editorials in the newspapers view our policy as a very sensible and reasonable measure. We chose 90 days precisely because it was a reasonable measure. I say to New Zealanders that National’s employment relations policy is reasonable and considered. National understands that the majority of people do not want to return to the Employment Contracts Act. We understand that the way to deal with the next 10 years is not to look back 20 years, but to look forward and to follow best practice. We understand that some rebalancing was done with the Employment Relations Act. We understand that that took place in the year 2000. The Employment Relations Act has been reasonably effective. We do not want to throw out all of that work. However, we do want to improve it. Is Labour seriously suggesting to the nation that its employment law is as good as it gets, and that we are the only country amongst the 30 advanced economies that should not legislate for a reasonable probation period? And I have to say that a probation period of 90 days is at the shorter end of the scale.

I say to the Minister of Labour and to Andrew Little that they should calm down. I know that an election is only a few weeks away, and that they are getting desperate—hence the hyperventilating in the press releases; hence the hyperventilating by the Minister when he is on his feet in this Chamber—but they should take a step backwards, because the scaremongering and hysterical language are seen for what they are, which are indicators of a Government in panic. I guess when one is 20 points behind in the polls one might panic. But if the Government wanted to do itself a favour, it would show a certain amount of coolness under fire—something that it is unable to do. Panic is the byword, and the public will see through that.

The public will see that National’s policy is balanced, it is reasonable, and it takes a fair approach to the interests of employers and the interests of employees. It builds on the better features of the Employment Relations Act. I concede that some features of the Employment Relations Act are acceptable. That is why we are not proposing a repeal. We are not suggesting that we should go back 20 years for solutions. That is the Labour way. Labour always looks back to the past. It thinks it can win the election by saying that the public of New Zealand need to think about what things were like 18 years ago—that that is the future of New Zealand. Well, the public are not fools. They know that our policies are balanced and reasonable. One has only to look across the range of our policies to see that we understand what New Zealanders have voted for over the past 9 years, what they have embraced, and what we need to go forward. We understand that things are progressive. [Interruption] I say to the member who is trying to interject, Mr Burton—who I guess will have some time next year to contemplate his retirement—that New Zealanders can recognise balanced, reasonable policies that fit within the broad spectrum of the OECD.

When a country is at 22 in the list of OECD countries it has to do some things to get itself up the scale—things that make employment opportunities more efficient and more effective. Our policies will do precisely that. National members are looking forward to the contest. It might be one that is causing a certain amount of angst amongst Labour and its allies in the unions, like the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, at this time, but the truth is that I trust New Zealanders to take a reasonable and considered approach to our policies, and to look forward to the next 10 years. People know that we have to do better than sit at No. 22 in the OECD, and that the only way we can improve vis-à-vis Australia is to have a balanced approach to employment relations policy, and, indeed, to a whole range of policies. Unlike the Government, we are looking forward to the next 10 years for this nation.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): We now know the words that Crosby/Textor has given to the National Party to use for its industrial relations policy—“fair and reasonable”. How many times did Dr Mapp feel forced to say those words in that 5-minute speech—that tirade about how terrible things are in industrial relations here in New Zealand. Well, look—all New Zealanders know, I tell Dr Mapp, that peace has broken out in industrial relations in New Zealand under Labour. Not only have we had the most peaceful workplaces we have had for a long time in this country under Labour, and the fairest workplaces we have had for a long time, but we have also managed to bring the unemployment rate down to the second lowest in the OECD. When the member talks about Labour and industrial relations, he is taking his words from Crosby/Textor and talking about “fair and reasonable” as often as he can. But how fair and reasonable can it be to take away workers’ rights in the most vulnerable time of their employment, which is the first 90 days of employment?

Oh, but National will do that only for small businesses. Well, I do not know whether National members have spoken lately to any people who operate small businesses around the country, but they must be completely out of touch, because, when I talk to those people, can members guess what they say their No. 1 problem is? Their No. 1 problem is getting skilled staff to apply for their jobs. I ask Dr Mapp whether that is right. Their No. 1 problem is getting skilled staff for their jobs. But under National’s policy—guess what? Can members guess what will happen under National’s policy? People who are skilled will determine not to apply for jobs with small employers, because they will know that under National they will lose all their employment rights for the first 90 days. That is National’s big plan to help out small businesses, but it will take those businesses further backwards. How out of touch is that? It is not only out of touch with what small businesses need but also out of touch with New Zealanders and their understanding of fairness and reasonableness. They know that a business having the right to sack workers for no reason at all—for any reason, or for no reason at all—during the first 90 days, is not the New Zealand way, I tell Dr Mapp. It is not fair, it is not reasonable, and New Zealanders do not want that type of unfairness in their workplace.

What New Zealand workplaces have thrived on is the types of fair policies that have been brought in under this Labour Government, the ones that we are continuing to bring in, and the ones we are still looking for, such as making sure that workers actually get their legal entitlement to have meal breaks and rest periods, and that they are also able to breast-feed in the workplace. These are the sorts of progressive polices that workers and employers are looking for in their workplaces—not those old-style, “take away workers’ rights” policies that have always been the National Party’s view of how productivity is driven up. Last time National was in power, it thought the way to increase productivity was to drive up unemployment. That was its plan for increasing productivity, and it put a wage freeze on in this country. That is in fact what happened during the 1990s. I used to represent low-paid workers whose wages went down over the course of the 1990s, because the National Government took their penal rates away. The penal rates of low-paid women workers were taken away by National.

Those are just the tired, old, worn-out policies that that party is bringing back. National will take away workers’ rights and reduce their incomes, all in the name, perhaps, of pretending to increase productivity. Well, we have been there before, we know what it looks like, and New Zealand workers and workplaces do not want it. And small businesses do not want to get into a position where no one will apply for their jobs because those workers are so concerned about being sacked for no reason at all in the first 90 days.

A party vote was called for on the question that Vote Labour be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland.

Abstentions 9

Green Party 5; Māori Party 4.

SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In relation to the vote that was just recorded for Gordon Copeland, I tell the Committee that Labour holds the proxy vote for Mr Copeland on this legislation.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour): This is a very serious matter, because on a confidence vote if a vote has been cast directly against the wish of the member by a member who has no right to cast it, I think it could well be a matter of privilege. I think we need a very quick apology in order for that not to occur.

TIM GROSER (National): I withdraw the vote recorded for Gordon Copeland, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you, Mr Groser. Is someone going to speak for Gordon Copeland?

SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour): One vote in favour.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): One vote in favour.

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

Ayes 61

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

Noes 48

New Zealand National 48.

Abstentions 9

Green Party 5; Māori Party 4.

Vote agreed to.

Vote State-Owned Enterprises agreed to.

Vote Community and Voluntary Sector

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): This year we have seen some very important changes for the community and voluntary sector. It is interesting, and should be noted, that the drivers for much of that change have been the fulfilment of the 2005 supply and confidence agreement the Labour-led Government has with United Future. From 1 April this year all donations to registered charities from individuals are able to have a 33.3 percent tax refund, with no cap on giving. The only limit on companies is a company’s own net income. Unlisted companies can now participate and Māori authorities can now participate. That single policy gained by United Future has the potential to deliver a level of support and cohesion in New Zealand communities that is unprecedented.

Civil society is not solely reliant for its health on Government action. It is also sustained by strong families and connected communities. The community and voluntary sector provides us with all the chances to belong to, to contribute to, and, where necessary, to be the recipients of caring community networks. We have not finished just with that, and in this recent Budget our party also continued our support for the charitable sector—the community and voluntary sector—by introducing some mechanisms to make payroll giving a possibility, so that people who give on a regular basis to a registered charity can enjoy receiving the rebate in their pay packet that week, rather than having to accumulate details of their donations and put those in with their tax return at the end of the year. That is the first bit of good news that has been happening for that sector, and the response and feedback that we have had has been substantial.

The second reason the sector has much to celebrate is that the new Community Partnership Fund, over 4 years, has been established. The Government is prepared to invest in strengthening the operations of community and voluntary organisations around their information and communications technology capability, and that is a very good thing. But even more substantial is the $446.5 million announced by the Prime Minister to fully fund contracted essential services delivered by New Zealand community organisations for vulnerable families, children, and young people. That includes $133.1 million of reprioritised spending, and those organisations will also receive regular funding increases to reflect changes in cost and changes in demand. Although I do not want to throw any dampener on the great gain that that has been for the voluntary sector, it is unclear yet what will happen to the new projects that typically arise within a community in response to needs as they arise from time to time.

What I celebrate, and United Future celebrates, about the new investment in the community and voluntary sector is the greater emphasis that is being placed on fostering more collaboration within local communities, so that the safety nets that should characterise our communities do not have holes in them. If anybody had asked me 8 years ago about contestable funding I would have been a great supporter of it for this sector, but now I am not a supporter of it. I have witnessed firsthand the devastation that was caused as we pitted service against service and provider against provider. The discord that that brought into local communities, as groups competed with each other for the few precious Government dollars, is still yet to be repaired, I believe. Therefore the need for collaboration in communities and the emphasis on that in the funding are very important. I will be interested to see how the Government implements that, because it is not an easy task. The requirement for agencies to work collaboratively together now, when in the last 5 or 6 years up till now they have actually competed against one another—often very aggressively—for the precious dollars that were available is a tall order.

PAULA BENNETT (National): I personally think this sector is the most vital third sector in New Zealand, when we look at what it does with the resources that it gets. It works throughout New Zealand and across the board in such a range of services, from the volunteers at surf lifesaving clubs and in sports and clubs with our young children, to the volunteers who work in essential social services. They do it, without a doubt, better than the Government can, every time. When we are in our communities and look around, we see people who are addressing the needs and the wants of their community in a way that no Government can and no Government should, in my view. The Government has a role to play in leadership, direction, and in some of the resourcing. It is quite interesting, because in looking at these estimates, and from what I hear from the sector, they were so grateful to John Key when he raised, in January last year, the role of the not-for-profit sector and what a vital role it will play in New Zealand.

They needed to have a wake-up call. Someone needed to deliver it. They needed to hear what the issues were, and all of a sudden we have had John Key, in what was possibly his most important speech—his first speech as leader of the National Party—saying he would stand up and put a stake in the ground. He said we could not deliver what we needed to deliver for New Zealanders without the not-for-profit sector. We cannot do it without that voluntary and community sector; it is absolutely vital and critical to this. We need to bring in a level of trust and a full funding model, and we need to address a lot of the discrepancies. I would like to take my hat off to United Future, which has stepped up and said we need to fix some of the payment and the tax stuff, and we are delighted to see our policy coming through like that.

We are equally delighted to see full funding being part of the language, finally. It has taken a while to get there. It was certainly John Key who turned round and said in January last year that it was a key focus and that that squabbling should not be happening. The example we often use is, if we pitch for a service and it is something that has to happen, then why would we say that 60 percent or 80 percent of the funding for it to happen is enough? It simply is not.

We hear it everywhere we go. In my role, as the spokesperson on community affairs and the voluntary sector—which I love; I just think I am the luckiest member of Parliament because I have that role—I get to go out there and talk to people in these services. I constantly hear from people out at the coalface and who are doing some pretty gut-wrenching jobs, to be honest. They are certainly often working with people around abuse stuff. They do some counselling and it is pretty gut-wrenching. We hear about the contracts they have, and they say there is no way it is anywhere near covering the actual cost, in some cases, to provide counselling and trauma services to young children.

So they often fudge those sorts of numbers. We all hear those stories, and I know that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, would not be surprised to hear these stories, as well. People in these services say their contract is to see 15 children for X number of hours, and because they are not for profit and they care—which is the main reason they are doing it—they then turn round and see, say, 25 children during a lot more hours that do not fit into that funding, but their commitment to deliver that counselling is to the community, so they do it.

We have a responsibility to step up and acknowledge that, and to make sure that the funding, the support, and the resources are there. We do not do it for either of the other two sectors we have in society. In fact, what we do with the Government sector is to put more money into it. We put more and more people in, and we grow the bureaucracy. We grow the bureaucracy to such an extent that it is stifling and crippling the not-for-profit sector, which is what it is doing at the moment. I had someone from a not-for-profit group talk to me just on Friday, who spends half the time introducing a bureaucrat from one department to a bureaucrat from another department, just so that the two bureaucrats will talk in order to make the funding and resourcing of that not-for-profit group easier. For example, when volunteers are talking about a health contract with people from the mental health services, they will also talk to other people about housing issues, which steps into the area of the Housing New Zealand Corporation. They do not see people from those agencies talking together, so they step in.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I am delighted to have the opportunity to take a call on the community and voluntary sector part of this debate, because it is an opportunity to pay tribute to the 75 percent of New Zealanders who say that they volunteer in our communities in one way or another. There are 97,000 community organisations operating in New Zealand. If it were an Olympics, we would win gold medals for setting up and operating community organisations—97,000 of those organisations, run entirely by volunteers. That is a huge commitment from New Zealand citizens to supporting their community in one way or another, and I do not think it is something this Committee should take for granted. I think it is something we should respect and value, and we should ensure that our central government policies work alongside those people in our community who give so much of their time, their energy, and, often, their money—either through lost opportunity or through direct giving. This debate is a very good opportunity to pay that respect.

At the end of 1999, when Labour was elected to lead the Government, we made a clear, conscious decision to try to rebuild the relationship that central government had had with the community and voluntary sector. We set up a representative group—a working group of people throughout the country—to tell us how we could rebuild that relationship. The Pathways to Partnership report that came back indicated to us that the sector was burnt out, frustrated, and bordering on angry. There was a high level of mistrust between the community and voluntary sector and central government, because the late 1980s and the entire 1990s had been fuelled by an individualised, personal success model rather than by collaborative, community-driven, respectful relationships. The competitive tendering that Judy Turner from United Future mentioned was a critical part of that frustration and mistrust. It pitted one organisation against another. I am very pleased to have seen the developments that were driven by that working party’s report to the Government; it has led us to many changes.

We established the Office of the Community and Voluntary Sector so that we had ongoing engagement between central government and the sector that would drive changes not just in our relationship but also in the behaviour of all Government departments. That is underpinned by a public document called the Statement of Government Intentions for an Improved Community-Government Relationship, which drives the relationship between the work of central government and that of the community and voluntary sector. We are carrying on that work now. In fact, the Association of Non-Governmental Organisations of Aotearoa has recently been commissioned to review the implementation of the recommendations in the Statement of Government Intentions for an Improved Community-Government Relationship, so that we can be confident that it is delivering in the way that was originally intended.

Judy Turner also mentioned some of the legislative changes that have come about as a result of United Future’s agreement with the Labour-Progressive Government. The change to the tax incentives for donations is a recent one, and next year we will see the introduction of payroll giving, which will not just see more direct support being given to those organisations through financial contributions, but also help to generate better respect from us as individuals for the people who do that community work so well up and down the country in a variety of ways.

Judy Turner also mentioned the Pathways to Partnership investment in essential social services. The points she made are extremely relevant and valid, in that the collaboration and the rebuilding of capacity within the social services sector will really change the nature of the operations. I can say that, from my many discussions with social service providers throughout the country, they are more than up to having that debate and to changing the way that they operate. They were driven in the 1990s to change the basic value and principle system of their organisations to try to meet a contracted need, when actually what all of them are set up to do, and what drives them to operate, is to provide what the community needs—not what a contract might deliver.

I conclude this contribution by commenting on National’s policy, because Paula Bennett continues to misrepresent it to the House. I think she does her leader a disservice when she misrepresents what he actually said. There has never been a commitment from National, or from John Key, to full funding of essential social services. What John Key actually said in his Plunket speech, which I have tabled in Parliament, is that National would encourage community organisations that put in a bid in a competitive tender round to put in that bid at a fully funded level. That not only demonstrates the completely different perspectives within the National Party on its policy—Paula Bennett saying National supports full funding, and John Key saying it would encourage bids made as part of a competitive tendering round to be on a fully funded basis—but also demonstrates that he knows nothing about the community and voluntary sector or social service providers, let alone how an organisation might win a bid in a competitive tendering round. Every single provider knows that it would not win a contract subject to a straight competitive tender if it put in a fully funded bid without knowing what the other organisations were likely to do. We know that, with competitive tendering, organisations underbid, and that would end up driving the quality of services down to the level they got to in the 1990s.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.