Thursday, 23 March 2006

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2), the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3), the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill, the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, and the first readings of the Meat Board Amendment Bill and the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.

Points of Order

Written Questions—Requirements

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I consider it to be a serious point of order. I refer the House to Speaker’s ruling 154/1, which is a recent ruling from Speaker Hunt: “Ministers have a responsibility to the House, and through the House to the country, to account for the public offices they hold. Question time is an important element of this accountability. Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” That is the entire ruling. I want to concentrate on the fact that Ministers should endeavour to give “informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” The Speaker’s ruling, of course, covers written questions, and that is where my difficulty lies with the Government.

I put a question to the Prime Minister that asked her the details of any road accidents that she had been involved in with her motorcade. I received her answer and the total answer is this: “On 9 December 2005 a VIP car transporting me was hit from behind in Ponsonby Road.”

Hon Annette King: He asked the question.

RODNEY HIDE: The Minister of Police likes to chip in, but I ask her to just let me—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please come to the point of order.

RODNEY HIDE: It is a bit hard to concentrate when people from the cross benches are chipping in.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree, I say to the member that he is entitled to put forward his point of order, but also that the Standing Orders ask that points of order be put concisely and tersely. So I ask the member to do that, please. I ask other members to please be quiet while he is doing so.

RODNEY HIDE: The written reply by the Prime Minister stated: “On 9 December 2005 a VIP car transporting me was hit from behind in Ponsonby Road.” That was the total reply, but my question asked what the details were. In actual fact, what transpired was that the car the Prime Minister was in was hit by her police escort from behind—it was not just any old car that hit her. She failed to report that in her answer to the question. The second thing is that she failed to mention a detail that is quite important, which is that her car was catapulted, as a result of the rear end impact, into another car. It was a three car pile-up that was caused by her own motorcade.

My issue is that when I go to Speaker’s ruling 154/1 there is no way that it can be construed that the Prime Minister has endeavoured to give an informative reply to the question that was asked. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to help this House to uphold that Speaker’s ruling.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): That was about as gross a misuse of the Standing Order procedure as I have seen in many a long time. First of all, the supposed facts mentioned by the member are debatable but, more important, the member has question of the day No. 7, which raises precisely this matter. Then to pretend, with an innocent look on his face, while glancing by sheer chance at the TV cameras the entire time, that he is raising a serious point of order around the original written answer is to beggar belief, in terms of the members of this House.

Rodney Hide: Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. The member had a considerable amount of time in which to make his point of order. There has been a response to it. I would refer the member, though, to Speaker’s ruling 159/5(2). If a member is dissatisfied with a written reply then that member should raise that initially with the Minister’s office. Once that has happened, then the Speaker will intervene, but not until it has been raised.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: It is a new point of order, I hope.

GERRY BROWNLEE: It is, but it is along the same lines, and it is something we were going to bring up with you at some point, Madam Speaker. It is appropriate to do so now. National has been concerned for a time about the way in which some written questions are answered, and I can think of one Minister, whom I will not name, who has actually just written back and said: “It would take too long to answer this, so we’re not going to.” I wonder, Madam Speaker, whether you might reflect on how many times you, in your relatively short time as Speaker, have dealt with issues in the House in relation to questions for written answer. It seems to me that it would be quite frequently. Perhaps, therefore, there is a need to remind Government Ministers of their obligations in that regard.

Madam SPEAKER: I remind the member that, as I ruled before, if members have raised the matter first with the Minister’s office, and second with the Speaker, then the Speaker will deal with it.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: Mr Hide, I have ruled on that matter. If it is a new point of order—and I mean a new point—

RODNEY HIDE: Sure. It is actually to you, Madam Speaker, that we look to uphold the rules of this Parliament. Before I raise my new point of order, I will respond to Dr Cullen’s point. The fact that I have an oral question down to the Prime Minister in no way addresses the issue for this House that I was raising with you, Madam Speaker, which is about the Standing Orders. My point of order was entirely in order. I pointed to the Speaker’s ruling, and I raised it.

I want now to raise with you an issue under Standing Order 373/4. It beggars belief how many times I have raised issues with Ministers, with the Prime Minister, and, indeed, with the Speaker. But the requirement in that Standing Order is that replies be given in 6 working days. The question I put to the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister, for goodness’ sake—was on the first day back in this House, on 14 February. The reply to that question was due on 22 February. I received the answer on 21 March—fully 4 weeks late. I ask you, Madam Speaker, through your office, to send a message to the Prime Minister and other Ministers that Standing Orders do apply to them, and that answering questions informatively is important but, more particularly, so is complying with the Standing Orders. How can it be that the Prime Minister takes 5 weeks to answer a question that should be answered in 6 days?

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I will look into it.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Rates—Rebate Scheme Changes

1. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Local Government: What steps has the Government taken to improve the rates rebate scheme for those on low incomes?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government): From 1 July, I am pleased to tell the House, there will be a significant increase in the number of Kiwis who will be eligible for a rebate under the rates rebate scheme. That is because the income threshold under which people will become eligible for a full rebate will increase from $7,400 to $20,000. In addition, the maximum rebate under the scheme will increase from $200 to $500, meaning there will be more money in the pockets of those who receive a rebate.

Steve Chadwick: How many more people will be eligible to receive the rates rebate as a result of the rates rebate scheme changes that come into effect on 1 July?

Hon MARK BURTON: The changes will mean many more New Zealanders, particularly older people and others on lower fixed incomes, will be eligible for a rates rebate. Whereas in the 2004-05 rating year fewer than 4,000 people actually received a rebate, now up to 300,000 New Zealanders will be eligible for a rates rebate under the new scheme.

Economic Development, Associate Minister—Policy Development

2. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Associate Minister for Economic Development: What part has he played in general policy development as an Associate Minister for Economic Development since taking up the role?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Associate Minister for Economic Development): I mua i taku whakaututanga i te pātai, kei te mihi atu ki te hoa o te kaipātai ki a Nick Smith: “Haere mai, piki mai, hoki mai.”

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

[Before I reply to the question, I extend greetings of welcome to Nick Smith, colleague of the member who asked the question: “Welcome, welcome, welcome back”.]

I have been involved in the development of industry and regional development—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can that be an answer? I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. As I understand what is happening, that was a preliminary comment before the question is being answered. Is that right?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: Yes, it was.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, would you please just get to the answer; we do not have preliminaries before. Would you please just answer the question.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understand it, that was not just a preliminary comment to the question. It was a sarcastic comment about the return of Nick Smith to the House. So I think you need to be a bit stronger with your condemnation of the Minister. I think that that is actually a poor use of the Māori language in this House. The Minister is just trying to use Māori language to get away with it.

Madam SPEAKER: I would ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: I withdraw and apologise for the welcome.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you should reflect on this matter somewhat further and maybe give a considered ruling to the House, because what the Minister has done is quite serious. He has breached the Standing Orders deliberately, made a sarcastic comment—and we have had that confirmed; it was completely out of order—and put the interpreter in an impossible situation, because he could not interpret it properly. We have a Minister who is not prepared to stand up in the House and say, in an honest way, what he wanted to say. Instead, he tried to hide under the Māori language and say something in a language that only a few people could understand. I think that that is an abuse that you should consider most carefully and give a report to this House on.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I will consider it. Would the Minister now please reply to the question.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Is it a new point of order?

Hone Harawira: Aye, it is. In terms of the sarcastic responses, be they in Māori or in English, it would seem to me that Dr Cullen’s response to Rodney Hide was far more sarcastic than the response from our Minister over here. The fact that the Minister was speaking in Māori and that it was interpreted should not in any way detract from it being part of his formal response to the question. Me mihi au ki a ia mō tōna kōrero.

[I must congratulate him on what he said.]

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comment. The Minister, in his answer, can incorporate what he wishes, but would he please now address the question.

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: I have been involved in the development of industry and regional economic development policy at several levels.

Gerry Brownlee: Why did the Minister give an interview with the Independent newspaper about the decision of the Minister of Conservation in the case of the Whangamata marina?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: The Independent journalist rang me when I was at a sitting of a select committee in Hokitika.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question asked why did he give the interview, not when or how.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: He gave the interview because somebody rang him and asked to speak to him.

Madam SPEAKER: That was my understanding of it. There will be further questions.

Shane Jones: He aha ngā kaupapa kua pau i a ia i roto i te wā e tū ana ia hei Minita Tuarua mō ngā take whanaketanga? What policy initiatives has the Minister been involved with regarding his delegated responsibilities as Associate Minister with responsibility for Māori economic development?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: In particular, I have been involved in the development of key Māori economic policies, which have enhanced Māori participation in New Zealand’s economy.

Hon Member: Which ones?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: If the member will wait for a little while I will tell him. Namely, these are the formation and the strengthening of Māori tourism structures, which has brought about a renaissance in the Māori tourism sector. This sector is enjoying rapid growth. Tourism contributes more than $15 billion to the New Zealand economy, and I am proud to say that the Māori nation, in terms of Māori tourism, is making a valid and major contribution to the economy.

Gerry Brownlee: Does he stand by his comments in the Independent article, in which he said: “Ministers should not be allowed to overturn the decision of a jury or a court”, or does he stand by his comments in the House yesterday, when he said: “I believe that the Minister of Conservation should have overall jurisdiction in terms of the final decision under the Act.”; if he does not, why has he changed his mind?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: The reality is that the Minister has the final decision. Those are the provisions of the Act. I remind the House that the legislation was put into place by Nick Smith and his National Government. The process that was followed by my colleague the Hon Chris Carter was an honourable one. The issues I have raised have been raised as a matter of process, and that process was in regard to the experience I had as a councillor some years ago.

Hon Jim Anderton: Can the Minister confirm that during the period 2002-05, as Associate Minister for Economic Development he was delegated a wide range of economic development initiatives to follow through, including the economic development of Northland and in particular the Māori people of Northland, and could he comment on whether his sojourn in that position resulted in an improvement or a decrease in economic activity and well-being in Northland?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: One of the major factors that our people realise, in terms of economic success, is how many people are employed. I say to this House that the majority of Māori people in Te Tai Tokerau enjoy full employment at this particular time. That has been as a result of the economic policies that have been driven by this Government.

Gerry Brownlee: Why was the Minister so condemning of Chris Carter when he did the interview with the Independent last week, but today he is so very complimentary about the very decision he was railing against some days ago?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: I tell that member that I was not condemning, and I have never ever been condemning of, my honourable colleague Chris Carter. I restated that situation yesterday in the House and I have not changed my mind since. Perhaps that member could learn a little bit about aroha to give to his own side, and if he wants to understand what aroha is all about, what integrity and friendship in a relationship is all about, I could brief him on all that after question time.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister shared his “huge frustration” about the unworkability of the Government’s aquaculture legislation with his colleague the Minister of Fisheries, or will we have to wait for another Independent phone call to find out his real views?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: No, I have not shared my frustrations with anybody, because I do not have any frustrations—unlike the member across the other side of the House.

Gerry Brownlee: Then why did the Minister tell the Independent that he had huge frustrations and that it undermines the integrity of the process when Ministers make those decisions, and why has he described the Government’s ocean policies as pie in the sky?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: My observations and my comments to the Independent were ones of process involving the procedures under the Resource Management Act. That is absolutely what it was all about. I suggest that that member read my comments in context. At the end of the day, if that member wants to know what the impediments are in the Resource Management Act, and if he wants a briefing on it, and if he wants a way to be able to resolve those issues, then I will be free to brief him at the end of question time.

Gerry Brownlee: Will the Minister give his sign-off for the full tape of his interview with the Independent to be made available to this House?

Hon DOVER SAMUELS: I was not aware that the Independent had a tape. That is a matter for the Independent. Perhaps I should start taping the member’s questions.

Cook Islands—New Zealand’s Relations with Pacific Island Neighbours

3. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How are New Zealand’s relations with our Pacific Island neighbours, particularly the Cook Islands?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): New Zealand has an important stake in progress being made in addressing the challenges facing Pacific Island nations. Our relations in the Pacific are a special priority for this Government. New Zealand has a strong and special bilateral relationship with the Cook Islands. That is demonstrated in the support provided by New Zealand through our aid programme, and through the many connections between our peoples and Governments.

R Doug Woolerton: During the Minister’s recent extensive visit to the Pacific Islands as Minister of Foreign Affairs, did he receive any reports regarding the foreign policies of political parties in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I most certainly did. A number of Pacific Island people in Government raised the issue of the comments of the National Party’s associate spokesperson on foreign affairs regarding the Tokelau islands and the recent referendum, and also the extension by analogy with Niue island. Mr John Hayes said that the whole referendum was ill-advised and a total waste of money. [Interruption] What he does not understand, and neither does Mr Nick Smith, is that, frankly, under article 73 of the United Nations Charter we are obliged to assist those islands into a state of self-government. That policy has been followed by successive Governments for the last 30 years. Obviously, Nick Smith and Mr Hayes do not know about their own party’s policy.

Keith Locke: How will the Minister be responding to the request from the Tongan pro-democracy MP Akalesi Pohiva for New Zealand to assist the Tongan parliamentary select committee looking at democratic political reform, following Mr Peters’ meetings with Mr Pohiva and with the select committee head, Prince Tu’ipelehake, and will New Zealand be providing any new aid to assist political reform and economic progress in Tonga?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We are already assisting the process by way of a grant to the committee, which is conferring with a number of interest groups and people in Tonga. In fact, about 40 meetings have already been held, and I am confident that the outcome will lead to progress. But as is the case throughout Polynesia, including in Tonga, the people who stay home—the people who keep the land warm—are the ones whom one listens to first, not expatriates in New Zealand. That was made very clear to the pro-democracy committee.

R Doug Woolerton: How do his recent relationship-building efforts in the Pacific, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, contrast with the first-ever visit to the Pacific by the National Party hierarchy today?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question is clearly out of order. How can one have a contrast between something that has happened and something that has not happened? Perhaps Mr Peters might like to ask Mr Woolerton to ask the question next week, when there will be only good news for him to report.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask Mr Woolerton to rephrase the question, please.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister have any reports regarding visits by the National Party hierarchy today?

Rodney Hide: Pay the $40,000 now.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I tell Mr Hide that we will get around to talking about his tenancy for the last 2 years very soon—facts and data. It will keep in the meantime.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This House dissembled into some disorder yesterday, largely because of irrelevant comments made at the start of questions, or answers, or other such, by Winston Peters. It seems that he is being indulged in a way that no other member is. That was the start of an answer to a question. If we are going to be asked to drop even the most minor of inappropriate expressions in asking questions, then he should be condemned and have some censure put on him for that sort of behaviour.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, I point out that everyone heard the barrage coming from that side, and the comments, before I started. My simple message to Mr Hide and others over there is: “If you can’t take it, don’t try to dish it out.”

Madam SPEAKER: The reality is that interjections were made that were responded to. If the interjections had not been made, the response would not have been there. So I ask members to start again, please, and would the Minister please address the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me just say that it is rather confusing in respect of these reports, because I have this quote from Mr McCully, whom I understand is the foreign affairs spokesman for the National Party: “We will have a policy at the end of this parliamentary term in readiness for the election.”

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You made some interesting rulings yesterday about Ministers being able to answer only inside their ministerial responsibility. The question was about whether he had seen any reports of the National Party hierarchy visiting the Cook Islands. The answer would be “Yes.”, because he actually gave permission for that group to go, so he knows that. The rest of the stuff is just extraneous rubbish.

Madam SPEAKER: If the Minister has any official reports, then, of course, he comments on them. But as has been said many times in this House, there is no responsibility for other parties. So would the Minister please address the question in that context.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am trying to, because I did not give permission for Dr Brash to go to the Cook Islands, at all; he went on his own accord—I do not know why. But can I just say this: he says in the Cook Island News today, I understand—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: No. If there are official reports that the Minister has received, then he is perfectly entitled to address them in this House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday you took issue with my asking Dover Samuels questions about what he had said. Now we have the Minister of Foreign Affairs treating as official a report in a Cook Islands newspaper about what Don Brash might have said. How can it possibly be within Speakers’ rulings that a newspaper report is an official report that gives Winston Peters the capacity to go on a grudge match because National is doing so well?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, I do not recall Doug Woolerton using the word “official”, at all. He asked whether I had any reports, and I have.

Madam SPEAKER: To clarify the matter for the Minister, he is responsible for matters that come to him as reports that are official; he is not responsible for the actions or policies of other parties in the House. If the Minister could address the question in that context, that would be appropriate. If not—if his answer is just a comment on another party—then that is not a matter that the Minister is responsible for, and that answer should not be given.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I was just trying to share some information, such as this—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is the third time the Minister has defied your ruling. You have said to him three times that he is responsible only for any ministerial reports that he has got officially. He has just got up, having been told that for the third time, and said: “I’m just wanting to share with the House, X, Y, Z, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh.”

Madam SPEAKER: Unfortunately, I could not hear the end of the Minister’s answer to the question, or at least the sentence, to know whether that was the case.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is worse than that. I have not had a chance to get one sentence out without countless interjections and points of order coming from members on that side of the House. Unless they are mind-readers or soothsayers, I suggest they keep quiet until they hear the total answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister then please address the question within the context that I have ruled—what he is responsible for in his official ministerial responsibility.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I am responsible for this country’s policy in respect of Niue and the Tokelaus in particular. The special thing about that is the unique relationship we have with those countries. That relationship is not enhanced when so-called senior politicians make such grave mistakes against obligations we have with the United Nations.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you will recall that Mr Woolerton’s question, which I believe the Minister is now apparently addressing, related to the Cook Islands, not the Tokelaus or Niue.

Madam SPEAKER: Actually, the primary question was about relations with our Pacific Island neighbours, particularly, but not confined to, the Cook Islands. Can we please move on.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been reflecting on your ruling that Ministers can comment only on official reports. I wonder whether you would give the House a ruling on Ministers having to comment on reports mentioned in Opposition questions that are not official reports—for example, quoting the Independent as a source, then asking a Minister to comment on it. Should a Minister be required to answer questions from the Opposition on reports that are not official?

Madam SPEAKER: I think it might assist the House if I take time to reflect on this matter and come back to the House with a ruling. Then we can move on and get on with question time today. I will reflect on what is, and what is not, an official report for the House, and rule accordingly.

SchoolSmart Website—Data Use

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement to the House yesterday that, “we are not releasing data that identify individual schools”; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes, given that the answer was in the context of the data on the SchoolSmart website.

Hon Bill English: If it is the case that it is the Government’s policy not to release data that identify individual schools, why then has he released to me large amounts of data that identify individual schools, including National Certificate of Educational Achievement results, the proportion of students leaving individual schools with or without a qualification, and individual teacher turnover rates for individual schools; and does that breach his understanding?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said, the Minister’s answer yesterday was in the context of the SchoolSmart website. Of course, that does not prevent people from obtaining information for individual schools from a range of other sources, including written questions to Ministers, Official Information Act requests, or indeed visiting the schools themselves to obtain the individual details on a school’s website, but with the school’s permission.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister explain why it is, then, that it is acceptable to him that a parent can access information such as teacher turnover by individual school—information that will be on the parliamentary website by the end of the week—but is not allowed to access exactly the same information through the SchoolSmart website, where it is currently available?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I understand it, what the Minister was arguing yesterday is that the general principle that is being followed is that information should be seen in the broader context of the school itself. For example, as the member well knows, one can access at schools individual information about the school in the context of the aggregate information for similar kinds of schools. But in a general sense, if that kind of information was always on the SchoolSmart website, then it is capable of being taken out of context.

Hon Bill English: Since the Minister today and yesterday has referred to the right context in which parents are able to see information about their child’s school, can he explain to the House just what the right context is; is it sitting in the principal’s office, so the principal can answer any question, so every parent has to go along and make an appointment in order to see the information; or what is wrong with the context of parents looking at it on a website in the comfort of their own home, where they can discuss that information with their student child, and ask the school questions if they want to?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: My understanding of what the Minister meant in that regard is that the contextual framework is an informational one, not a geographical one.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that that is a point of view he holds as a junior sociological lecturer at Massey University, and not one that he could possibly hold as a Minister?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As a senior historical lecturer at Otago, I could not possibly comment.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister now explain to the House how his actions comply with the Official Information Act when he is making available individualised school data under Official Information Act requests and through parliamentary questions, but is trying to tell the House that he has an agreement with schools to illegally withhold that information if it is available on a particular website?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the member is now drawing an extraordinarily long bow—

Hon Bill English: It’s a nonsense.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Even if the member holds it is a nonsense, it is not an illegal nonsense.

Hon Bill English: Do I take it from the Minister’s response that he now believes that it is a nonsense that information that is public information, available to anyone who asks for it under the Official Information Act, is kept secret in the SchoolSmart website?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What the member can take from my answer is that I believe that he believes it is a nonsense.

State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme—Reports

5. ANN HARTLEY (Labour) to the Minister of State Services: What reports has she received regarding developments in the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services): I have received a report from the State Services Commission that describes the success of the scheme. At 31 December 2005 30,990 State servants were members of the scheme—that is 16.8 percent more than a year before. Eighty-one percent of all members of the scheme contribute at least 3 percent of their salary to their retirement saving every pay day. That is outstanding. In only 18 months the scheme has shown that New Zealanders are prepared to save for their retirement.

Ann Hartley: Why did the Government establish the State Sector Retirement Savings Scheme?

Hon ANNETTE KING: The Government introduced the scheme in 2004 out of work in its Partnership for Quality agreement. We introduced the scheme because we are committed to a strong public service, and because we believe New Zealanders need to save more. It is important that the Government, as a major employer, shows leadership in encouraging workplace saving, and this scheme will ensure the living standards of many New Zealanders in their retirement years, as will the Superannuation Fund and KiwiSaver.

Ann Hartley: What reports has she seen about increasing saving for retirement?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I have seen two reports. One report stated tax breaks would increase people’s incentive to save. The other report stated tax deductions do not work. The first report was from John Key and the second was from Don Brash. I think it would help the debate on superannuation in this country if they could make up their minds what position they are going to take before they actually enter the debate, because this Government is committed to ensuring that New Zealanders save more.

Roading—Public-private Partnerships

6. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement yesterday in relation to public-private partnerships for road infrastructure that, “The fact that no one has yet to formally approach us probably reflects the fact that this Government’s huge increase in investment has, to some extent, crowded out opportunity.”; if so, why?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister of Transport): Yes.

John Key: Has he seen a Treasury report, written after most of the Government’s major transport initiatives had been announced, that found there is still substantial under-investment in road infrastructure in New Zealand and went on to state that we are passing up road investments that would undoubtedly reap significant benefits for our economy, in which case why does he still think that the role of the private sector is minimal—and that is right; the Treasury report is out there?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I can refer to a Treasury report on the website—the name of the official is Mr Katz—that states that public-private partnerships have a lot going against them and details what that is.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has the Minister seen any reports on the ability of Aucklanders to use roading infrastructure to commute back and forth from suburbs across the city?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have received advice that one Aucklander, who registered on the electoral roll in 2002 as living in Waimauku, was also registered under the Companies Act as living in Parnell. His name was John Key. He clearly found getting across Auckland a breeze.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do hope that the Minister was not about to pot the member from Titirangi. But where is the ministerial responsibility for individuals’ choices as to the electorates they may be registered in, and how does that comply with the original question set down on the Order Paper?

Madam SPEAKER: I will be considering the matter about reports, as I have indicated to the House, and I will come back to members on that.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During that point of order from Gerry Brownlee, the Minister of Police three or four times interjected across the House. She did it on me. You said that you had given a last warning, but she is doing it again and again.

Madam SPEAKER: There has been a lot of chipping backwards and forwards today, so we can take it that as of this moment all members are on their final warning on that. Members must all just settle.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm that a private organisation involved in public-private partnerships generally has to borrow money at a higher rate of interest than the Government and also has to build in a profit factor, and does that not represent extra costs that the toll-paying motorist will have to pay?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Generally, that is the case.

Gordon Copeland: Is not the real reason that business has not come forward with public-private partnership proposals that the present legal framework is inflexible, and therefore non-commercial, because the Government regards itself as beholden to the Greens?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I refer the member to the answer that I gave the very same member yesterday on the very same point. I will give it again. The Ministry of Transport has received informal advice that there is, in the view of the private sector, no legislative impediment to public-private partnerships.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen any reports on public-private partnerships overseas, for example in Australia, that describe major impacts on the public purse from provisions that have required Governments to compensate their private partners when they build public transport systems that take traffic off the roads, or any reports that describe big increases in the total costs of projects because of the large number of private lawyers, consultants, insurers, and others who clip the ticket before the road is built, and does he believe that New Zealand taxpayers should be protected from those risks?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes I have seen reports around those matters and others from many countries. It is true that in the case of Australia, some most unfortunate bail-outs have been necessary. That does not mean that public-private partnerships are wrong. It does mean that they have to be done very carefully, indeed.

John Key: Is he also aware that in the same report Treasury estimated that the private sector could earn returns on roading investments that would currently outstrip other investment opportunities; in which case, if his legislation is as enabling as he made out yesterday, why is the private sector not falling over itself to embark on this much-needed infrastructure?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It depends on which report the member refers to. If it is the report he referred to in his first supplementary question, no I am not. If he is referring o the report that I referred to in my first supplementary answer, it made no such claims.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware of the background to this question today in terms of its political origin, and the fact that in 1998 the Budget had a taxation shift to move more money towards roading, repealed in 1999 by National, or that in 1995 a private member’s bill to move roading money, collected for that purpose, to roading was opposed by Minister of Transport Williamson and the National Government; and what is the word for that?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will not be tempted to offer the word, but I will say that I am aware that during the 1990s there was a substantial under-investment in roading infrastructure and other forms of transport infrastructure, and the only relief for that came from initiatives from within the New Zealand First Party.

John Key: Is the Acting Minister concerned that Treasury has also noted that when he was last holding the baton of Minister of Transport, not only were high-value projects not started but some relatively low-value ones were; in which case would he be kind enough to tell the House this afternoon which low-value projects were funded and which high-value projects had to be scrapped to accommodate them, and why?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am happy to tell the member that when Labour came into Government, in his city of Auckland $130 million worth of work per year was going into that city. Now the amount of money for the number of projects that have been started or are under way is precisely ten times that figure. Opposition members do not like it, but there has been a tenfold increase in investment in the member’s own city and he needs to start to recognise it. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It must be surely on the conscience of everybody watching this Parliament that the sort of behaviour we have just seen is unacceptable.

Rodney Hide: True.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You have about 25 people—

Madam SPEAKER: There was an interjection. Who interjected, please? Would you please leave the Chamber. I did say people were on their final warning. You can come back for your question, but please leave the Chamber immediately.

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point is that we have 25 people over here all screaming at once. I think interjections are OK, but not that number. They just demonstrate what a leaderless rabble those members are.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question to the Acting Minister by my colleague John Key was very specific about low-value and high-value projects during his period as Minister. The Acting Minister then proceeded to make a whole lot of comments about a time when he was never the Minister, for which he is not responsible, as per the Standing Orders. The reason concern was raised was that you did not intervene as Speaker to hold this Minister to the Standing Orders and require him to refer in his answer to the period in which he was Minister.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The Minister was giving an answer in the context of that question, and he outlined the spending for which he was directly responsible last year as Minister. He compared that with the pitiful level that was undertaken by the National Government in 1999.

Gerry Brownlee: The point Dr Smith raises is around some of your own rulings in the last 2 days. In straying into the territory that the Minister did, and in getting pretty animated in trying to get a point across—not that it was clear—he was completely ignoring your rulings by failing to talk about matters that pertain to him and his ministry.

Madam SPEAKER: Because I could not hear the answer to the question, would the Minister like to succinctly address the question?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I am not, but I do acknowledge that there has been a tenfold increase in investment in the member’s own town from the change of Government until now.

John Key: Does the Minister agree with his Cabinet colleague Dover Samuels that when he speaks it should not be assumed he does so as a Minister; if so, can he clear up for us now as to whether, when he next announces an injection into the roading system, he will be doing so as Minister of Transport or as a former vet?

Madam SPEAKER: When asking questions, we all know that we try to stick to the question without a flick—the vet comment. So I say to the Minister that he can reply to the substance of the question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday you determined that it was quite feasible for Mr Samuels to say he is a former district councillor some of the time and a Minister of the Crown at other times. For my colleague to ask whether the professional vet opposite, who is also the Minister of Transport, will be talking as a professional vet or the Minister of Transport is entirely consistent with your rulings.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: If I am speaking as the Minister of Transport, I am speaking as the Minister of Transport.

John Key: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was just wondering how we will recognise him as a Minister of Transport and how we will recognise him as a vet.

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that is not a point of order.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the questioner should clarify whether he is speaking as the finance spokesperson for the National Party or as a former schoolboy.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order either, but you have had one each in terms of irrelevant points of order.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister recall stating, in an answer yesterday on public-private partnerships, that private participants can often bring in new ideas in terms of construction and management; if so, is he aware that such expertise can be hired, even by public entities, and will he accept that to some degree that negates the need for public-private enterprise?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes and yes.

Prime Minister’s Motorcade—Ponsonby Road

7. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her reply to question for written answer No. 414 (2006), “On 9 December 2005 a VIP car transporting me was hit from behind in Ponsonby Road.”, when asked “Has the Prime Minister’s motorcade been involved in any accidents in the past 12 months; if so, on what dates, where and what are the details?”, and how many cars were involved in the accident?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. The information I have suggests three cars were involved: the one that stopped suddenly, the car the Prime Minister was in, and the car behind her, which ran into the car the Prime Minister was in.

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister remember her campaign promise given in Taranaki – King Country: “We will restore public accountability, openness, and honesty.”; and does she believe her reply to that question met the standard that she promised to the people of New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes.

Rodney Hide: Did the Prime Minister believe that she could get away with telling Parliament and the people of New Zealand that her car was hit from behind, and failing to say that the car that hit her from behind was part of her own motorcade, the VIP police escort, and that in fact her car was shunted into the car in front; if not, why did she not actually provide the detail of the accident?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The VIP car the Prime Minister was in was hit from behind. The information about that car is now still in the public arena, but it is not the normal practice to identify Diplomatic Protection Squad cars, which of course was the designation of the car following her. It is somewhat exaggerated, I think, to describe two cars as a motorcade.

Rodney Hide: Was the Prime Minister a little sensitive about her motorcade, given that it could not negotiate Ponsonby Road without incurring an accident, and that the Prime Minister had just been telling the people of New Zealand that she was quite safe and so were the public of New Zealand when she was travelling at 170 kilometres per hour through the South Island?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The indications I have are that the car in front of the VIP car stopped suddenly. Why that happened, I do not know. The VIP car stopped suddenly. As the member may or may not be aware, a Diplomatic Protection Squad car follows very closely upon a VIP car. The Diplomatic Protection Squad car was unable to stop in time, and so rear-ended the Prime Minister’s car. There was no front-end damage to the Prime Minister’s car, and the occupants of the car in front of the Prime Minister’s car were checked for injury. There were no injuries reported.

Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You asked Mr Hide to leave the Chamber before—

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am sure he is just about to leave us.

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

Climate Change—Policy Successes

8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Which elements of the Government’s climate change policies covering new taxes, restrictions on deforestation, and energy efficiency would he describe as a success?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Given the breadth of issues upon which an answer is sought, my answer may be slightly longer than usual. The carbon tax will not proceed in its present form, as the numbers do not appear to exist in the House to support that, and the so-called “fart tax” did not proceed because the agricultural sector reversed its position and, with the Government, is now funding some very promising but still early research. The forestry cap is under review yet again.

In the area of energy efficiency programmes, about 17,000 houses have been retrofitted. Energy audits for large energy users are these days saving about $15 million. Minimum energy performance standards have been set for 12 classes of equipment, saving $30 million. Solar water installation has doubled, and bio-fuels targets are under development. The building code has been strengthened, and is being strengthened again, and in areas related to climate change policy, wind energy has turned from a fringe industry into a mainstream industry—the future growth for which is likely to be spectacular.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that his policy initiatives of an animal emissions tax and a carbon tax are a failure, and that his policies of removing climate change from the Resource Management Act, and the negotiated greenhouse agreements dependent on the carbon tax are now in tatters; does he accept responsibility for this policy mess?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The “fart tax” was never needed, because the industry came around the back door and said “OK, we give in.” The carbon tax—[Interruption] They did, and they funded the research. And I thank them, because this country has some really good scientists and we have some promising—but early—research. Those are the facts, even if members do not want to believe them. The research is under way. In answer to the other part of the member’s question, I say that the carbon tax in its current form will not proceed, because it is apparent that we do not have the numbers in the House. My predecessor David Parker has suggested that some other form of incentive is needed, especially in the electricity industry, and that is part of the issues under review.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Does the Acting Minister see any evidence of a willingness by the Hon Dr Nick Smith to engage constructively on the development of future climate change policy, given his line of questioning today?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I do not. Apparently the member approached my predecessor seeking a bipartisan approach, although one would be hard-pressed to reconcile his apparent attitude then and his apparent attitude today. All of this is a little confusing, because earlier, when giving his “state of the nation” address, the member said that his ambition, in Opposition, was to be constructive and if, during the course of the next 3 years, he fell into the trap of becoming a full-time whinger, he would appreciate one of us rescuing him with a gentle reminder. That is now given.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Now that the carbon tax has been abandoned, will the Government support my bill, to be debated next Wednesday, which reinstates in the Resource Management Act the power to consider climate-changing emissions when assessing air discharge consents—which was removed solely because of the imminence of a carbon charge?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I understand well the policy argument that the member makes, and I undertake to give the member’s bill very careful consideration.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that his policy of a 10 percent cap on deforestation is a failure and is counter-productive for our economy and for our environment, by providing an incentive to deforest before the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol; if so, why does he not put this stupid policy in the same rubbish basket as he put the carbon tax and the “fart tax”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: As I said in my answer to the primary question, the forestry cap is under review, again.

Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister agree that investing billions of dollars in building new motorways that will increase traffic growth and, therefore, carbon dioxide emissions is not a successful climate change strategy; will he therefore recommend to the newly appointed Minister of Transport that he not approve unbalanced transport strategies, such as the western corridor plan, which proposed to spend 90 percent of funding over the next 20 years on roads and only a pitiful 8 percent on public transport; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I point out to the member that this Government has increased expenditure on public transport by 600 percent. But I will say to the Minister of Transport that it would be a mighty fine idea if he could get on and get the bio-fuels targets done over the next few months, because we need, as a country, to begin the transition from fossil fuels as the only source of motive power.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Very interesting comments were made by the Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, but he did not attempt to address my question, which was whether he would recommend not approving unbalanced transport strategies such as the western corridor plan.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I thought I addressed the question by providing the idea that we had balance with a sixfold increase in public transport. However, I can say that the Government is committed to completing current motorway construction.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister accept that his much-vaunted National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, which was launched in September 2001, is a complete failure, noting that on the target for energy efficiency of 20 percent over 10 years, he has achieved only 2 percent, and on the target of creating 30 extra petajoules of renewable energy, he has created only 4, and that those results are less than what was predicted as business as usual?

Hon PETE HODGSON: If the strategy was a failure, as the member wants to characterise it, he may like to explain to the House how come 17,000 houses have been refitted, how come energy audits for large energy users are saving $15 million, how come minimum energy performance standards have been set for 12 classes of equipment, saving $30 million, or how come solar water installation has doubled. I could go on, and earlier I did.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister recall stating last year, in trying to minimise the flak over the deterioration in New Zealand’s carbon balance from positive 33 to minus 36, that the minus 36 was “conservative and pessimistic”, yet less than a year later, he has had to accept that the figure is now minus 64 million tonnes; and after he has erred so seriously—over $1 billion—not once but twice, why should this House believe anything he says?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I can, and the reason that I did and do is that all of the reports and things that have come forward from the State sector over the years are based on assumptions. I just gently offer the member two assumptions. The first is that the research programme I spoke of would have produced no results at all by 2008-12. That would be unusual in a research programme—that is what one of the assumptions is. One of the other assumptions, as I recall, is that the price of petrol would be $30. As I recall the price of petrol these days—US$60 per barrel—it must be about twice that. That gives the member some idea of why I say that those are probably conservative estimates.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister, having had policy failures on the carbon tax, the animals’ emissions tax, the energy efficiency strategy, and the deforestation cap, and having had to drop the tenders for the clean development mechanism and twice having made a billion-dollar bungle over New Zealand’s carbon balance, tell us of any greater public policy failure in the history of New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Every time I go back to Dunedin I keep an eye out for those 410,000 jobs.

Business—Legislative and Regulatory Changes

9. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister for Small Business: What is the expected impact on small to medium enterprises of legislative and regulatory changes coming into effect on 1 April?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister for Small Business): On 1 April small to medium sized enterprises will experience a number of benefits related to changes to the fringe benefit tax, a new accident compensation levy discount programme will be introduced, and changes to tax on offshore income will encourage new migrants and New Zealanders to return home, which in turn will increase access to skilled employees. These changes should reinforce the World Bank’s view that New Zealand is the easiest place in the world in which to do business.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister give us an example of how a small business will benefit from these changes?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The cost of fringe benefit tax on motor vehicles will fall from 24 percent to 20 percent of the vehicle’s cost, so if a company pays fringe benefit tax on a $40,000 car, the saving will be over $1,000. In addition, cellphones or laptops costing less than $5,000 that are used primarily for the business will be exempt from fringe benefit tax from 1 April this year.

Paula Bennett: Why does the Minister not take on board the fact that the most important change the Small Business Advisory Group wanted was probationary periods for new employees—or does she think she can fob it off with yet another round of trivial amendments?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I will enjoy telling the Small Business Advisory Group that these amendments were regarded as being trivial by the National Party.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister agree that the amendment introduced by United Future’s Minister of Revenue to give the Inland Revenue Department the power to waive penalties in dealing with cases where taxpayers have taken an unacceptable tax position through genuine error will make it easier for small businesses to make a GST and a tax return?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Absolutely, and I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Revenue, the Hon Peter Dunne, on that measure, as I have often been approached by constituents about genuine errors in those areas. I am sure it will be welcomed by the Small Business Advisory Group, as well, given that this is part of its No. 2 recommendation in its latest report.

Hone Harawira: Is the Minister aware of comments made by Alan Groves, a former investment manager for Māori innovation at the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, that young Māori are being encouraged away from small business, and how will she address that type of attitude?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No, I am not aware of those comments, but I know that the Associate Minister for Economic Development the Hon Dover Samuels is particularly interested in that matter.

Elective Surgery—Service Provision

10. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Is he concerned about the Government’s ability to meet New Zealanders’ need for elective surgery; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): While I am delighted that the number of elective surgery procedures has increased by 12.6 percent on a case-weighted basis under this Government, and by more than that when outpatient procedures are taken into account, there is always more to be done. This Government will never be complacent.

Hon Tony Ryall: If hospital budgets have increased by over 25 percent in the last 5 years, why do New Zealand patients need to have more and more points, and to be more and more sick, before they get any access to elective surgery?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I cannot remember by how much the member said hospital budgets had been raised. Could he repeat that? [Interruption] Well, whatever it was, it was less than 74.6 percent; yet that is the amount by which angioplasty interventions have increased since the change of Government—not bad, I would say.

Sue Moroney: What have been the results of the Government’s work to increase the total number of surgical procedures performed in New Zealand’s public hospitals?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The results have been significant. In 2005 there were over 300,000 case-weighted surgical discharges from our public hospitals—an increase of nearly 10 percent—not including the increase in outpatients. Under this Government more and more New Zealanders are getting the surgery they need, but, unlike the previous National Government, we are never complacent and we remain convinced that we can do even better.

Hon Tony Ryall: Which of those numbers quoted by the Minister includes the many thousands of New Zealanders who merely passed through a surgical ward and received no surgical services whatsoever in the years under review, yet have been counted?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The method by which surgical procedures are measured is unchanged over many years. If I could just give the member a little more detail, the precise method is that if someone is admitted, then not given—[Interruption] Oh, well, I will not give him the detail.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can he justify—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Who is talking out there? Who actually intervened? Could that member please identify himself or herself and leave the Chamber. [Interruption] Please leave the Chamber.

Hon David Benson-Pope withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Tony Ryall: How can the Minister justify dumping from the waiting lists, in the last 2 months for which information is available, 1,100 people for whom medical specialists consider that elective surgery is the best option and who are likely to deteriorate without it?

Hon PETE HODGSON: To the best of my knowledge, anybody who crosses the treatment threshold is not dumped.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister not think that it is harder to cross the treatment threshold when the Government’s district health boards keep putting the points up?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I ask the member where the evidence is for that.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table the evidence—documents from Capital and Coast District Health Board, from Northland District Health Board, from MidCentral District Health Board, and from Auckland District Health Board, showing that points needed to get elective surgery in this country are going up in category after category.

Documents not tabled.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I seek leave to table a letter from the Hon Bill English as Minister of Health to all Crown health enterprises, instructing them to raise the thresholds.

Document not tabled.

Hon Mark Burton: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yet again during that point of order we had a barrage of rudeness from that side of the House, including from the member who had just been given the courtesy of silence while he took his point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: Exactly. I will have to talk to the whips about that, unless some of you want to identify yourselves. I was asked to eject someone else from the Chamber for interjecting when there was a question, which I have done. When there was a point of order, I got interjections from this side. I have to be fair.

Gerry Brownlee: Self-identified. I’m off.

Madam SPEAKER: Gerry Brownlee has identified himself.

Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: When the Minister makes statements relating to elective surgery, is the Minister wearing his hat as the Minister of Health, as a former vet, or as a former fruit and vegetable seller; and assuming that he places a different premium on the life of a human, an animal, and a vegetable, is it possible that he sometimes gets his hats confused?

Hon PETE HODGSON: If that member were my doctor, I would get a new one.

Renal Dialysis—Facilities

11. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that progress is being made on ensuring New Zealanders have access to appropriate renal dialysis facilities?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Every developed country is facing increased demand for renal dialysis, largely because of type 2 diabetes. The Government is addressing this challenge at every level. For example, in the midland region several district health boards have developed regional services plans that allow people to come along of an evening, satellite dialysis has started in Tauranga, and another facility is due to be set up in Rotorua later this year—and on it goes. I could point to similar examples around the country.

Maryan Street: Has the Minister seen any reports on how to decrease pressure on New Zealand’s renal dialysis services?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I have seen at least one proposal that suggests that people who overeat and develop type 2 diabetes should be refused access to public dialysis services and, presumably, left to die. This suggestion, surprisingly, came from Dr Don Brash, who himself does not overeat but, then again, should not change his diet from two slices of frozen corned beef resting on a pot of peas, to four slices.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If you refer to Standing Order 377, you will see it states very clearly that a reply to any question must be concise, confined, and not include references to other members of the House. You stomped on me yesterday like you would not believe, for raising questions of Dover Samuels about things he had said, and now you are going to allow the Minister of Health to make references to a member’s diet. That is about as irrelevant as we can get. I simply ask that you uphold Standing Order 377.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Standing Order 377 refers to discreditable references to any members of Parliament, or any offensive or unparliamentary expression. If we have now reached the point that corned beef is an unparliamentary expression, I suggest it is time for us all to pack it in and let another 120 members come in here.

Madam SPEAKER: I will rule on this. This is getting silly. I ask members that, obviously, when they are asking their questions and also giving their replies they do so consistently within the letter, as well as the spirit, of the Standing Orders.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Why would the House have any confidence that district health boards will be able to meet the staffing requirements of new dialysis facilities, when the Auckland District Health Board cannot even get the nurses required to staff something as vitally important as the Auckland heart surgery unit?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It is true that Auckland is facing staffing difficulties, but that is not the only difficulty that Auckland is facing. Auckland has undergone a remarkable shift in recent months, involving 200 services and thousands of staff moving from Greenlane to Auckland City Hospital, and that, it seems to me, is part of the reason for Auckland’s drop in surgery, especially heart surgery.

Barbara Stewart: Is he aware that in January this year dialysis services in Christchurch were reduced so that all patients received a minimum of dialysis, and what assurances can he offer Christchurch patients that their services will improve?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I am sorry but I am not aware of that.

Maryan Street: What else is the Government doing to address the increasing numbers of people requiring dialysis?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The answer, of course, lies in prevention, especially in addressing obesity, and specifically childhood obesity. Across many departments and ministries there will be an assertive roll-out of the Government’s Healthy Eating - Healthy Action strategy, and the forthcoming Health Committee inquiry is a very welcome addition to that effort.

Agent Orange—Joint Working-group Draft Report

12. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: Will he agree to a request from Ms Freda Moffitt that the joint working-group into the plight of Viet Nam veterans and their families affected by exposure to Agent Orange bring its draft report and recommendations back to veterans and whānau before they are submitted to the Government; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): No. The purpose of the joint working-group is to recommend directly to the Government for its consideration a package of actions and procedures to address the health and well-being needs of Viet Nam veterans and their families. Prior to making those recommendations, the joint working-group has consulted widely with Viet Nam veterans and their families. That consultation is complete, and it is time for the working-group to report its findings.

Judith Collins: Why did the Minister advise Ms Freda Moffitt last week, on 16 March, that: “The Government has yet to respond formally to the health select committee.”?

Hon RICK BARKER: I made that comment mistakenly on advice, and I regret it.

Judith Collins: Did the Minister read the letter before he signed it; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER: Yes.

Darien Fenton: When was the joint working-group set up, and why?

Hon RICK BARKER: The joint working-group was established in February 2005, because it was only under a Labour-led Government that the concerns of Viet Nam veterans about their exposure to a toxic environment were accepted. This Government encouraged submissions to the Health Committee, and agreed to the joint working-group comprising representatives of the Ex-Vietnam Services Association, the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association, and officials from the office of the Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs New Zealand to address the concerns. The progress on this longstanding issue is in stark contrast with the record of inaction and denial from the previous National Government.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister accept that the exposure of Viet Nam veterans and their families to Agent Orange is the biggest issue in his portfolio, and that for him to sign a letter that stated that the Government had not responded, when the Government’s response was tabled in this House on 14 December 2004 and is on his department’s website, is a disgrace?

Hon RICK BARKER: I accept that I made a mistake. I have admitted it, I have accepted it, and I simply say publicly to the person to whom I wrote the letter that I apologise for that.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Why was the consultation sought by the Treaty partner, referred to by the Minister in his letter of 16 March 2006 to Freda Moffitt, a different model of consultation that is not applicable when one considers that 60 percent of the Viet Nam veterans are Māori?

Hon RICK BARKER: The Treaty model is a process between the Crown and tangata whenua. This issue is between the Government of the day and those veterans who went to Viet Nam and their families. It is entirely a different purpose.

Judith Collins: When did the Minister first find out that the Government response to the Health Committee inquiry was tabled in this Parliament on 14 December 2004 and referred to on the Government website?

Hon RICK BARKER: I cannot recall the precise moment.

Tariana Turia: What is the Minister’s model of consultation with Māori based on, and what is the rationale for that model?

Hon RICK BARKER: The Government has a process of consultation with Māori on Treaty issues that is appropriate to Treaty issues. The Government has a process of consultation with the former service personnel who went to Viet Nam and their families that has been agreed to by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association and the organisation that represents most of the Viet Nam veterans, the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. I find it incredibly lamentable that people are trying to make petty politics about that process, given that it has been 30 years since the issue arose. What the former service personnel of Viet Nam and their families want is for the report to be given to the Government and to get an answer.

Judith Collins: If the Minister cannot remember the precise time, or day even, when he first found out that the Government’s response was tabled in this Parliament on 14 December 2004 and is on his department’s website, can he tell the House whether he knew at the stage when he signed the letter to Ms Freda Moffitt that the Government had already formally responded to the Health Committee?

Hon RICK BARKER: On reflection, I do recall the Government’s response to the select committee being considered in the Cabinet process and sent off to be tabled in the House. At the time when the letter was put to me in draft form—and I did read it thoroughly—I overlooked that fact. The fact that I cannot remember the tabling of every document in every situation when I write a letter just shows that I am only human. I accept that I made a mistake. I have acknowledged I have made a mistake, and I tender an apology to the person. I can do no more than that.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister have the foggiest idea what is going on in his portfolio, or does he think that handing out a few certificates and the odd lapel pin will satisfy Viet Nam veterans; why does he not just let the veterans and their whānau see the draft report?

Hon RICK BARKER: The veterans will see the draft report as soon as it can be released. This Government, not the National Government, has taken the concern of Viet Nam veterans more seriously than ever before. Given that a National Government led New Zealand into the quagmire of Viet Nam, it is outrageous that a member of the National Party should criticise anything this Government is doing, when it is the only Government that has genuinely addressed the concerns of Viet Nam service personnel.

Hon Mark Burton: Can he confirm to the House that the process of consultation followed, including the process for the handling of the report, is precisely as agreed and negotiated by his predecessors with the appropriate veterans organisations, and to do as the member is suggesting now would be a breach of good faith with those representative veterans organisations?

Hon RICK BARKER: I can indeed confirm that, and I can report to the House that the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association supports absolutely the process; so does the organisation representing Viet Nam veterans, the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. They want this process completed as soon as possible, and the Government is considering the report. I think all those Viet Nam veterans who have turned up at the meetings would be appalled at the petty politicking on this matter by the National Party.

Dr Pita Sharples: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I must voice my disappointment in the attitude of the speaker in referring to genuine questions about Viet Nam veterans, especially in regard to the fact that the Government is supposed to have policy for Māori.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JIM SUTTON (Associate Minister for Trade Negotiations), on behalf of the Minister of Trade: I move, That the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill amends New Zealand’s domestic legislation to enable it to become party to the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, a four-way economic partnership between New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, and Brunei Darussalam. Membership of this partnership is open to other nations in the Asia-Pacific region, and I predict that a number will, indeed, seek to join it.

The agreement is a treaty that liberalises and facilitates trade in goods and services, improves the business environment, and promotes cooperation on a broad range of economic ideas of mutual interest to all four countries. It establishes a free-trade area that spans the Pacific and joins Latin America, South-east Asia, and New Zealand, and in doing so will open up new opportunities for New Zealand exporters. Passage of this bill will enable New Zealand to ratify the agreement. The agreement will enter into force 30 days after ratification by at least two of the four signatories.

Initial tariff cuts will take place when the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement comes into force for a party. In the case of Chile this will result in the immediate elimination of tariffs on 89 percent of current New Zealand exports to Chile. All remaining tariffs on exports to Chile will be phased out by 2017. Brunei will bind at zero tariffs covering 92 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Brunei, with the remaining tariffs eliminated by 2015. Tariffs between New Zealand and Singapore are already zero under the existing New Zealand – Singapore closer economic partnership agreement.

To help secure these gains on trade in goods, the trans-Pacific agreement contains rules governing the free-trade area. These include rules to determine which goods qualify for tariff preferences as well as rules to counter unfair trade. It also includes broad coverage of services, which will make it easier for New Zealand service providers to operate and compete in the markets of Chile, Singapore, and Brunei. The agreement meets the Government’s aims in entering negotiations for closer economic partnerships: of providing newer opportunities for exporters, and guarding against erosion of benefits to New Zealand exporters from preferences afforded to third parties. The framing of the services commitments in the agreement provides legal certainty and transparency for New Zealand services exporters, while retaining New Zealand’s ability to protect sensitive sectors such as social services, water, and marine resources.

Successful completion of this agreement also serves the objective of wider trade liberalisation within the APEC region as a whole. As the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee noted in its report to the House under the treaty examination procedures, the agreement serves New Zealand’s objectives of broadening relations with Latin America and Asia as well as promoting New Zealand’s wider trade policy interests in APEC and multilaterally. The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement is important, therefore, for what it can deliver economically for New Zealand, and also for its contribution to our strategic trade objectives. The Government’s confidence in the agreement is shared by a wide range of New Zealand businesses and industry groups, and by educational and scientific institutions, who have publicly welcomed the successful negotiation of the agreement and are looking forward to its entry into force.

Finally, I want to acknowledge and thank members opposite for the broad support the Government’s trade negotiations efforts receive in the House. Our prosperity as a nation, and our ability to pay for the lifestyles and social services that are so important to us as New Zealanders, are very much dependent on our ability to sell our goods and services and compete on the world market. New Zealand needs global trade rules that allow us to compete on a level playing field on our own merits, and on the quality of our products and innovations—a playing field not distorted by subsidies and trade barriers that are not only economically damaging but also promote wasteful and environmentally unsustainable practices.

The ultimate goal, supported by the vast majority of members across the House, is the conclusion of comprehensive global trade agreements through the World Trade Organization. The successful completion of high-quality free-trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement provides invaluable impetus towards that ultimate goal, by demonstrating and modelling a commitment to the principles of free trade that stretches right across the Pacific. Ratification of this agreement once again demonstrates New Zealand’s credentials as a forward-looking open economy and a progressive free-trade partner. I commend the bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next speaker, I remind members in the House to look at Speaker’s ruling 16/2: “Cellphones should be switched off within the hearing of the debating chamber.” They are not allowed to be on. It is disrespectful to other speakers.

TIM GROSER (National): I rise to support the bill. Of course, my party, the National Party, supported the expeditious passage of this bill through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. I also rise in complete astonishment that this is now, I think, the sixth or seventh time in fewer parliamentary working days than that that I have been asked to make a speech about the same issue. Unfortunately, I have not changed my mind at all on any of the fundamental thoughts, so the challenge is to work out some novel way of putting across the same proposition, fulfilling my responsibilities to my chief whip, and maintaining at least a minimum of consistency.

In doing so, I am beginning to think that this is rather like the existentialist play written by Jean-Paul Sartre called No Exit, which puts forward a secular view of hell. The secular view of hell, according to this philosophical school, is that there is no such thing as fire and brimstone but that hell is what one does on earth—except one does it forever. So I am beginning to wonder whether my ultimate fate will be to make speeches like this one for eternity, without the matter ever coming to the vote. But I hope, at least on this occasion, this will be the last time I will bore you, Mr Assistant Speaker, quite apart from boring myself.

I think the fundamental point here is that we are following a strategy that has been in place in this country essentially for about 13 years, whereby we pursue opportunity for New Zealand exporters across the board, simultaneously in the multilateral, bilateral, and plurilateral tracks. To maintain some degree of coherence behind that, there has to be some buy-in to the underlying principles. The most important, of course, is that we accept modest progress forward, because that is only politically realistic. But all our main sectors must be included in the framework for the agreement. That is the first fundamental principle, and the agreement passes that all-important test.

Some criticisms could be made about the pace, but I think that is of secondary importance, because at the end of the day we live in a world where our exports often fall into the most sensitive category and it is only realistic to expect the progress forward to be relatively modest. In the end, all those agreements add up only to opportunities. That then links back the external strategy to what is, in fact, internal economic policy, and there we have some problems ahead of us.

I think it has become more widely recognised in the past year or two that New Zealand is not doing as well on the external front as many people would have us believe. People tend to say that we are a small but great trading nation. Unfortunately, that is not a correct statement. We are a small trading nation, but we are relatively mediocre in terms of our export performance by the standards of other small developed countries. If I am not mistaken, 15 of the OECD countries have a population of 10 million or below, and we are at the very bottom. It is quite natural that larger economies—starting, perhaps, with Australia with roughly 20 million people—have a lower export-to-GDP ratio than small countries, and that is certainly the case with giant countries, such as the United States. So we are performing only at barely acceptable levels.

The second thing that becomes a little more apparent, when one looks into the linkages between the opportunities an agreement like this puts forward and the internal economic challenges facing New Zealand, is that participation in the external environment—and this agreement will certainly assist in a very modest way; it is part of the overall jigsaw of assisting our exporters—is absolutely linked to increasing productivity in this country. It is absolutely no coincidence that we have only one sector that has outstanding growth of total factor productivity. That is, of course, the sector that is deeply involved in the international economy: the agriculture sector, which has an average annual rate of growth of a little under four times the growth of average total factor productivity for the economy as a whole.

We have to ask ourselves why. I think the reason is that, in spite of the agriculture sector being the sector of the economy that has had opportunities choked down on by the system of international protectionism that is now in the process of being unwound, this sector—and this sector alone—is involved in a process in which the domestic market is merely an afterthought. On average, our major industries sell maybe 10 percent of their output to the domestic market. For them, their real market, where they sell 90 percent of what they produce—90 percent of the sheep meat, 90 percent of the dairy products—is the global market. To maintain their position in that market involves a commitment to a continual cycle of innovation, and that is the critical difference. So I believe there is a move forming in this country whereby the essential agenda is becoming identified with a little more precision.

It is very similar to what Trade and Enterprise put before the select committee in its public documentation today. It talked about connecting New Zealand business to the global economy. I think that is as good a way of putting it as any and I think both sides of the House are strongly behind that effort. I think where we do differ is when we discuss some of the linkages back into hard policy levers here, in terms of deregulation and of what is the next phase of economic reform. But when it gets to the frontier, we are following a common policy. This agreement will, of course, be part of that process, and I support it strongly for that reason.

I have been advised by the whip that, unlike last night, it is enough just to get up and make a speech without necessarily filling the time slot entirely. So, to sum up, I am pleased this agreement is now in its final stages in the House. I think it is a modest part of, but it is totally consistent with, a positive strategy for New Zealand and its place in the global economy.

DIANNE YATES (Labour): I am sure that the member opposite will be relieved to know that this is the last time he will be called upon to make a speech on this particular legislation. But he is relatively new to the House, and I am sure that he realises how wonderfully democratic it is that we have had to listen to him say much the same thing at least five times.

The treaty-making process is a very interesting process, and we have almost come to the final stage, which is the implementation of the law that will allow the process to finally happen and the treaty to be signed. As we have noted, the bill started off with discussions in Chile, which the Prime Minister was engaged in, talking about the possibility of an agreement. Then a paper prepared by the ministry was widely touted round New Zealand so that there could be a great deal of public input, as we have mentioned, from stakeholders such as chambers of commerce, businesses, and various interest groups. I thank the members opposite who were employed by the ministry at that stage for the work that they have done on the agreement in that regard and for the negotiations they have been involved in.

Once all that process had been gone through, including the external negotiations, the national interest analysis, was tabled in the House and was sent to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The select committee then had another look and was able to call for submissions from the public. So the public were given another chance to have an input. There were submissions on the national interest analysis. The select committee looked at them, considered the issues, were briefed by the ministry staff, and then reported back to the House.

Following that process, there must then be legislation that allows the agreement to go ahead. So what we have here is a very small bill—just two pages—called the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill. It amends the Tariff Act 1988 to enable the treaty to come into force and to be signed by the parties involved, which are Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand, and Singapore. What we are talking about now is the legislation that allows for the signing of, and commitment to, the agreement by New Zealand. As has been mentioned by the Hon Jim Sutton, who was very much involved with the actual negotiations, it is the first multiparty trade agreement linking Asia, the Pacific, and Latin America. For that reason alone, it is significant.

I also thank the Hon Phil Goff, the Hon Annette King for the contribution she made yesterday on this particular bill, the officials, those who worked very hard at the negotiating stage, and the members of the select committee. I am sure that the new members have found it very interesting to follow the process through, from their former lives during the negotiating stages to actually seeing what happens in the House. Although I think one of the members is getting a little tired of repeating his speeches and comments, it is important that the democratic process be gone through and the full consultation be carried out.

As we have seen, the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement allows 90 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Chile and 92 percent of New Zealand’s exports to Brunei Darussalam to be duty-free. As has been mentioned, we already had an agreement with Singapore, and the bill has extended that agreement. Of course, we look to extending agreements in the future even further.

I have mentioned the role of the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of Singapore, and the President of Chile in coming together and working with representatives from Brunei Darussalam to bring the agreement about. We have already noted that it is important in terms of New Zealand trade. It is important, in terms of the fact that it is an agreement within the WTO Doha round, that although on the one hand we are working on the bigger picture, on the other hand we are also able to speed up the process with agreements between countries within that. The Hon Jim Sutton pointed that out during his speech. So, once again, I thank everybody who has been involved, and we look forward to 1 May for the final signing of the treaty.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I rise to make a few points about the bill, based on concerns about its process, content, and themes. It took just 43 minutes to sign away a managed approach to economic development in New Zealand’s first multi-party agreement with the Asia-Pacific region. My understanding is that three submissions were made to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, all of which expressed concerns about the process and substance of the agreement, with one stating that it was “ill-conceived and irresponsible”, and another claiming that the scrutiny given to the agreement was insufficient. Comments were made on the limited time frame, and the hearings committee was urged to conduct an independent inquiry. Those comments reflected the context of criticism that the Government received when challenged about the secrecy of the process associated with establishing New Zealand’s closer economic partnership with Singapore.

How did committee members respond? They reported that a standard approach was used, in that they had advertised for submissions in national newspapers. It seems to me that the level of opposition contained in those three submissions even on their own should have provoked the committee to take a more proactive approach, and not just to apply the old standard formula. It is hard to engender any confidence in how an agreement spanning four countries across Asia and the Pacific will improve strategic and economic opportunities for Aotearoa.

In the first and second debates on the bill, the Māori Party attempted to describe tangata whenua history, and the experiences of strategic economic partnerships nation to nation. I myself talked about the impact the agreement could have on Brunei’s indigenous communities, and the effects of local identity becoming subsumed under flows of global trade, colonialism, and assumptions of universalism. My esteemed colleague Dr Sharples also raised the thorny question of definition and interpretation of Treaty responsiveness—the application of the Treaty of Waitangi in international trade and tariff agreements.

Today we want to focus more particularly on the international treaty examination that was undertaken in the report to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The Māori Party has taken particular note of the advice and analysis provided by Professor Jane Kelsey from the law faculty at the University of Auckland. Professor Kelsey described the agreement as the latest attempt to bind the policy options of present and future New Zealand Governments to a global liberalisation agenda that is facing a crisis. She advised the committee that global trade and investment liberalisation is not delivering on poverty reduction, and that the trade agreements restrict the Government’s ability to regulate in several areas.

Again, the select committee’s response was fascinating in terms of what it did not say. The report states: “… the Government is aware of trends in the global political economy and the limits of what is possible for a small country.” I am wondering where the reference is to poverty, which is a key outcome of possible arrangements like that. My research tells me that at the United Nations millennium summit in 2000, all nations agreed to put effort into halving extreme poverty by the year 2015. The Māori Party believes it is all about priorities. Global military expenditure last year was US$1,035 billion—on average, more than $2.8 billion every day. The need for all Governments, rich or poor, to reprioritise their spending to meet human security rather than military security has been agreed by United Nations member States since 1945, but it has not been put into practice. By neglecting to mention it we certainly do not address it, let alone reduce poverty.

That tendency to fail to mention, to ignore, or to be silent on things that matter is a theme the Māori Party has been returning to over and over again in its scrutiny of Government policy. When one looks for the word “Māori” in international treaty examination for this bill—and one has to look fairly hard—one sees the references are all couched in the negative. So we see: “… there is also a general exception to ensure that the Trans-Pacific SEP will not prevent New Zealand from taking measures it deems necessary to fulfil its obligations to Māori, including under the Treaty of Waitangi.” Rather than reflect or support the honouring of obligations, it is worded in the negative—it fails to “prevent”. That is later diluted further: “Provided such measures are not used for trade protectionist measures, the Trans-Pacific SEP also gives successive New Zealand Governments the right to adopt measures they deem necessary in relation to Māori, including in fulfilment of Treaty of Waitangi obligations.” That may be just words, but one has to ask what sort of measures will be considered necessary in relation to Māori. Are we talking measures to advance Māori, or to impede their progress? Failure to name the positive means we will forever be hopeful that the opposite is not intended.

Following on that theme, the "Cultural effects” section of the treaty examination notes that: “The Trans-Pacific SEP contains safeguards to ensure that there are no adverse effects on New Zealand cultural values including Maori interests.” The power to name our own world, and to be clear in saying what we mean and what we want, is absolutely central to self-determination. To take it further, we asked the Government yesterday in the House what it means to live and succeed as Māori—a simple enough question, one would have thought, and clearly one that most New Zealanders understand. As reported by a UMR Insight survey released on Tuesday, there was strong overall agreement—in fact, 66 percent agreed and 12 percent disagreed—with the statement that: “In addition to having the same rights as all New Zealanders, Māori have the right to live as Māori.” Clearly, the people know what it means to live as Māori.

So how did the Government respond? The response of the Minister of Justice was to say that to live as Māori was to: “… fully participate in, and to have the economic, social, and cultural benefits of a full, healthy, and wholesome life in New Zealand.” Do members spot one little difference? The difference is the word “Māori”.

Another definition comes from Dr Mason Durie, who discusses the goal of living as Māori as: “… being able to have access to the Māori world, that is access to language, culture, marae, resources such as land, tikanga, whānau, and kai moana. Being able to live as Māori means being able to identify oneself as Māori and to also be prepared to participate in Māori society. It is not simply to learn about Māori, but also to live as Māori.”

That question was not a trick question. The Māori Party has been watching the Minister of Finance exclude the word “Māori” from his Budget, and watching the Minister of Foreign Affairs exclude the word “Māori” from policy on indigenous people, so we thought we would aim for third time lucky.

The celebrated Brazilian educator, the late Paulo Freire, believed that we should all have the freedom to name the world, and he included the voiceless. He believed that possessing the ability to name the world inevitably meant that one could take action to intervene and transform the world. Since coming to this House I have become aware of the awesome power of voices we have in naming, and therefore in defining, the world. But the questions I ask are: whose world is it that we are defining, and who are we defining it for?

The Māori Party stands on a platform of giving voice to the voiceless and, although it is a Māori voice, that has resonated like the haka for non-Māori. Our belief in the voiceless naming their world is what drives us to continually go back to our people, to listen and to hear what they have to say, and to act for them. Being named out, rendered invisible, or couched in the negative is not an option. The Māori Party will stand up for the right to name Māori in this bill on strategic economic partnerships and, indeed, in every sphere of influence we take up. The Treaty of Waitangi means something to us. It brings with it rights and responsibilities that will not be ignored. We will not focus just on economic and trade partnerships without considering the impact on people, particularly the indigenous people of the nations involved.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): I listened with interest to the comments made by my colleague from the Māori Party and would like to address one or two comments to him in reply to the points he made. Firstly, I feel disappointed that someone like Dr Jane Kelsey is preparing speeches for colleagues in the Māori Party to read in this Chamber, because it is stopping—

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to clarify the situation, because it seems there is an assertion that somebody is writing speeches for us, and the person’s name—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order; it is a debating point.

Te Ururoa Flavell: How will I be able to make the point that the comment is out of context and inappropriate?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member can seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Do I do that now?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You can, or you can wait until the member has finished his speech, then do it.

Sandra Goudie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

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

Sandra Goudie: Can the member not say that he takes offence?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No.

JOHN HAYES: I particularly welcome the comments made by my colleague in the Māori Party, because voices should be heard—and voices are many, varied, and come from many perspectives. I say to him that if you look down a telescope, from one end of it you will see a big picture, and if you reverse the telescope and look down the other end, you might see a small picture. I say to you that I have lived in countries—

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

JOHN HAYES: I point out that we are here today to talk about trade. Trade has nothing to do with ethnicity. It has nothing to do with it, at all. Trade is something that has gone on for thousands of years—before any person arrived here in Aotearoa. For example, the Persians were trading with the Chinese 4,500 or 5,000 years ago. All we are doing in this bill is helping our country to create wealth. In the Committee on this bill, colleagues from the Green Party and Māori Party said they did not want to have anything to do with this legislation because they thought it would cause people to lose jobs. I have heard some nonsense in my time, but I think those views are total rubbish. I will come back to that shortly.

I also say to my colleague from the Māori Party that today we are engaged in a process that is giving him a voice. The process of treaty making in this country used to be conducted outside this Parliament, by bureaucrats. I have spent around 22 or 23 years of my life engaged in that process, far from the gaze of politicians, and far from the opportunity for people like our Māori Party colleagues even to comment. So I commend this House and our predecessors who have brought this very important process into the House to expose it to public scrutiny. Although I hear the comments of my colleague Mr Groser on the repetition of this issue through various processes in this House, I think the people of New Zealand welcome the opportunity for the House to look at these issues.

My colleague from the Green Party thinks we should stop this process, because he said it would cause a loss of jobs. He used the example of the clothing manufacturing industry. I can tell members that since the reforms in the mid-1980s we have had companies operating very successfully in my electorate. Members who represent electorates will know that companies like Bouzaid and Ballaben Ltd in Greytown, where I live, employ something like 60 people every day of the week to make clothes. Further north in Masterton, John Whitehead of Whitehead Productions Ltd is providing employment through the manufacturing of clothes. This agreement will only support them in their activities. Similarly, let us think about trade in shoes. Certainly, one can go into a lot of shoe shops in this country and find shoes made in China, Thailand, or the Philippines, but I can say that in my electorate people are making shoes for sale in this market perfectly competitively.

We need this agreement. National supports it, because we need to create wealth in this country. What concerns me is that this bill will not deliver enough wealth creation. In the Committee on the bill my Green colleague expressed a concern that he wants to see us moving forward—and so does my Māori colleague—to generate money to meet the 0.7 percent UN target. They want to see us remove poverty from the world. Where will the money come from if we do not generate it? That is why we need this bill.

I will seek leave to table a document extracted from the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise annual report of 2005. Page 44 of that report shows that money being spent by this Government on generating trade activity in the area of import replacement and in developing our own domestic industry has generated an income of $23.4 million. We need agreements like that trade agreement to generate wealth in our country, because to generate that import replacement value—as set out in that report—has cost us $41.7 million of wasted money. For every dollar we have earned through that import replacement value arrangement it has cost the taxpayer $2, because that is what the Government has spent. As I said, I will seek leave to table this document.

We need to create wealth in this country because money is being wasted and squandered. For example, we need to generate wealth so we can give it away in the Pacific Island countries, as our colleague the “Minister of Baubles” has done in the last week or so by building—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is like a nickname, and the member knows it is out of order. The member must refer to a member by his or her full name, or by his or her office.

JOHN HAYES: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The reason we need to generate that wealth is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Niue the last week giving away $8 million or so for a new hospital. That hospital is operating in a community of a thousand people and with 20 members of Parliament. If we are going to give New Zealand taxpayers’ money away—money we have made by generating wealth—do members not think there should be some obligation to make sure the money is spent wisely? If we think about it, this Minister has also been supporting a process whereby the people of Tokelau—New Zealanders living on three atolls 500 kilometres from Apia, Samoa, on subsistence incomes—are being told: “We want you to be self-governing. We don’t want to have your responsibility. We want you to get money from other aid donors, because we are sick of paying for you.” We have created a $20 million fund from New Zealand taxpayers’ money—from wealth we have created in this community—to encourage the people of Tokelau to take that road. I am very pleased they have not done it.

Similarly, my colleague in the New Zealand First Party has suggested that we use the wealth we have created to buy guns from the police and to give them away to the Solomon Islands. Does he not know that the Australian Government and the New Zealand Government are working in the Solomon Islands to establish law and order because the guns were stolen from the police? He is just trying to complicate a problem.

We need more vision because we need more wealth. I want to see wealth created so we can employ sufficient general practitioners in Dannevirke to service our local community. I want to see a policeman running our police station in Carterton, in my electorate, so we do not have to have the sort of suggestion I received from police this week—that our police station will be run by a green worker. We want to support the bill. I want to see it expanded to include other Pacific Islanders, but I will support it fully.

I seek leave to table page 44 of the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise annual report of 2005.

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

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I wish to provide a personal explanation to clarify a matter that was raised by the previous speaker, Mr Hayes. In my speech, I advised that the Māori Party has taken particular note of advice and analyses provided by Professor Jane Kelsey. I also said that Jane Kelsey was one of the submitters to the committee. An accusation was made that the Māori Party was using Professor Kelsey as a speech writer. I want to explain to the House that Professor Kelsey has never provided any speech either to me or to the Māori Party under those conditions.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I also to wish to make some comments as we wrap up the debate on the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill. I may well be the last speaker from any side of the House on this debate, and I would certainly like to summarise a few of the points that I think are pertinent on this occasion.

Firstly, I acknowledge the comment made by the Hon Jim Sutton that there was a degree of will on both sides of the House to see the bill progress. He is correct. Across the work of Parliament, trade is one of those areas where there is a great similarity in approach, at least between the two major parties. That is appropriate, because it sets a standard that says trade is important and significant to this nation, and that we concur that every trade opportunity we can get will benefit this nation. As the previous speaker, John Hayes, said, that helps to create wealth and opportunity. It is also significant for this reason: trade is a commitment, and it is also an investment. The fact that we have this area of stability around policy between Labour and National provides security and stability for our exporters, who know that if and when there are changes of Government, there will not be a radical shift in trade policy. So exporters know that their investments in personnel and infrastructure—or whatever is needed—are secure. It is appropriate that our two major parties are in broad agreement on the principles of trade. We certainly acknowledge that that is the case, and we are keen to support the bill, which takes the notion of trade agreements to another level—but I will speak more about that in a moment.

I want to respond to the member of the Māori Party, Te Ururoa Flavell, who raised some valid concerns about the impact of trade on Māoridom in New Zealand. I just say to him that a trade policy is a nation approach, and any subset that wants to claim that it is disadvantaged needs to look at where that approach is taking the country as a whole and at its part and its opportunity in those opportunities that are presented through increased trade. One can look at the countries that have said they are not in trade, and see where they have gone.

Let us look at some countries and at their position on trade. We can take, as an example, a country that has had the very broadest attitude to trade that is possible—maybe Singapore would be that country. That is a country we used to give aid to in the 1960s, but by embracing trade as a wealth-creation process, its economy is now ahead of ours on the OECD list, and is ahead by any measure. We can contrast that country with countries who have said that trade is not where they want to be. So on the other end of the scale is, maybe, Albania, or North Korea. I ask the member from the Māori Party whether he wants to embrace the kind of economy that North Korea finds it is now saddled with—with the restrictions and implications of an economy that is not performing. I would say very clearly that a great deal of the position North Korea finds itself in has been the result of shutting its borders and saying: “We are an island and we do not want to engage in global world trade.” So trade as a principle is significantly important.

This particular trade tariff agreement, this strategic alliance, requires the signatures of the four players in it: Chile, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, and New Zealand. Those parties have to be signed up, and this bill will come into effect on 1 May. We look forward to a network being created. There are a lot of firsts about this bill, and it is significant that this step takes place. We are members of the Pacific, and it is good that in the wider global trading environment we will have that network arrangement emanating around the Pacific. It is a web that will cross from New Zealand to Latin America and South America—Chile is the country that will be a signatory—and into Asia. Again, we will strengthen our relationships in Asia by signing up with Singapore and Brunei Darussalam.

Singapore and Chile are two significant platforms that reach each way. Singapore is the hub of Asia; it is crucial that we acknowledge that country. Its population is a similar size to ours. It is entirely different geographically, but it is the hub of Asia. We do ourselves a great service when we work towards a trade opportunity with Singapore and become a signatory to reducing tariffs in that direction. Similarly, Chile is a platform into Latin America and South America. It is our nearest country in that continent, and its ports are our entry points for many of the opportunities that exist as we head east into South America. So that is significant. We have similar values and similar types of economies. No, we are not the same, but we have a similar sort of ideology.

The second thing that occurs from this bill is that we set a standard. We are saying to the world that we believe in trade. We believe in reducing tariffs and increasing opportunities. That is a significant statement to make. We are not a big player in the world as a trading nation. Trade is probably more important to us than to most countries, but in terms of volume of trade we are not huge. But we can set some standards. As I mentioned earlier, Singapore today is a model of where we can go if we embrace trade. North Korea, on the other hand, is an example of where we can go if we do not embrace trade. Through this bill we can say to the world: “Here is an opportunity, and we will be the net beneficiaries.”, and the Māori Party and its constituents are very much part of that. So that is important. The first thing, then, is that those countries are similar types of countries with similar values, and the partnership will build bridges across the Pacific. As I said, it is a first move into the Latin countries, and it is an important platform for us to get into the important hub of Asia.

It is interesting that if we look at other impacts besides the standard we are setting for the rest of the world, we see that both Chile and Singapore have been advocates for a freer air transport environment. So that is another symbol that says to the world: “We will gain if we exchange.” Those countries have been at the forefront of the opening up of those opportunities. Through passing this legislation, we are signing up four countries that will say: “Yes, we want to trade clearer with each other, and we don’t want to have the impositions of a cost barrier.” I have to say to the House that that has created an environment of dialogue from which there are also other benefits. Barriers are not just on the basis of tariffs, but they can be imposed through a whole lot of restrictions, requirements, and specifications that prevent us from trading. The very notion that we are saying we want to enter negotiations at the table, and not have a cost tariff, also says that we want to reduce the non-tariff impositions that prevent trade, as well. This is a small bill, but it is a significant bill in that it sets a standard, and it says that this is where we want to go—we as a nation will be beneficiaries. I support the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to reflect on the process here. The vote was called for, but the member was silent when asked to cast the vote for United Future. I am not sure he can now seek to change that and cast the vote now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. Although the member makes a good point, the fact remains that the vote has not been declared. So it is in order for the member to do what he did. [Interruption] I remind members that there is to be no comment at all during the taking of votes.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 111

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1.

Noes 10

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.

Bill read a third time.

New Zealand Sign Language Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): Thank you for the call on the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Members know that they have reached the pinnacle of their careers when their whips call them up at short notice and ask them to take a call on such important legislation. I will probably be accused of being a little insensitive because—[Interruption]; did some member call out and make a contribution to that—my first response when I was asked to take a call was to question why Parliament is being asked to spend its time on this legislation. I will need a little convincing that it is, in fact, necessary. That does not mean to say that I do not care about people who are deaf. I also care about lots of people, though, who have other impairments, and I wonder why deaf people in particular have been singled out.

Why I am bothered, and why I have taken the time to raise my concern at the outset, is that I look at what is being proposed here within the purpose of the legislation in clause 3 and see that we will now declare New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of New Zealand, and that the bill will provide for the use of New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings. That latter part is the part I am most concerned about. I wonder whether those who proposed this bill actually did a costing of what this move will impose on taxpayers in this country. How many people actually come before our courts who are so profoundly deaf—there is no other way they can be communicated with—that we have to go to the bother of legislating to have someone interpreting in New Zealand Sign Language in our courts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, when those courts are in action? I suggest that the number is very few, indeed. I just wonder why we have had to go to all this difficulty and bother to single out that one area of impairment.

The other reason I am concerned is that this language, I am told, is unique to New Zealand. That is all well and good, but I would have thought that if we were imposing an official language on New Zealand, we might have had a language that had some universal connection. Why will this language be understood only by New Zealanders? Why is it not a language that can be used and understood around the rest of the globe? So those were a couple of concerns I raised, in the first instance.

I have said that I did not mean to say I did not care—because I do. My own father, in fact, is now profoundly deaf, and I have seen him over the years retreat into his own world because he cannot communicate. He feels, and we feel, that he has been diminished somewhat as a response to that situation, but that does not mean to say that I should have come to Parliament wanting to put in place legislation specifically for him. What I did, with the rest of my family, was to endeavour to get him really good help to overcome his impairment so that he can participate. But I had to do that by putting my hand in my own pocket. Rather than making it a problem for the taxpayers of New Zealand, I took some personal responsibility and fixed the issue. Now my father can communicate, and he is taking an active role in family life and in social life, once again. He is just one example, but that aspect of the bill bothers me.

I am also bothered by the fact that we are told this language will not have any official standing other than in our courts—and my addition to that statement is: yet. I am told that the guiding principles will be distributed to Government departments, but that those departments will have no compulsion to use them. I say that that is how these things start, and then become bigger than Ben Hur. I believe that we are going down the track of creating something that will in time be a rod for our own backs. I think that the legislation could have been thought through, and a better solution arrived at.

Having said that, I tell the Committee that National’s view, as a caucus, is that of course we will support this legislation, but I have voiced some concerns I would like members to be cognisant of through the Committee stage. I think that we as a country, and we as legislators in particular, are falling into this trap all the time: when something seems socially acceptable we take the easy option and start legislating. Sign language is one of those things that in its own right will endure, because there is a need for it. But legislating for it will not make it any better or any worse—and, of course, that is my point. I think it is unnecessary that the Parliament of New Zealand has had to be bothered with becoming involved in something that will endure in its own right. That is the point I wanted to make, but I do not want to be recorded as being unsympathetic; I was just trying to introduce a touch of reality to these proceedings.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): New Zealand First is very pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Clause 3 outlines the purpose of the bill. It is very clear. The key message is that sign language can be used in legal proceedings, and the bill also promotes the use of sign language in Government departments. I was very pleased to see that the Wellington City Council offers a sign language interpreting service.

New Zealand First believes it is important to acknowledge the rights of members of the Deaf community and their equal value in society. The more options deaf New Zealanders have to participate in the community, and in society overall, the richer their lives will be. In this area they have not been afforded the same right to their language as other New Zealanders.

I note the previous speaker said that sign languages are not universal. Guess what? English is not totally a universal language. New Zealand Sign Language is unique to New Zealand; it is not used anywhere else in the world. Other countries have their own sign language. This is just like Māori, which is not a universal language, but we need to take note of that language and include it as an official language as well. Sign language includes signs that express Māori language and Māori culture. In this way it is very inclusive and assures that Māori New Zealanders who do not hear have access to their language and their culture, and that is what needs to happen.

New Zealand First was very pleased to see in clause 4 that the interpretation of terms includes people who identify with the Deaf community, as the bill must include hearing people within the definition. New Zealand First believes that today is an opportunity to make progress on the legal status of the New Zealand Sign Language and to advance the recognition of sign language.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, on behalf of National. During this process I have learnt a great deal about New Zealand Sign Language and its importance to the Deaf community. One of the things I have learnt is that when we are speaking to people who are using a sign language interpreter—and I am delighted to see that we have one in the House this afternoon—it is important to speak slowly. So that is something I have learnt and I am making a conscious effort to put into practice.

On that premise, I think learning is one of the great things about sharing other people’s stories and valuing their contribution, and understanding a little of what they experience every day. I was intrigued to note that even the Deaf community change their language, and the New Zealand Sign Language, as they learn, develop, and evolve. In being sensitive to other communities and their needs, they have changed some of their signing.

Brian Connell raised an interesting point when speaking to Part 1. Yes, members of the Deaf community have protections under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but I am pleased to see that those protections are enhanced by the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. One of the things that was very important to me was to see that the appropriate sign language interpreters are available during any criminal process, and that includes where deaf people might be apprehended.

In my initial speech in the House I related a story that was shared with me by the Deaf community, regarding a policeman who was trying to give an instruction to somebody who was deaf. Because the policeman was standing behind the deaf person, the deaf person was unaware of the policeman requiring him to do something. So what happened? The policeman probably got mad, and, of course, the deaf person was still unaware of that taking place. As a consequence, having been cautioned a number of times, the person was then duly arrested. None of us likes to see those sorts of situations taking place. We like to see people being given the due consideration, care, and attention that is necessary, but it is hard to know whether someone is deaf and whether he or she can understand us in that kind of situation.

There have been forums between the Deaf community and the police, and there have been some very positive discussions highlighting some areas where there is room for improvement. My understanding from those forums and discussions is that some very positive relationships already exist between the Deaf community and the police, but there were also some areas where improvements could be made. I am sure that in the ongoing training of our police personnel, their understanding of the Deaf community will be broadened quite substantially.

Hospitals is another area where there is a concern around interpreters being available. We need to ensure that the diagnosis and the explanation of symptoms is very clear and understood, and not misinterpreted. This does, of course, require a level of great expertise on the part of the interpreter, and there are differing degrees of capability with interpreters. There is no provision, as was pointed out by my colleague Brian Connell, for ongoing costs associated with the provision of interpreters.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak in support of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill and to address Part 1. The irony of my doing that is not lost upon me. I do not believe that there will be many occasions in this House when I will rise to support legislation promoted by the Labour Government and its partner in Government, New Zealand First. Unlike those parties, I believe in the inherent worth of every New Zealand individual, and I have no desire at all to see more and more of our people being made dependent on the State.

I reflect upon my 32 years as an educator and upon the parents I got to know who had children who were deaf. I think that something like 95 percent of children who are deaf have parents who have hearing, and I never cease to be amazed by the commitment and the drive that those mums and dads have to learn sign language so they can assist their children. Let us be very, very clear about one thing. It is not possible for an individual to function in our community and take part in our economy if they cannot communicate in formal language, and that is what this bill will do for the Deaf members of our community. It will give their language a status, a standing, and bring respect to it. It is amazing what one learns. After 32 years in education I would have thought that I would learn one or two things, but I never appreciated that New Zealand Sign Language is actually distinctive to New Zealand. I had always taken for granted that sign language was sign language. On studying this bill I developed a whole new perspective on that, and for that reason I believe that the bill is worthy of support.

I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for the fine work it has done on the bill. It is a simple law, it is straightforward, and its purpose is clearly stated, and the passage of the bill in this House will mean an enormous amount to the 28,000 people in New Zealand who used sign language, and in particular to the 7,000 Deaf New Zealanders who are using sign language. It is hard to believe that sign language has been in New Zealand for something like 125 years. Yet only in the last 20 years has the drive been there to have it made an official language. Today, as a result of the work of this House, the select committee, and many other people, sign language is one step closer to being official. In other words, we are one step closer to saying to those New Zealanders who are deaf that their language is important and that their language is the way in which they communicate formally and structurally with other New Zealanders, and I think that that is a great thing.

It is a great thing that we are giving official recognition to New Zealand Sign Language, and I think that the principles laid out in the bill are commendable. Sign language is not theatre sport. It is not drama, it is not theatrics; it is a formal, structured language with grammar and expression, and it gives anybody who is using it every opportunity to express the full range of human thought. It is precise and carefully constructed, and, as I say, it has its own grammar and syntax. It is a language in its own right.

Children who are born deaf, to deaf parents, learn sign language naturally from their parents. Children who are born deaf to parents who are not deaf face a major challenge. As I spent 32 years as an educator, I used to watch the signers who used to assist those children, and I was just stunned by their patience and skill. I watched a signer in the House this afternoon. I noted the skill and the patience; it was quite extraordinary. Being able to sign opens up a whole range of possibilities for our young people—for those children who are born deaf and who need, and want, to make their way in the world on the basis of their individual merits and effort.

In speaking to Part 1, I take the opportunity, as a former educator, and as a member of Parliament—as I understand that I am allowed to wear two hats—to pay tribute to New Zealand’s two residential special schools for the deaf and the hearing impaired. Those schools are in Auckland and Christchurch.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago): I rise to speak to Part 1 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, and I refer to my colleague Allan Peachy’s comment that New Zealand Sign Language was not theatre sports and it was not theatre. However, I want to go back to some of the principles that underline the theatre, because I believe that theatre, like sign language, is about communication, and is about communicating in the most effective way that a person has at his or her disposal with the people with whom that person wants to communicate.

When I was an actor, as I was for a number of years, as part of training it was pointed out to us, and we were to discover for ourselves, that in order to communicate effectively with either a person or a group of people it was necessary to realise that words themselves make up around 6 percent of the effectiveness of communication. The intonation—what we actually hear, the ups and downs of those words—comprises around 14 percent of communication; and body language—what we do with our hands, our facial expressions, and in fact, our whole bodies—comprises 80 percent of what is made up of communication.

The interpreter within this Chamber is using sign language and body language to communicate. That communication is being understood very well by the people with whom she is communicating. So when I say that the theatre, and theatre training, is relevant to sign language, I go back to those principles.

Further, when one is on stage, or when one is in front of a camera, and is communicating with his or her body to an audience—a single person, or a group of people—one must always be looking out for how that is received. Because how that is received determines one’s next words; the way one delivers those next words through one’s body language determines the way in which one proceeds. So body language—and, I rather suspect, sign language—is very much a two-way process, and that is what communication is all about.

I was stunned and amazed when I was talking to a friend of mine who works as an early childhood educator. One of the ways in which she communicates with her very little children is by using sign language. They use sign language in early childhood centres, mostly to find out when kids want to go to the loo, because kids often cannot express themselves through words, but they can certainly express themselves through signing. They find it really useful in this particular early childhood centre because if the little children are in a room full of sleeping children, the kids who want to go to the toilet can simply make a sign. The question can be asked and can be answered effectively by very little children without disturbing others. To me, 2-year-olds using sign language is very effective, and, of course, as parents, we all use sign language.

In Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, clause 3 states: “The purpose of this Act is to promote and maintain the use of New Zealand Sign Language by—“. Well, I would maintain that it is to promote and maintain the use of effective communication. Clause 4, “Interpretation”, states: “Deaf community means—(a) the distinct linguistic and cultural group of people who are deaf and who use New Zealand Sign Language as their first or preferred language;”.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

NATHAN GUY (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Already, through reading the bill and watching the signers operate in the House, I realise that I need to be very deliberate in my delivery this evening to give them the courtesy of understanding how I will speak about and address the bill.

Many people have hearing disabilities, and I want to talk about just a couple of examples close to home. My father, who is a farmer and has operated a lot of machinery in his time, has a severe hearing disability. The huge amount of joy he got when he was fortunate enough to get some hearing aids was incredible. He likened it to being in a forest hearing birds that he had not been able to hear for the previous two or three decades. He also told me that it was funny when he got up in the middle of the night and went to the toilet, for he had not heard that sound for a long, long time.

I also have a friend who is a veterinarian up in Matamata who suffered a very, very bad skiing accident where he burst one of his eardrums. That has had a severe impact on his profession, particularly when he works with deer in an enclosed space. Those animals are particularly fast, and he said that the lack of balance, as a result of having only one ear operating properly, means that it is extremely dangerous for him to be circulating with those animals in their yards.

So I think it is important that we acknowledge not only the 7,000 people in New Zealand who are Deaf but also the others who have severe hearing disabilities. I think it is also important to take a moment to ponder how those people miss out in today’s society. The bill helps to address that, and we, the National Party caucus, are extremely supportive of it. It is a step in the right direction, and is unique to New Zealand. I was surprised to read in Hansard that sign language is not acknowledged internationally, but just here in New Zealand. That is partly, I guess, because of our Māori culture. I tell people in the Chamber this evening that I recall that at primary school, when I did not listen intently enough, the teacher would often say: “Nathan, open up your taringas.”, which I am doing here this evening.

Shane Jones: Good to see it continued into adulthood!

NATHAN GUY: That is right. I tell Mr Jones that I know a little bit of te reo.

New Zealand Sign Language is a vital communication tool for those people in our country who are deaf. I believe that it is extremely important that we acknowledge that this evening as we move forward. It is important to note that in 3 years’ time, on 1 March 2009, a review will be undertaken. I believe that it is very important to acknowledge that 3 years from now we will be able to take a step back and fine-tune anything that may need to be addressed.

In reading the bill, I am interested to note that, going forward, no fiscal implications have been budgeted for. I see that the need for signers in the courts is acknowledged, but that the need for them in other places is not acknowledged—places such as hospitals and Parliament. So I challenge the Minister for Disability Issues this evening to take a call to explain to me why some of those budgeting items were not included in the bill.

It is also interesting to note that so far this evening we have heard nothing on the bill from members on the other side of the Committee, and I thought they were supporting it. I challenge them to take a call this evening so we can hear their endorsement of the bill. I specifically challenge the Minister—

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I think members will have much more scope under Part 2. The debate is tending to get a bit repetitive.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 New Zealand Sign Language

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I have heard some very fine speeches in support of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill this evening, and their sentiments, of course, I agree with.

When I took my first call, I criticised the need for this bill but I did not criticise New Zealand Sign Language, and I point out to colleagues that there is quite a difference between the two. I continue to argue as to whether this legislation is necessary, given that New Zealand Sign Language is so universally accepted now and so enduring that it would have continued under its own steam without the need to bother Parliament. In particular, I am concerned about the clauses that pertain to interpreters being present at all legal proceedings in this country. I ask those who were on the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill to take a call to explain how many examples were given where people in our court systems had been severely disadvantaged. Were they so many that we have to impose on all of New Zealand legislation that will come with a considerable price tag?

I have built the argument before, and I will repeat it: if New Zealanders would simply take more responsibility for their own actions, legislators would have a lot less to do, and Barbara Stewart’s bill that calls for 20 fewer legislators in this country might have a fair chance of getting through this House.

Is it really necessary to build costs into our court system by having an interpreter for every one of the courts that is listed in the schedule? I will read out the names of the courts, because the point is very central to my argument. All of these courts will now have an interpreter: the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, District Courts, the Employment Court, the Family Courts, Youth Courts, the Māori Land Court, the Māori Appellate Court, and the Environment Court. The tribunals are then listed: the Waitangi Tribunal, the Employment Relations Authority, the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunals, which are established under section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, and the tenancy tribunal. In my view, this will become a bureaucratic nightmare. I ask again—and the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Disability Issues, might be able to take a call to explain—why those things were not costed into the bill in the first place. Now that the Minister has had the question put to her she might be able to answer how many examples were offered to the select committee to show that this legislation was in fact necessary.

What I see happening here is our heartstrings being pulled and our minds being overruled by our hearts. That might sound cold, but it is not meant to; it is just meant to sound realistic. I believe that the legislators of this country have a fiducial responsibility to make sure that the legislation we are putting in place is in fact necessary. I qualify that statement by saying, as I have said right throughout the course of this debate, that New Zealand Sign Language itself is such an enduring part of our landscape now that it would have continued without this legislation being necessary in the first instance. What bothers me is that it will not stop here. If New Zealand Sign Language is in our courts today, then I believe that within the next 10 years it will be imposed in all Government departments. Some might argue that that is a good thing, and of course if one is profoundly deaf, one will argue that it is a good thing.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues): It gives me great pleasure to contribute to the debate. I first acknowledge the very widespread support and engagement that the bill has received through to this stage, and I am sure will receive through the Committee stage as well. It is not often that we have an opportunity to debate a bill that is supported by all but one of the parties in Parliament, and it has been a real pleasure to be involved in it.

The amendments that have been arrived at during the select committee are a bit of an indication of the way that process went. In clause 7(1)(b), clause 7(3), clause 9(1A), and clause 10A, all the new amendments from the select committee have been promoted in a unanimous fashion. I certainly support them. It is just worth noting that it is not often that we get that from a select committee.

In terms of the entire Part 2, the most important part is clause 6, which states: “New Zealand Sign Language is declared to be an official language of New Zealand.” That is not just a declaration of the recognition of the language; it is a declaration of the recognition of Deaf culture, and therefore the importance when one is recognising a culture of also recognising its language. Although I think at least one of the points that Brian Connell raised in his contribution was worthy of consideration, I do think he overlooked the fundamental point that recognition of a culture through its language is one of the primary drivers.

He is right to suggest that it does imply a right to have New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings, and I cannot imagine that it is a right that anyone in the country would debate, frankly. In fact, every single member of Parliament during the previous consideration of the bill said that that was correct. The only debate was about the mechanism for doing it. In fact, clause 10B states quite specifically that it does not affect the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is just debatable whether the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would be an appropriate place to give recognition to a culture. In my view, this is a much more appropriate mechanism for doing so. The Deaf community itself has promoted the idea of legal proceedings being an appropriate place for the right to have one’s own language being made available through interpreter services, and I support that.

I certainly hope that what sounded like a fear from Mr Connell of the use of New Zealand Sign Language spreading throughout Government departments and agencies is a fear that is realised. For me, it would be fantastic for all New Zealanders whose first language is from New Zealand to have their language made available to them so that access to information—

Brian Connell: That is your intention.

Hon RUTH DYSON: If the member would just like to read the bill, he would see that is outlined in clause 9, “Principles”: “government services and information should be made accessible to the Deaf community through the use of appropriate means (including the use of NZSL).” It is very clear that I expect all New Zealanders to be able to access information from Government departments in what is a New Zealand language—New Zealand Sign Language.

I think the review of the operation of the Act is one that we should consider as a really appropriate mechanism for anything that is a new development in our country. I obviously believe that is the way to go. But there may be improvements to be made; it would not be the first time with legislation. To have an automatic trigger to ask whether it is working in the way that Parliament intended, whether there are changes that should be made, or whether it should be reviewed, is a very sensible way forward. So the review of the Act is something that I not only commend to the House in terms of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill but also urge consideration of by select committees for future new, innovative, progressive legislation before the House. I commend the bill’s speedy progress.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I am delighted that the Minister has made a contribution to the House. I think it is really important to reiterate at this time the need for everybody participating in the debate to speak slowly, out of courtesy to the interpreter and also to those people who want to understand the content of the debate, through the interpreter.

In speaking to Part 2, I will look to the courts and tribunals outlined in the schedule, and make some comment about that. The system that was used before, and that will continue to be used, is that those people who come before the courts and tribunals will have access to a sign language interpreter. Under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act they have that right now, and once the bill is enacted they will continue to have that right. But, as a consequence of this bill, it will be stated more clearly as a requirement. I am very pleased to see that happen because it can be bad enough for people like myself who can hear, and see, to access what we see as justice—I had a letter in that regard today—but it must be even worse when somebody has the difficulty of not being able to hear, and perhaps does not have access to a sign language interpreter in order to be able to understand the proceedings of the court or tribunal process.

The procedure in the courts will not change significantly, because any person who has a hearing difficulty and needs to use a sign language interpreter can do that now. That will not change, but it will be enhanced, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will be supported by the fact that it is now a requirement through this sign language legislation. The costings were not done, but I think it is quite right to identify that as a concern. That concern was considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. But, as the Minister has pointed out, the review will provide an opportunity to look at what has been positive and negative about the enactment of the legislation, and the fact that there have been 3 years in which to consider its effects.

The select committee worked well to ensure that any concern raised as to the wording of the bill was addressed, and there was a great deal of comment and debate about some of the more intricate wording in the bill. As members will see, we did strike out unanimously the definition of interpretation. We needed to be very clear about what was being said, and we made every endeavour to do that. We got quite excited and carried away by the discussion, and we had to keep reminding ourselves that the sign language interpreters needed us to talk slowly and to speak one at a time, and although we did not always do that, the interpreters were very, very patient and pulled us into line occasionally.

So many stories were shared by submitters during the select committee process. One of the stories was of a woman who was constantly called dumb at secondary school. She was punished because she could not understand what her teachers were saying, and she hated that. She now spends her time helping deaf and hearing impaired people find the services they need. So she is actively involved in making sure that hearing impaired or deaf people do not have to experience the same sorts of problems that she did. That is one of the many stories we valued, as a part of the process of this bill.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I am delighted to take a call on Part 2 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. New Zealand First supports Part 2. This bill, to us, is basically about communication and accessing information, which we believe all people have a right to do. Part 2 outlines the circumstances where New Zealand Sign Language can be used. It emphasises the fact that a competent interpreter must be available. We believe this will be challenging, because the bill does not determine competency, and we believe competency must be determined. In this House we are very aware that this is a very significant issue for the Deaf community.

We in New Zealand First believe competency should ensure that certification, by successfully graduating from a course, is a basic requirement of competency. We must ensure that information is relayed correctly. We all know that a lack of competency in this particular area could have significant consequences for a deaf person, particularly in a health or a legal environment. This is a very significant and important issue. We believe that minimum standards of competency must be set as a priority.

There must also be a focus on ensuring sufficient numbers of interpreters are available to provide the service. This means that there must be some incentive for providers to offer this training throughout New Zealand. We know that the Auckland University of Technology offers this training, and I was very pleased to read on the Internet that a second course has been set up in Otago. I am very mindful that the courses are of 2 years’ duration, so it may be some time before we see those students graduate. We know that there is currently a shortage of New Zealand Sign Language interpreters, so it will be quite some time before graduates of those courses can actually meet the demand for interpreters.

We must acknowledge the interpreter in the House today, who is using sign language. It does require a lot of skill. We must emphasise that this is important legislation, which will ensure that New Zealand Sign Language has equal status to spoken language. As other speakers have said, this is a vital communication issue, and we look forward to the speedy passing of this bill through the House.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura): It is a privilege to stand here and speak about the process that is before the Committee—the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, especially Part 2. My only experience with hearing impaired people was in a previous life when I was a shearing instructor.

Nathan Guy: It was a good one, too.

COLIN KING: It was a good one, and an honest one. It highlighted for me as a teacher, or an adult educator, how difficult it is to get the messages through to people who are passionate, enthusiastic, and talented yet have the limitation of being unable to hear. It was a very, very useful discipline for me, and those people, as few as they are, who came through the shearing industry and the wool industry remain great friends. They had some great work ethics, and there was a lot they could teach us. So when I observe the people in the Chamber today who are benefiting from sign language, it makes me feel very humble. My only knowledge about losing capability has to do with age and sight, and natural things. Many people are unable to make those choices, those adjustments, so I am very, very humbled by their determination to be acknowledged. Terms that come to my mind are empowerment, achievement, celebration, progress, inclusion, and understanding.

It is certainly wonderful to be able to speak to the Committee and support this very important New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Recognition is starting in the area of legal proceedings, which is a very appropriate place to start, because I could not imagine a situation in the legal system—for example, a courtroom—where one would feel less comfortable. I think we want to portray and develop a society where all cultures are safe. Safety is something inherently required by all cultures in a First World economy and a First World society. I am very grateful that we have taken this brave step, and I am not too concerned about sign language becoming a growing, out-of-control industry. From what I have seen of people who depend immensely on sign language, they are genuine, honest, and sincere, and to be represented adequately in a courtroom is a comfort. It would also, in the events leading to a circumstance where someone is to appear before a court, give that person certainty that he or she will be afforded the same representation as everybody else. That is an underpinning right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

It is interesting to see that there are opportunities within New Zealand for people to develop skills as a signer for those who are hearing impaired. They have got themselves remarkably organised, regardless of the impediments that have been put in front of them. Night classes can be found by contacting the New Zealand Sign Tutors Association. I think that is absolutely remarkable. It will certainly meet the needs and aspirations of a large part of New Zealand society that is caring and compassionate so that these people can be supported to be quality contributors to our society. It was interesting to hear from the New Zealand First speaker that there is training opportunity in Otago—that is something valuable I have learnt—because access to training and further qualifications is very important. By doing some research, I see that Auckland University of Technology offers a diploma. That is quite fitting because it comes under the point in Part 2 that refers to competency.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Clause 6 declares that New Zealand Sign Language is to be an official language of New Zealand. I took a little bit of convincing about that. During 16 years as a school principal, I very strongly advocated the teaching of languages. I believe that, as New Zealanders, we do not put sufficiently high value on our young people learning more than their first language. Many of our young people suffer a disadvantage when compared with youngsters from other parts of the world in this respect. I took a moment to review modern linguistic research and writing, and I am now convinced that sign language is indeed a real language and is worthy of respect.

Clause 7 provides for the use of sign language in legal proceedings. In most cases, I have no difficulty agreeing with the reservations expressed by my colleague Mr Connell about that issue. However, I am one of those people who believe that when it comes to the judicial system, the stakes are very high when one is appearing in court, and we must get it right—for every New Zealander. We should make whatever effort we need to in order to ensure that that happens.

A group of New Zealanders will benefit from this law. They will benefit from having their own unique language recognised as an official language. They will have better access to the legal system, the health system, and the education system as a result of this bill.

I come back to those parents, grandparents, and other family members who are learning, or who have learnt, New Zealand Sign Language in order to assist one of their children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, nieces, or nephews. In effect, those people are learning a second language. It must be a great affirmation and reassurance to them to know that this Parliament is giving the first language of their children official recognition. For a child who is born deaf and who learns to sign, sign language is that child’s first language. I commend all those parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, and, sometimes, friends who make the effort to learn that second language in order to support their fellow New Zealanders.

People who are deaf need, deserve, and are entitled to the same protection from any misunderstanding or unfair treatment in our legal system, health system, and education system that might result from a lack of communication or a lack of understanding. Anything we can do to reduce that risk for a group of New Zealanders—and we should remember that 7,000 Deaf New Zealanders use sign language—is worth doing.

Clause 8 deals with the effect of recognising New Zealand Sign Language. Clause 9 lays down the principles that Government departments should be guided by in giving effect to the objectives of the bill. The Deaf community is to be consulted on all matters relating to New Zealand Sign Language. That is appropriate, and that is how it should be. New Zealand Sign Language is to be used to provide information and to promote Government services, and—most important, I think—Government services and information are to be accessible to the Deaf community.

Clause 10 authorises the Minister to report on progress. I particularly commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for its insertion of a new clause 10A into the bill, which provides for a review of the operation of this legislation 3 years from the date of its commencement. Like many members of the House, and I am sure, now, many New Zealanders, I take a lot of comfort from the knowledge that when that review occurs—

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago): I rise to speak to the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. I turn, firstly, to the schedule of the bill, “Courts and tribunals before which New Zealand Sign Language may be used”. I want to talk about that subject from a personal perspective. It would be very easy to be somewhat flippant about the beneficial effect that having an interpreter to represent somebody before the courts may have.

Some 20 years ago I was a supervisor working for the Salvation Army. I supervised young people who were failing—or had failed—under the education system, who had left school, and who were unable to get work. Those people were offered the opportunity—and I do say it was an opportunity—to be part of a Salvation Army work scheme, the purpose of which was to teach not only work skills to young people but also life skills.

When I was a supervisor with the Salvation Army, there was a young man who was profoundly deaf. When he first came on the scheme as one of my trainees, it was very hard to communicate with him, because, apart from that fact that he had let his hair grow down over his eyes so he did not have to look at people, he had a bit of an attitude. He was an angry and not a very happy young man, so it was difficult to communicate with him. When we did begin to communicate with him—of course, the communication would be: “Go and dig over that piece of ground and we’ll grow some spuds.”, or something like that—he began to become part of our team, and I think he enjoyed his time as a trainee.

I turn to Part 2 of the bill. Clause 7 outlines the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings. I will tell members why I think that it is terribly, terribly important for people to have that right. In the years that went by, the young man I have talked about—and I am going back 20 years now; he was 17 or 18 at the time I knew him—then began to appear in the district court, over what could be seen as relatively trivial matters to do with motor vehicles and vandalism. Although he might have been represented by counsel to the best of their ability, one can only imagine the effectiveness of counsel who were trying to communicate with somebody who was profoundly deaf.

Having known that young man, I know that he, like a great many other young people, was actually very scared and very vulnerable underneath. When one is faced with an appearance in the district court, which is somewhat like a factory, it is frightening and very scary, and every person in New Zealand deserves all the help he or she can get. So I support the right of everybody in New Zealand, including those people who require the use of New Zealand Sign Language, to have that service available to them in any court in the land. I guess that privilege would have to be extended to the Family Court. Members can imagine how very difficult it is for anyone to appear in front of any kind of judicial court. So I completely support the provisions in clause 7 of Part 2.

I just want to turn to new section 10A, “Review of operation of Act”, which is proposed to be inserted by clause 10 of the bill. That provision gives the Minister the opportunity to sit back and evaluate whether the legislation is really working, and again I think it is a very good part of the bill.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Chairman. Kia ora tātou katoa. I want to talk about the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, but in terms of the Māori language. I think back to the days when people were not allowed to speak Māori. My own grandfather wrote a book Teach Yourself Māori but he never taught any of his children, so consequently they never taught any of us. They all got strapped for speaking Māori. Therefore, in the 1970s we had to push hard to bring the Māori language back into schools. I congratulate groups like Ngā Tamatoa, Te Reo Māori Society here in Pōneke, and others on pushing to bring back the language—and now I can hear it anywhere.

We have Māori radio stations, Māori television and, thanks to the Prime Minister, we hear the national anthem in Māori every time the All Blacks play football. So the Māori language has come back, almost from the dead. When I think of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, I congratulate everybody on their efforts in bringing this bill to Parliament, and I think also of a time at Waitangi, a couple of years ago, when a group of Deaf people came there. All the kōrero on the marae was in Māori, of course. The interpreter, the person who did the sign language, just happened to be fluent in Māori and he was able to sign directly in Māori to all the Deaf people there. It was really quite something to see them all laughing at the same jokes we were all laughing at, at the same time. But the thing I really laughed at was when somebody tried to take it the next step, by then translating from sign language into English. Obviously, a lot more work needs to be done there, because the English translated from the signing in Māori was just not the same story but it was lovely to watch.

When I hear people talk about the number of Deaf people—there are only 4,000, or whatever—I think of Māori, and of how it has enriched our nation. So I do not see the New Zealand Sign Language Bill in terms of offering something to a small group in society; I see it as offering something to the whole of society, and opening us up to be more comfortable with people who speak to one another in different ways. It is actually sign language that shows me how hard it must be for a whole lot of Pākehā people, when a bunch of us Māori get together and start talking to one another in Māori. When we start talking in Māori, nobody understands us, and when I call in at the local cafe in Kaitāia where all the Deaf people meet and they all start talking in New Zealand Sign Language, I do not understand them, either.

I wish joy to those who are promoting this bill, and to those who will use this language. I say to us not to see it as something we begrudge to a small sector of our community but as something we can revel in and be proud of, now that I know it only happens here, in Aotearoa. It reminds us that in a society that is pretty monocultural, any attempt to break us out of thinking along only one paradigm has to be a good idea. I congratulate the Minister and all of those who have spoken so far, and I sincerely hope in the years to come, when the next captain of the All Blacks sings the national anthem—Tana never ever sings it in Māori; but that is OK because he never sings it in English, either—he will do it in Maori, in English, and even in New Zealand Sign Language, as well.

NATHAN GUY (National): I would like everyone in the Committee to picture this: there has been an unfortunate situation and someone has ended up in court, but the person is deaf, and is relying on a translator. I think it is important under clause 4 of Part 2 that we really have a close look at that situation. If I were in court, and if I were deaf, I would want to ensure that I had the best translator—the most competent one I could find. When I look through some of the submissions, I find them very interesting. I see one there from Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori down in Wellington, which states that its concern is the recognition that when people use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings, they should be able to express themselves in Māori or English, as they choose.

I would be really interested in the Minister taking a call to let me know how many Māori translators there are in this country. It would be really interesting to know. I think there is a real issue around whether we have enough signers, and whether they are all at a good level of competency and up to a high level of translation. I think it is also interesting to note that there is a diploma course available in Auckland. I just wonder how many people are going through and taking up that diploma and whether we have enough signers in New Zealand who can translate in Māori and English.

I move to clause 10A, which is all about the review in 3 years’ time. That review will be quite interesting, I believe, because, potentially, it will throw up the true costs and indicate any amendments that may have to be made. It is really important that when that review is done in 3 years’ time—or thereabouts, whenever practically possible—the Deaf community are consulted. That is very, very important. When I looked through some of the submissions, I found quite an interesting comment from Freyberg High School in Palmerston North, which is near my area. It states: “Many deaf people get upset with so many people patronising them. We can’t stand this. We think we are equal to others, and we are. We are equal with hearing people, and with education too. Deaf people can do everything except hear. We have intelligence, knowledge, and good learning. This is where the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, our visual language, actually helps. We receive this through our eyes, not our ears.”

The bill is supported by the National caucus. Through reading the submissions, reading the bill today, and going through the bill part by part, I have learnt an extremely large amount about the bill. I support it wholeheartedly.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura): I follow on from what I was speaking about before on Part 1 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, but I move this time on to Part 2.

I found it very informative that the bill places a lot of responsibility back on to the person who is profoundly deaf and requires the support of New Zealand Sign Language to be able to communicate adequately in a court of law. Clause 7(6) states: “Any such regulations or rules of court or other appropriate rules of procedure may make failure to give the required notice a relevant consideration in relation to an award of costs, but no person may be denied the right to use NZSL”—or New Zealand Sign Language—“in any legal proceedings because of any such failure.” I think that is a very considerate and compassionate provision. It is good to see that that right is accommodated in Part 2 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, because it places a level of responsibility upon the presiding officer of the court, and it means that he or she should, at the first notification, ensure that profoundly deaf people are duly supported and are able to communicate their thoughts and their opinions via New Zealand Sign Language. One would say that this measure was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as many speakers have done today. It is basically just what we would expect in any country with a First World quality of life.

Although we have talked particularly about New Zealand Sign Language—and it is unique and something we should be proud of—37 other countries in the world have their own unique sign languages. When we look down through the list, we see those countries that we would expect to see, and it is therefore only appropriate that New Zealand is on the list, too. I believe, on that basis, we are taking an appropriate step forward.

I say to those people who consider that the policy behind this legislation may be doubtful or may get out of control that I was very impressed to learn that there is a considerable difference between interpretation and translation. Something that really needs to be borne in mind here is the cut and thrust of the court. When things are moving very, very quickly, interpretation is far more real time. On that basis, I am very, very comfortable that that provision is available. It goes the other way, as well. It is important that translation is provided for people whose first choice of language is New Zealand Sign Language, so that they are able to have their thoughts and details of explanation relayed back accurately, and their side of the story heard and given respect.

Moving on to the review situation, I refer to the date that is mentioned in the bill—1 March 2009. I see that the wording in new clause 10A(1) is accurate: “The Minister must, as soon as is practicable after 1 March 2009, require a report to be prepared …”. I would strongly urge the body of people who are representative of the profoundly deaf, and those who depend on New Zealand Sign Language, to remain organised and vigilant, so that when the time comes for the Minister to be consulting and progressing matters, they will have achieved in 3 years what it has taken them 20 years to achieve today. I believe that those people have earned credibility and have come of age in the sense that they have won respect and dignity for the difficulties they have had to face. I also tell them to keep an eye on the level of New Zealand Sign Language interpreters who are able to be at their call, and to bear in mind that there are many courts throughout the land—I am thinking here of provincial centres.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I appreciate the opportunity to continue my contribution to Part 2 of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. I return to clause 10A, which provides for a review of the operation of the Act, and I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for making provision for that review. I note that under the Minister’s proposed amendment the review is to take place 3 years after the date on which the Act comes into force. I guess that means that the review will occur sometime in 2009, and I, I think like an increasing number of New Zealanders, take a lot of confidence from the knowledge that when that review is conducted the Minister responsible for it will be a Minister in a National Government. New Zealanders cannot wait for that to happen.

Clause 11 provides for the making of regulations, and again I commend the select committee for not recommending the establishment of a New Zealand Sign Language commission. This bill is not about bureaucracy. Let us be very, very clear about this: we do not want legislation in New Zealand that simply creates more bureaucrats for the sake of having more bureaucrats. This bill will not require more office workers, more bureaucrats, or more people ticking boxes and filling out forms, and using words like compliance and accountability. What will be required is more people who are trained as sign language interpreters. I believe that the final test of the success of this bill, when it is implemented, will be our ability to deliver on that.

I believe that whenever we are dealing with any issue of disability, the focus must always be on what an individual can do, not on what an individual cannot do. The focus is not on whether an individual can hear; the focus is on what an individual can do—and that individual can communicate. One of the means by which deaf people can communicate is through sign language. For many of those people—for the 7,000 Deaf New Zealanders who use sign language—that is their first language. It is the key to their being able to communicate in a formal sense and in an informal sense, and the key to their being able to participate as fully contributing and involved members of our community. Sign language is the key to their being able to make a contribution to our community, to stand on their own two feet, and to take responsibility for themselves. That is what language is all about. It is about the inherent worth of the individual, and the ability of that individual to communicate and to participate. As I have said once before, New Zealand Sign Language is a formal language. It has structure, it has grammar, it has syntax, and it has expression. It is worthy of our recognition as an official language.

I have a sense from the Committee that I may be the last speaker, and if that is the case it is a privilege to be able to speak finally, before the vote is put. I conclude by once again paying tribute to those people who make the effort to learn a second language—to those people who understand that disability is not about what an individual cannot do; it is about what an individual can do. But there is little point, for example, in a child who is deaf learning sign language if others in his or her immediate community are not prepared, or are not able, to do so. I know from my own observations and my own experience as an educator that in those families where mum and dad, grandad, and brothers and sisters take the trouble to be involved with the child and to learn the child’s first language, it means that that child can participate fully in family life.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 18 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 10A be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 18 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the New Zealand Sign Language Bill with amendment and progress on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2).

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.53 p.m.