TOC1

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that yesterday we did ask you about the prospect of the Auditor-General’s report and your response to it being released to this Parliament prior to 2 o’clock tomorrow in order that Parliament might take a view on that matter prior to the closure of the week. Do you intend giving us any indication of that today, Madam Speaker?

Madam SPEAKER: The reports will be tabled tomorrow at 2 o’clock.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Election Advertising—Auditor-General’s Report

1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Has she, her Ministers, or any member of her ministerial staff met with the Controller and Auditor-General in relation to his inquiry into election advertising; if so, what was the purpose of those meetings?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I have had no such meetings with the Auditor-General, nor have Ministers or staff met with him in their ministerial or portfolio-related capacities.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement of 23 September that for the Controller and Auditor-General to report exercising his Controller’s function would be “an inappropriate use of the Controller’s power”, and what is her response to the fact that Mr Brady has done exactly that anyway?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: How the Controller and Auditor-General chooses to report is entirely a matter for his judgment.

Dr Don Brash: What influence was the Prime Minister seeking to have when she responded to the draft finding of the Controller and Auditor-General that Labour’s pledge card had been unlawfully paid for from her parliamentary budget, by stating that “He has a serious credibility problem.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have constantly drawn attention to the need for fairness, consistency, and natural justice, and pointed out that even political parties are entitled to that.

Dr Don Brash: What did the Prime Minister mean when she said in the Dominion Post of 22 September that the Controller and Auditor-General needed to “go back to the drawing board.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Auditor-General put up draft views, which the National Party leaked. No doubt he has been considering his views since then.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in Kevin Brady as Controller and Auditor-General; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is not my position to express judgment one way or another on a man who I understand is an Officer of Parliament.

Fiscal Policy—Advice

2. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received on fiscal policy?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I put it to you that this question is completely out of order. If the process that goes into questions each day is considered, one finds there is a requirement that those asking questions take down some verification to back up their questions. Michael Cullen has been Minister of Finance for far too long—7-odd years—and in that time he would have received, I am sure, an enormous amount of fiscal policy advice. I wonder why the Labour Party appears to have got away with not turning up with absolute truckloads of advice and with perhaps being able to pin it down to one small bit of advice, without being specific about what it is.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Recently there have been a number of warnings about any large loosening of fiscal policy. Most recently, those have come from Standard and Poor’s, and also from Fitch Ratings and New Zealand private sector commentators. Those views are consistent with Treasury advice. They occur against the background of a very large current account deficit—nearly 10 percent of GDP—inflationary pressures, a tight labour market, and rising business confidence.

Shane Jones: What other reports has he received suggesting an alternative fiscal policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report that suggested an approach of incremental tax reform and not big bang tax cuts, on the basis that “we will not be sacrificing valuable public services to lower taxes”, and I welcome that endorsement from Dr Brash. I have also seen a suggestion by Mr Key that taxes should be cut by $11.5 billion a year. In the absence of corresponding expenditure cuts—more than the entire spend on health—that would lead to gross debt rising from $36 billion now to $105 billion over the next 5 years. Twenty years of fiscal effort would be thrown away in a mere 5.

John Key: Has the Minister seen the comments of the former Deutsche Bank chief economist Ulf Schoefisch, who used the Dominion Post recently to describe him as “presiding over one of the most extreme approaches to fiscal strategy in the OECD.”; or does he just consider that to be an ideological burp, in the same way that he considers all the advice he gets from Treasury?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No; I often respect the views expressed by Mr Schoefisch. He is an excellent economist in many respects, but he also tends to criticise the Reserve Bank, and has done so for many years, as I am sure Dr Brash will recollect.

Gordon Copeland: Is he satisfied that the burgeoning fiscal surplus meets one of the preconditions that will enable the business tax reductions and additional rebates for charitable gifts originally proposed by United Future, and now included in the confidence and supply agreement, to proceed; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: At this point, no, I am afraid I am not. It should be noted that the surplus for 2005-06, as a portion of GDP, is slightly lower than it was in 2004-05. But, more important, there is considerable doubt about the revenue track on the forward path, and that is what counts in terms of the scope of any tax cuts that will come into force on 1 April 2008.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Minister recall saying in a speech to a Hong Kong business audience in early 2000 that he favoured a company tax reduction as soon as fiscal conditions allowed; if a surplus of $11.5 billion in the latest year is not sufficient fiscal headroom to enable a company tax cut, what fiscal surplus would be needed to make that feasible?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: First of all, of course, a simple accounting change in revenue accruals, which accounts for $1.8 billion of that, should be completely ignored. Second, I am quite sure that if the member, after he is overthrown by Mr Key, should ever get back near to being a central bank governor, he would recognise that in a situation of inflationary pressures he would not favour a loosening of fiscal policy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister, having regard to the alarming deficit, in his consideration of future tax cuts will he focus on the need to assist exporters more than any other group in this country, given, as I say, the deficit that we currently have?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think that that is a very important consideration. It is interesting that the commentary on the business taxation review so far has tended not to represent well the views of exporters and those engaged in research and development, but basically to represent the views of the foreign-owned service sector, which simply takes profits out of the country.

Economy—Operating Surplus

3. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Finance: How large was the Government’s operating surplus in the 2005-06 financial year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): The operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes, which is the best measure, was $8.65 billion, or 5.5 percent of GDP. This compares with 5.9 percent of GDP in 2004-05.

John Key: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I made it quite clear in my question, which the Minister has had quite a number of hours to prepare an answer to, that I was asking what the Government’s operating surplus was, not what the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes was. I would be grateful if you could ask him to answer the question, please.

Madam SPEAKER: I think that the Minister did address the question, but if he wants to add anything more to it, then he is perfectly entitled to do so.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are a number of different ways that I could express the figure. The other is that the cash surplus was $3 billion a year. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. Members wanted to hear additional information. The Minister is providing it. Would members please give him the courtesy of being heard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In response to your instruction, John Key said “No”. Madam Speaker, you asked him to be quiet and he said “No”. I just wonder, firstly, whether that is being quiet, and, secondly, whether it is defying you.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. No, both Mr Key and Dr Smith were commenting when I was giving my ruling. That is the last warning. If that happens again, members will be leaving the Chamber. Now, would the Hon Dr Michael Cullen please continue, unless he is finished.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have indicated what the best measure of the fiscal surplus is—that is, the operating balance exclusive of revaluations and accounting changes. Most people—unlike the member opposite—know that when one has an accounting change that brings tax revenue forward, one cannot go and spend it every year thereafter.

Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Everyone accepts that there are many different ways of defining a fiscal surplus. My colleague Mr Key explicitly asked for one particular definition of the operating surplus, and the Minister did not answer that question, at all—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but that is not a point of order.

John Key: Can the Minister confirm that the last three surpluses have been $11.5 billion, $6.3 billion, and $7.4 billion, and that they represent the three biggest surpluses in New Zealand’s history, and can he tell us exactly why he has been so opposed to personal tax cuts over that period, given that his own Prime Minister is telling him that he should either cut taxes or move aside?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member just makes it up as he goes along. He is the only person—[Interruption] They just cannot take it when it comes back at them. He makes it up as they go along. The fact is that the largest operating surplus as a percentage of GDP, particularly excluding accounting changes, occurred when Sir William Birch was the Minister of Finance. The member should understand that the economy gets bigger every year in dollar terms.

Hon Mark Gosche: Does the operating balance give a full picture of the Crown’s fiscal position?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are a range of measures. The Opposition seems fixated on one, which is the final accruals operating surplus. But also there are issues such as the level of gross sovereign debt. At present, that is $36 billion. Under the scenario that Mr Key outlined on radio this morning, it would be $11.5 billion a year of tax cuts. That rises to $105 billion in less than 5 years’ time.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree that any tax cut should benefit all New Zealanders, particularly the poorer ones, by making the first $5,000 of income tax-free, and that any surplus provides a golden opportunity to future-proof our economy by investing more in public transport and renewable energy generation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The only way of giving tax cuts that deliver most to those on low to middle incomes is through the family support tax credit mechanism and things like the earned income tax credit kind of mechanism that we are bringing into place. Unfortunately, to simply make the first $5,000 of income tax-free would give me something like $1,950 a year, whereas somebody earning less than $9,500 would get a great deal less, about $750 a year—unless, of course, the top tax rates were increased in order to offset that reduction. I am sure the member—[Interruption] Oh, the member is arguing back—that is OK.

John Key: Does the Minister now accept that he misled the public of New Zealand during the election campaign, when he went around scaremongering and saying that tax cuts were both unaffordable and reckless; in which case, if the public could not trust his word during the election campaign, why on earth should they consider trusting a thing he says going forward?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Apart from the fact that that is pretty much what Dr Brash said at the end of last week, I refer him to the ANZ quarterly economic forecast released today, which states: “In the current political environment, fiscal constraint may well be a stretch. Any additional fiscal stimulus will only add to inflation pressure, forcing the Reserve Bank’s hands.” That man wants to give away tax cuts, then see the middle class pay more on its mortgages.

John Key: Does the Minister think that the largest surplus announced today adds any weight at all towards the affordability of tax cuts; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It certainly was the largest surplus announced today, because it was the only one I announced today. But apart from that, what the member is actually trying to argue is that if last year he managed to pay off $5,000 extra on his mortgage above what he anticipated, that means that for each of the next umpteen years he can lower his income by $10,000 a year. That does not make sense.

John Key: Does he stand by his statement on Television One news, when he said: “Eight and half billion dollars surplus, and still no tax cuts? So? What’s the connection between the two? None, right.”, and will he be changing that to “Eleven and a half billion dollars surplus, and still no tax cuts? So? What’s the connection between the two? None, right.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Well, I do not know! The problem with what that member is saying, he having spent all morning in front of the mirror practising that question, is that of the $11.5 billion that he wants to give away in tax cuts, $1.8 billion is purely an accounting change bringing accrued taxation forward, $2 billion is the contribution to the super fund, another $1 billion - odd is the earnings on the super fund, $1.7 billion is retained profits by State-owned enterprises and Crown entities, and $1.8 billion is invested in schools and hospitals. This man proposes to borrow all the money for all capital spending and put a contribution to the super fund, spend all the State-owned enterprise surpluses, and spend any accounting changes. That is the most ludicrous fiscal policy that anybody in this country has ever put forward. He makes Sir Robert Muldoon look like a follower of the Chicago school.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to draw your attention, following on from Don Brash’s point of order, which you so conveniently dismissed, to Speakers’ rulings 153/2 and 153/3 in respect of answers from Ministers being given in the public interest. What you have allowed in this House is a very simple question from National’s finance spokesperson about what the surplus is—a very direct question. It is information that the Minister absolutely has, because since my colleague lodged the question, the figure is now in the public arena. You have allowed the Minister of Finance to give all sorts of lectures about Sir Robert Muldoon and all sorts of irrelevant things, but you have not required him to answer the fundamental question on the sheet. This House will turn into a farce if you are going to allow Ministers to avoid basic questions of that sort. I ask you to either reconsider your point in response to Don Brash’s point of order or give a considered ruling. Otherwise, frankly, question time in this House will become a mockery.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Firstly, that point of order is now out of time; it should have been raised following the previous ruling. We have long since passed that point in question time. Secondly, it is directly questioning your ruling, which you gave quite clearly. I thought we had an understanding in this House that we were going to try to improve our behaviour in those kinds of respects.

Madam SPEAKER: I rule that that was not a point of order. I thought the Minister had addressed the question quite fully, and the response reflected the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that the last question from Mr Key is as moronic as the one put by the Television One journalist who seemed not to understand that one cannot just have a tax cut and surplus equivalents, and anyone who did not think that one could was somehow being mean or Scrooge-like?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think what it emphasises is a strong misunderstanding on some people’s part about what an operating surplus consists of. It consists of a range of elements, and clearly Mr Key does understand and is pretending that a level of tax cuts is affordable, which would horrify Dr Brash, if he thought about the consequences on the macroeconomic stability of New Zealand.

John Key: Does the Minister recall telling the Finance and Expenditure Committee: “People who think there should be tax cuts on the back of the big surpluses should be taken out and quietly drowned.”, in which case, given his own Prime Minister’s and his Cabinet’s new-found desire for tax cuts on the back of large surpluses, can I inquire whether he will be characterising those drownings as suicide or homicide?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Apart from the fact that the member keeps making up what goes on in Cabinet, in his case I would be happy for the drowning to be very noisy, indeed, but I am sure he would arrange for the publicity photographers to be present.

Rodney Hide: Why does he not drop his ideological opposition to letting working people keep more of their money through tax cuts, especially now that even the Green Party is supporting cutting taxes?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The thought of an Act-Green coalition is one that really puts the fiscal scares right up me, I have to say. Unlimited expenditure and reducing revenue would be the outcome of that particular combination. In fact, the member has not been listening to what I have been saying for some months. We are engaged in a business taxation review process. That will lead to changes on 1 April 2008, and there may well be consequential changes to personal rates. I remind members opposite again that we have received repeated warnings in recent times about significant fiscal loosening over the short term. If Mr Key wants to be the high interest rate leader of the National Party, let him be so.

Coastal Shipping—Roadways to Waterways

4. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Does she agree with the New Zealand Shipping Federation’s September 2006 report, Roadways to Waterways, that “Coastal shipping is the most fuel-efficient mode of freight transport, covering almost four times the distance covered by trucks per cargo ton for the equivalent amount of fuel.”; and what action, if any, will she be taking in response to this report?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): I met with the New Zealand Shipping Federation on 14 September for it to present me with its draft maritime strategy. At that meeting I acknowledged that coastal shipping is an important part of New Zealand’s transport system and that there is room for improvement in the use of coastal shipping. Since that time I have agreed to the establishment of a joint working party, including officials and representatives of the New Zealand Shipping Federation, and I believe one meeting has already been held. I have had discussions around funding of coastal shipping with the chair of Land Transport New Zealand, and have an undertaking that it will clarify the use of funding for coastal shipping. I have undertaken to raise maritime training proposals with the Minister of Education, I will be discussing the draft strategy with infrastructure Ministers before the month is out, and further work is envisaged.

Sue Bradford: Is she aware that if the freight carried by New Zealand’s coastal fleet, excluding that of Cook Strait, was shifted to land-based transport it would mean an additional 180,000 20-tonne truck movements and 40 million kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions each year; if so, what more will she do to support New Zealand coastal shipping to get more freight off the roads, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve the health of all New Zealanders?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I think I outlined in my original answer a range of things that we are undertaking, with a commitment to having better coastal shipping in New Zealand as an important mode of transport. I accept that if we put all the freight that is currently on coastal shipping on roads, we would certainly see an increase in carbon dioxide emissions and use of fuel. I think a lot more work can be done in this area, and I have given a commitment to work on that.

Peter Brown: Noting those answers, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that there will be a constructive, tangible outcome from the Government’s response to the Roadways to Waterways report, and that such a response will not be similar to that of the National Party, which stonewalled very, very strongly when earlier shipping development and issues were being proposed whilst New Zealand First was in coalition with National?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Could I say to the member that in less than a month since that review was presented to me, more has been done than was done in all the time the National Party had the opportunity to do something.

Sue Bradford: What are the Minister’s views on the proposal in the New Zealand Shipping Federation’s report to establish a maritime promotions unit in one of the transport agencies?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is an issue that we discussed, and it is an issue I have asked Land Transport New Zealand to look at. It does not have such a unit. We do have similar units for road transport within Land Transport New Zealand, and that is one of the issues I have asked it to look at.

Sue Bradford: Will the Minister also consider establishing a significant contestable fund for promotion, feasibility studies, trials, or pilots of coastal shipping, given the only funding currently available is the $1.5 million a year that is shared between the rail and sea freight allocation, and given that the only shipping money that is available at the moment is, strangely enough, for barging?

Hon ANNETTE KING: In fact, under the Land Transport Management Act, Land Transport New Zealand could use funding for coastal shipping other than barging, but the fact is that only barging has applied for funding under the current money that is available. There has been only one application. I gather there are four other applications for this next financial year, but that does not mean it is only for barging. In terms of the funding, it was $20 million over 10 years, which is a very small amount of money. I have asked Land Transport New Zealand to look at that. But we do need proposals that it could fund that are significant ones.

Health Services—Budget and Elective Surgery

5. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: By how much money has the health budget increased since the year 2000, and how many more individuals got elective surgery annually in 2005-06 compared with 2000-01?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): The Labour-led Government has invested an extra $3.2 billion in the 5 years ending 2005-06. This historic investment delivered the largest hospital-building programme in New Zealand history, affordable primary health care for families, the biggest mass immunisation campaign ever undertaken in the country, and an extra 5,000 doctors and nurses in our hospitals, and has led to 6,000 more people receiving elective surgery last year than in our first year in Government.

Hon Tony Ryall: As a result of the Minister’s announcement of additional elective surgery and $30 million for the remainder of this financial year, how many extra people will get elective surgery in the year ending 30 June 2007?

Hon PETE HODGSON: It depends on negotiations with district health boards that are yet to be completed.

Hon Tony Ryall: So you don’t know.

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, we do not know. We put out funding sufficient to manage 10,000 operations per annum. I said at the time of the announcement that it will take district health boards a little time to gear up. I am expecting that several thousand New Zealanders will receive their surgery by 30 June 2007.

Maryan Street: What reports has the Minister received on reform of the delivery of elective surgery at a local level?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have received reports that the Ministry of Health has been flooded with proposals from district health boards on ways to address disincentives in the delivery of electives, and to make it easier for clinicians to treat more patients. Later this month I will announce the best proposals, which will receive Government funding to implement these new ideas. It is clear that the Government’s reforms of elective surgery policy are already getting traction in our public hospitals and that the Opposition does not like it.

Judy Turner: By how much money have district health boards’ budgets for private hospitals to provide elective surgery increased since the year 2000, and how many more individuals got elective surgery in private hospitals annually in 2005-06 compared with in 2001?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I do not have either figure with me, I am sorry, but I am happy to say that the extra elective surgery that was announced last week will not only allow district health boards to provide themselves but also allow them to contract with other district health boards, with primary health care providers—especially general practitioners with a special interest—and, where spare capacity exists, with the private sector.

Hon Tony Ryall: When the Minister of Health has admitted in the House today that he does not even know how many extra operations he can promise the people of New Zealand, despite issuing a press statement promising that 10,000 extra people would get elective surgery, how can anyone in this country believe a single word he says? This statement is spin and deception. He promised 10,000 operations, and he does not even know what he is going to get.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because this is a Government that is not preoccupied with reckless tax cuts, and instead is wanting to place emphasis on the improvement of public health services, we are in a position to invest more in elective surgical services for New Zealanders than a National Government could. The reason I do not know precisely what number will be done is that we actually will not know that until after 30 June has passed, but I am expecting there will be several thousand such surgical operations in the remaining part of this year. I say again that we have funded district health boards to the tune of 10,000 extra operations in any full financial year.

Madam SPEAKER: I remind members that it is becoming increasingly hard to hear again.

Hon Tony Ryall: If spending an extra $4 billion since Labour came to power means, according to the Minister’s numbers, 6,000 additional people are getting elective surgery each year, how can the Minister seriously say that spending $50 million means 10,000 more people will get elective surgery each year—it just does not stack up?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The gentleman’s strengths do not include straightforward accounting. What we do is buy on case weights and pay on delivery. I tell Mr Ryall that that is where we get our figure from.

Hon Tony Ryall: If buying centrally and paying on delivery can, for $50 million, give an extra 10,000 people elective surgery, why does the Minister not adopt that approach for the rest of the hospital system?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Because we are not a control and command Government. We are a Government that does not believe in saying that the health system should be run on commercial lines, according to the whim of the National health Minister of the day. Au contraire, we say it is a good idea to have district health boards with elected people from the community on them who are able to govern what sort of service they want in their region. What is more, it looks as if the district health board model works pretty well, because about 88 percent of New Zealanders say so.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I found it rather difficult to hear from back here, and it may be that there will be an extension of the waiting lists because some of us have to have operations on our eardrums, if this continues.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the member is correct, I am sorry. I remind members for the last time that it was extremely difficult to hear what the Minister was saying. If this continues, members will be progressively leaving the Chamber.

Hon Tony Ryall: If buying centrally and paying on delivery can produce so many extra operations for $50 million, when bulk funding of $4 billion produces so few operations, why would the Government not do that; and will the Minister stand by his press statement and guarantee that $50 million will buy elective surgery for 10,000 extra people, when he says that out of that $5,000 per person he will pay for the person’s first specialist assessment, anaesthetic clinic, diagnostic testing, operation, and follow-up outpatient visits, and is that not just revealing that this Minister’s statement and pledge are all spin and deception, instead of his caring for the sick people of New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The first part of the member’s question was actually embarrassing for the National Party. The second part was uncomplicatedly bewildered. I say to the gentleman that if he wants a lecture, a seminar, or even a brief lesson on how case-weighted purchasing works, he can talk to his predecessor, Dr Paul Hutchison, who did understand how the New Zealand health system works.

Hon Tony Ryall: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realise that the Minister is under a lot of pressure, but for what reason would you accept that answer, when it was a commentary rather than an addressing of two very significant points? One is—it goes to the heart of Government policy—that the Government has always said—

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I do not need to hear any more. Would the member please be seated. I ask the Minister to give us that seminar, but to do it, in fact, briefly.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Maybe it would help if I were to gently remind the member that there is a good deal more going on in the New Zealand health system than elective surgery—a good deal more. Secondly, I say to the member that we know what a case weight costs, and when it is delivered we pay for it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What gives Mr Ryall the right to resume his seat, having asked a question, and spend the rest of the time shouting while his question is being answered? It is not just him; it is Gerry Brownlee as well, and others. There has got to be some equivalent treatment around this House for every member, and not just one group getting away with it every darn day. From our point of view, we think that this is disgraceful, and that some members of the National Party, who are laughing as I speak, and jeering, should be sent out of this House rather than just warned every day, when other members at the back of this House are expected to behave themselves. But they carry on as if somehow they are special. Madam Speaker, I have never thought it right for someone to ask a question then shout the whole time it is being answered, but that was from a member right next to you, and you could not have missed hearing him.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. Interjections are permitted, but members are bordering on making it very difficult for other members to hear. I thought we had an agreement. If we do not, from here on in, as I said, members will be leaving.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table the ministerial press statement of the Hon Pete Hodgson promising to deliver elective surgery to an additional 10,000 New Zealanders a year.

Document not tabled.

Laboratory Services—Moratorium

6. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: What is his response to the New Zealand Medical Association’s call for the Government to put an immediate moratorium on the implementation of changes to laboratory services while a national plan is developed and an independent ministerial review is done of all district health board decisions to date?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): I had a meeting with the College of Pathologists the day before yesterday on this and related matters concerning the workforce. I said that I would not yet consider taking such steps. The evidence I have been presented with shows that our pathology workforce is growing—not shrinking, as some claim—and that district health boards are proceeding well with laboratory service changes. For example, the Auckland District Health Board, which has caused so much recent comment, is running a little ahead of its schedule with its implementation plan. However, I have invited the College of Pathologists to present me with any evidence it has to the contrary, and I have agreed to consider that evidence fully and meet again as necessary.

Barbara Stewart: What reasons can the Minister give the House as to why a national plan for laboratory services should not be developed?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The fact that people call for a national plan does not mean that there is not one already. Roughly speaking, the Government’s approach to hospital and community laboratory services is that they should be provided by district health boards—either themselves or jointly with other district health boards—that district health boards are free to contract with whomever they wish to provide those services; that all services must be to an international quality, of course; and that where a private provider needs access to district health board premises, then there is a protocol in existence that must be complied with, the essence of which is that it must in the first instance be for the benefit of New Zealanders.

Moana Mackey: What reports has he received on the implementation of laboratory service changes in the Auckland region?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have received reports that the new configuration of laboratory services in the Auckland region will allow an extra $15 million per year to be invested back into health services for Aucklanders. I have also received reports that the implementation of these changes is running a little ahead of schedule, and that the new provider is on track to building a high-quality laboratory service for Aucklanders.

Dr Jackie Blue: Does the Minister not realise that the uncoordinated and contradictory laboratory service changes around New Zealand are having a major impact on the laboratory workforce, which experts have warned will put standards and quality at risk, and is he prepared to see another Bottril-like scandal affect New Zealand patients?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I freely acknowledge the disruption to workers—medical laboratory scientists, pathologists, and others—if there is a change of provider and, therefore, a prospective change of employer. I have seen reports that some pathologists are planning on leaving. I have also received a report—yesterday, I think—that the new Auckland laboratory provider is receiving many inquiries each day, and already has more pathologists interested in taking jobs in some, but not all, of the areas of need. Yes, there are worldwide shortages of pathologists, and all district health boards are conscious that, as a result, that valuable workforce has the potential to be very mobile.

Barbara Stewart: Can the Minister assure New Zealanders that district health boards have contingency plans in place if new providers cannot deliver the services required?

Hon PETE HODGSON: All district health boards are required to ensure that those services are provided, and there are a variety of contingency plans that vary from district health board to district health board. I would be happy to provide the member with more information if she could give me more specificity.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the New Zealand Medical Association’s letter to the Minister dated 18 August, which does refer to undue risk in overturning the status quo of established relationships in favour of unproven and potentially unstable arrangements.

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a statement by pathologists employed by the Auckland regional district health boards, where they are unwilling to cooperate with new services, which poses a serious risk of undermining—

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

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article from this morning’s Dominion Post where it is reported that the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia are very unhappy. They have a major concern with cancer diagnoses in particular, as a result of the change in pathology services.

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

Taito Phillip Field—Ministerial Representations

7. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Can he confirm that from 1 January 2003 to 21 September 2006, Taito Phillip Field made 481 representations to either the Minister of Immigration or the Associate Minister of Immigration, including over 40 after the Ingram inquiry was established?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Yes.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Minister stand by his statement in the House on 24 August that the Associate Minister was entitled to receive information from Taito Phillip Field that he had sent Mr Sunan Siriwan to Samoa, where Mr Siriwan tiled 460 square metres of Mr Field’s house without pay; is it appropriate for a member of Parliament to gain material or financial benefit from making representations to the Associate Minister of Immigration?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: All immigration cases are treated on their merits, and of course it would be not be appropriate for members to receive gain in the way the member says. I note also—[Interruption] If the member would breathe for a moment, he will note that there is a police inquiry—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please just address the question.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —under way at present. Again I say to Dr Smith that if he has further information in that respect, he has an avenue to explore that, and that is the police inquiry.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Should Taito Phillip Field have disclosed to the Associate Minister of Immigration that not only was Mr Siriwan tiling 460 square metres of his own house without pay but also that he had tiled Maxine’s Cake Shop, owned by Mr Field’s stepson in Samoa, for no pay, and that he had also laid a new floor at Maria’s Health Care Pharmacy, a business run by Mrs Field’s daughter-in-law in Samoa; is it appropriate for a member of Parliament to gain material or financial benefit from making representations to the Associate Minister of Immigration?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: In answer to the latter part of the question, no. Again I say to the member that he will know that a police inquiry and investigation have commenced. I am not about to prejudice that inquiry by going into the matter. If the member has evidence, he should take it to the police inquiry. He has an avenue; he knows that.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister confirm that Taito Phillip Field was less than truthful when he told Noel Ingram QC that it was not until June 2005 that he became aware Mr Siriwan had been working for him and his wife, when Mrs Field filled out in Mr Field’s presence, on 26 or 27 February 2005, a Samoan immigration form promising to be Mr Siriwan’s employer, and when Mr Siriwan was issued with a Samoan work visa prior to 17 March 2005 on the basis of his being employed by the Fields?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The Minister is not about to prejudice a police inquiry by trawling over those issues, even if the member wishes to prejudice a police inquiry. Again, my advice to him is that if he has concerns and evidence, he should take them to the police inquiry.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How would the Minister respond to an immigration representation from Taito Phillip Field if he became aware Mr Field had told someone who was seeking his help on that immigration matter that he would have to pay money for Mr Field’s assistance, and that the more money he paid, the greater would be the chance of success in getting a special direction from the Associate Minister of Immigration?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Firstly, I say all cases are treated on their merit, and all representations and relevant information are considered in respect of those cases. I tell the member again, in danger though I am of being shrill, that if he has evidence he should take it to the police inquiry.

Independent Schools—Funding

8. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received on the model for funding of independent schools in New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): The Labour-led Government provides a pool of funding for independent schools, with the amount given to each school calculated on a per pupil basis. Labour, in its 1999 election manifesto, promised to cap this at $40 million per year. This provides for a range of independent schools, such as schools run by trusts and by various churches, including, for example, the Exclusive Brethren sect.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What reports has the Minister seen on plans to change funding provided to independent schools?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen reports from senior members of the National Party in 2003 and 2004 ruling out increases to any education funding. Then on 14 April 2005 Dr Don Brash announced that if elected National would “lift the State’s contribution to independent schools to a 50 percent contribution”. This means, for example, that the Exclusive Brethren schools would receive double their current funding—an additional $4.5 million over 3 years. That is not a bad return for $1.2 million invested in the National Party.

Hon Tau Henare: Will the Minister confirm that these announcements are simply another cynical and vindictive example of this Government punishing anyone who opposes it, and can he explain to the 1,300 children attending the Exclusive Brethren schools why he is singling them out?

Madam SPEAKER: We shall have some silence so that the Minister can be heard.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In answer to the first part of the question, the only people we ever seek to punish are the National Party members. In answer to the second part of the question, what people need to know from Dr Don Brash is where the diary entries are that tell us about the Exclusive Brethren church, and where the notes are that tell us about the $1.2 million.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is it not correct that because of the capped nature of the independent schools fund, the Government’s allowing the 12 Westbridge schools to open to cater for Exclusive Brethren children since 2000 has, in fact, been at the expense of all other independent school students, because their per capita rate has been reduced, yet the Government has in fact made an overall saving of 1,300 home-schooling allowances?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What rationale exists for a change in the policy for funding—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. If there is any more shouting and members cannot be heard they will leave the Chamber.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What rationale exists for a change in the policy of funding independent schools only?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: There is no obvious policy rationale but there does seem to be a political one. It is clear that Don Brash and John Key met with the Exclusive Brethren at the time this policy changed. Don Brash now tells us he has the diary entries. He should tell us when those meetings took place and what was said, and he should answer the question about whether the National Party changed its education policy on independent schools in return for $1.2 million.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Leaving aside the obvious shouting and interjections from the National front-bench members who were attempting to disrupt the Minister’s response to the question, on many occasions directly unparliamentary language was used to describe the Minister that would normally have seen a member either asked to withdraw and apologise or thrown out. I think the combination of the two should see someone ejected now.

Madam SPEAKER: I did hear the Hon Tau Henare—and there may well have been others—shout the word “liar”. That is unparliamentary. Would the member please withdraw and apologise for that.

Hon Tau Henare: I cannot, because he is a liar.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, would you please leave the Chamber.

Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: As the person responsible for developing the education policy that provided the 50 percent entitlement for independent schools, I seek leave to make a personal explanation in respect of the allegations that have been made by Mr Steve Maharey, and to make plain that at absolutely no time did I meet with any member of the Exclusive Brethren in the development of that policy.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal statement. The member has asked for leave; is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I also referred to the Minister as being a liar and I withdraw and apologise for that. But I want to ask you, Madam Speaker, why you did not intervene when you knew that he was alleging blatant mistruths in the House.

Madam SPEAKER: It is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of questions or answers.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. So now we are being told that my colleague Tau Henare has to leave the House because he will not rescind a comment he made—a comment that was truthful—against a Minister who is making untruthful statements, and I am required, in order to stay here, to apologise to the Minister for saying something that was equally truthful.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I thank the member, but will he please be seated. No, the member was asked to withdraw and apologise for using an unparliamentary term. As the member well knows, Speakers never comment on the truthfulness or quality of questions or answers.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to what Mr Brownlee just said. He said that what he had stated about Mr Maharey was truthful, although having just withdrawn and apologised for it. In other words, he repeated the assertion. I suggest he has to withdraw and apologise directly now, without any qualification, or he too will have to leave the Chamber.

Madam SPEAKER: This is the difficulty and why we have the Standing Order that says in these instances one withdraws and apologises and says nothing else. Unfortunately, the member is correct—the statement was repeated in the course of that. So for the sake of consistency, Mr Brownlee, would you please withdraw and apologise, and do not make any further comment.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can I refer you to Standing Orders 371(1)(b) and 371(1)(c). Both are very explicit directions to the House, particularly to Ministers who are answering questions. In no way at all did Mr Maharey’s answers comply with either of those requirements. He has brought into his argument inferences and imputations, he has attempted to bring in a discreditable reference, and he has, by any measure, been extremely reckless with the truth.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the Minister who did the negotiations with the Exclusive Brethren in order to bring them into the system, I had a number of discussions with them. I am not sure of the exact amount involved, but it is several million dollars. I want to make it clear that the facts outlined as to the large amount of money that has gone to the Exclusive Brethren as a result of advice that I gave them, which the Minister was speaking of previously, were accurate. As things have turned out, it is not something I am particularly happy with, but it was done in fairness to them at the time.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, but this is why Speakers are not drawn into judging the quality of questions or answers—because it does lead to debate, which is what that point of order was doing. The answers as I heard them were consistent with the Standing Orders.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to prolong things, but I would ask you to please look at the Hansard and read what Mr Maharey said on no less than three occasions about matters that had nothing to do with this question, at all. It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that your claim that you will not judge the content of answers is somewhat rich in an environment where you have made a judgment by sending Mr Henare out of the House.

Madam SPEAKER: As I understand the member, he wants me to look at whether the answers related to the funding of independent schools. I am happy to do that.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Has the Minister seen the report by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research carried out in 2003—before Don Brash met with the Exclusive Brethren—

Madam SPEAKER: In the interests of order, would Mr Donnelly please just ask his question.

Hon Brian Donnelly: —which demonstrated that if, at the time, the Government had increased the funding of independent schools from 30 percent to 46 percent, it would have, in fact, saved money; and can he explain why, since this report was written, the Government, rather than increase per capita subsidy levels, has reduced them by more than 7 percent?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, I have not seen the particular report the member is referring to, but I am aware of the argument that he is making—that is, that putting money into the independent sector means that those students are not coming into the State sector. But the member will know, and I know that he himself takes this view, that we, like countries such as Sweden, believe very strongly in a public sector where all students, regardless of their background, can go to achieve as much as they possibly can. That is where we make our investments.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to know why you asked my colleague to desist from putting a point of history into reference when he said “before Don Brash saw the Exclusive Brethren”. That is a totally appropriate statement; it is very brief. Yet, Madam Speaker, you allow National members to carry on every darned day making every sort of allegation they like, and to get away with every sort of behaviour unaccepted in most Parliaments. My colleague put something very briefly into reference, and those members are so thin-skinned that they cannot take it. Frankly, if they cannot take it, they should not dish it out.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. In the context in which the question was being asked, it appeared to me that it could be seen as being contrary to Standing Order 371, and it was important that the member just stick to the question so that the House could proceed. I have ruled on the matter, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point simply is that putting it into perspective is what the issue is about. That is why the question phrased by Brian Donnelly in that way was, in my view, correct. It tells the public—and everybody is interested in this subject—just what the chronology of circumstances might have been. That is why it is important. Just because National members start moaning and groaning because they are found out for what they are is no reason for you to abscond.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I thank the member. [Interruption] Mr Brownlee, if you wish to remain with us for the rest of question time, please do not interject. I would just suggest to members, then—and I take the member’s point and I think it is a valid point—that I think it was more the way in which the question was expressed that caused the problem. So could we please proceed; I am not quite sure where we were, though.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I seek leave to table a speech made by Dr Brash, given on Thursday, 14 April 2005, in which he explains that an incoming National Government would lift the contribution to independent schools to 50 percent.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to Standing Order 116 on page 43. The Minister said that National, in writing its policy to allow the 50 percent entitlement for independent schools, was improperly motivated by something to do with the Exclusive Brethren. I wrote that policy. I never met with the Exclusive Brethren once in the development of that policy. I take offence at—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry to intervene, but this is not a point of order. I have already—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You bet it is! You bet it is a point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not a point of order. Would the member please be seated. I have already undertaken, after a legitimate point of order made by his colleague Mr Brownlee, to look at those answers and to rule on them. Can we move forward.

Hon Brian Donnelly: I seek leave to table the report made by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research into the funding for independent schools, which may well have been the source of the policy development for National.

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

New Zealand Inc Campaign—Buy Kiwi Made Campaign

9. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister for Economic Development: When will he announce details of the New Zealand Inc campaign that will run in parallel to the Buy Kiwi Made campaign, and how much will it cost?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): After those details have been decided by Cabinet. But I can give the member an assurance that there will not be a preference given to people who make coffins, as appeared to be promoted by the Leader of the Opposition when he went to be measured up recently in a photo opportunity that appeared to be promoted by John Key.

Chris Tremain: Thank you Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member is entitled to be heard.

Chris Tremain: Can the Minister provide some clarity over the confusion that reigns regarding the second campaign, with the announcements yesterday about the $11 million Buy Kiwi Made campaign, when a spokeswoman was quoted in today’s Dominion Post as saying it would cost less than $11 million, but this morning the Minister said on National Radio that he did not know how much it would cost?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am sorry, but I think the member is talking about the first campaign, not the second one.

Peter Brown: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand First pressure ensured that the Buy Kiwi Made campaign was not—[Interruption] Madam Speaker, is this tolerable? I do not mind—let them go, and I will go.

Madam SPEAKER: No. Some members, I will admit, have louder voices—

Peter Brown: Forty-eight to one is about fair.

Madam SPEAKER: Mr Brown, please be seated. Some members have louder voices than others, and they are in danger of not remaining with us for the rest of the session. Peter Brown, would you please start your question again.

Peter Brown: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand First pressure ensured that the Buy Kiwi Made campaign was not widened to include foreign-produced goods, and will he confirm also that the tax revenue from New Zealand Inc participants will more than offset the cost of administering the second campaign on its behalf?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Not really. I am not in a position to do so.

Charles Chauvel: Has he received any recent reports on this issue? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. Members, I know it is members’ day.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, I am advised that Phil O’Reilly, the chief executive of Business New Zealand, has supported the approach that the Government is taking. It is a pity that the Opposition did not consult with business leaders before making its ill-considered comments. If Opposition members spent more time talking to real business people and less time being measured up, then they would make some progress.

Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Members are reminded that if they interrupt during points of order, they will leave the Chamber.

Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The photograph that the Minister has just shown was taken at a sheltered workshop in Invercargill, where the participants are basically intellectually handicapped. It is totally inappropriate for him to refer to them in a derogatory manner like that—as their not being real business people.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. That is not a point of order but a point of information.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: We now have another point of order. I ask members to remember that they will leave the Chamber if they talk during a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. From this far away I cannot see the photograph that was held up by Mr Mallard. I wonder whether he could table the photograph in the House, because from here it looks like the photograph was taken by a mortician.

Madam SPEAKER: That was not a point of order, either. But I am sure the Minister can follow that course at the end of this question, if he wishes to do so.

Chris Tremain: Is the only reason the Minister is going ahead with the alternative New Zealand Inc campaign, which he described as “not a top priority to the Government”, that Helen Clark promised that companies like Icebreaker would be included, and is $11 million a fair price for New Zealanders to pay so that he can avoid embarrassing the Prime Minister?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think two points should be made. The first is that, as I indicated in my primary answer, the amount of money involved has not yet been decided. But probably the more important point concerns when that member will stand up for a modern economy, whether he shares the values of those who say our economy is being hollowed out by overseas ownership, whether he values the farmers who grow the merino that goes into Icebreaker, and when he is prepared to back New Zealand designers. These are all examples of positive attributes of the New Zealand economy and our identity, and I want to know why the Tories keep running it down.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How is that in order?

Madam SPEAKER: Please, Dr Smith. That answer was not in order, but neither was the question, because it actually offended Standing Order 371, if we were applying it strictly. As I have said in the past, some questions get answers that are consistent with the way in which those questions are asked. It is question time, not speech time; that is coming up, if we ever get to it, in the general debate.

Chris Tremain: What impact will the New Zealand Inc campaign have on companies such as Icebreaker, which already has 1,500 stores worldwide, already exports to over 20 countries, has $100 million in turnover, and experienced 800 percent growth over the last few years; and does he think this company needs a helping hand domestically?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: A wide variety of firms in New Zealand need to be valued, and I think people who run them down—[Interruption] No, I think the idea of having a generic campaign that values New Zealand design, values New Zealand ownership, and values New Zealand producers is something good. I just do not understand why Tories hate Kiwis who make money.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How was that in order?

Madam SPEAKER: Well, that did address the question.

Chris Tremain: I seek leave to table a document from the Icebreaker website that shows its growing involvement overseas, and how it needs help in an overseas market, not domestically.

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: I was asked previously to table the photo of Dr Brash, and I seek leave to do so.

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

Land Tenure Review—Report

10. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister for Land Information: Why did the Government commission the Donn Armstrong report on the land tenure review, and what is the total cost of the report so far?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information): The Government commissioned the report as part of its work on rentals for high country pastoral leases and tenure review. I am advised the total cost to date, including consultants’ fees and disbursements, is $156,476. The report examines issues that had not been closely looked at since the 1982 Clayton report, which found that charging on the basis of land exclusive of improvements is the most satisfactory basis for assessing the rentals of pastoral leases.

Hon David Carter: Which stakeholders in the tenure review process have been consulted since the Government received that report in February this year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The report, and the Government’s preliminary response to it, will be released this Friday. We will start with lessees in Christchurch.

Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In no way does that answer address the question. I did not ask when the report would be released—on Friday. I asked whom the Government had been consulting with, as the Minister has had the report on his desk since last February.

Madam SPEAKER: I thought the question was addressed, but does the Minister want to repeat the answer?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes. I was making the point that stakeholder engagement on the report has not commenced. It will commence on Friday, and we will start with lessees.

Madam SPEAKER: That is exactly what the Minister had said.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What other review is the Government undertaking in respect of tenure review?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Government is reviewing how well tenure review is dealing with biodiversity, particularly lowland biodiversity, and with landscape issues, especially around lakes.

Hon David Carter: Why has the Government deliberately avoided discussing the contents of that report with high country farmers to date, particularly when the Minister has made repeated promises to do so?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It has not.

Hon David Carter: Given that the Minister promised to release the report to farmers in July this year, promised to release it to the Primary Production Committee in July this year, and promised the House in September this year that the report would be made available, why has he broken those three promises?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On none of those occasions did I make a categorical promise. It has taken longer than I expected, but the report is to be released this Friday.

Hon David Carter: If the Donn Armstrong report concludes that current rentals are higher than can be justified, will the Minister stand by the assurance given by his predecessor, Pete Hodgson, that rents would therefore be lowered?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am not aware of any undertaking given in those terms by my predecessor. The Government’s preliminary response to the report will become known on Friday.

Breastfeeding—Benefits

11. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports on the benefits of breastfeeding?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have received many reports that the breastfeeding of children leads to significant health benefits. For example, children who are breastfed are less likely to suffer from a wide range of infectious diseases and allergies, are more likely to have better cognitive development, better visual acuity, and so on.

Steve Chadwick: Has he received any reports on the intersecting benefits of breastfeeding for the health and immigration systems?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Perhaps surprisingly, I have. I have received a report that reads as follows: “British immigrants fit in here very well. My own ancestry is all British. New Zealand values are British values, derived from centuries of struggles since the Magna Carta. Those things make New Zealand the society it is. So people who bring in these values, because they imbibe them with their mother’s milk, almost by definition make good immigrants.” This report comes from Dr Don Brash, who apparently believes that more white women should be encouraged to breastfeed their children. Let me assure Dr Brash that there is no evidence, as yet, that the spirit of the Magna Carta can be transmitted through breast milk.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a number of pressing issues in the health sector—from industrial relations through to falling hospital access. That is work the Minister of Health should have been working on this morning.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a number of documents. Is there any objection? There is.

Marsden Fund—Administration

12. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: Is he satisfied with the administration of the Marsden Fund; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): Yes. Established in 1995 by the Hon Simon Upton, the Marsden Fund supports groundbreaking research initiated by New Zealand’s top scientists across the full range of disciplines. Administration involves comprehensive peer review and strict conflict of interest procedures. Applications must be based on excellent ideas, have an innovative design, and build on a track record of achievement. An evaluation in 2004 reported that the fund is administered in a highly professional manner and aligned to international best practice.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why has he failed to act fully on the 2005 report into the Marsden Fund that found, among other things, that there was doubt about the allocation process, there was doubt about priorities, and “there appeared to be some confusion in the sector about what the Marsden Fund should properly be funding.”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member will know that the Marsden Council has indeed been busy implementing reports about its practice. One of the things that it has done more recently, which I applaud, is that although in actuality there is no conflict of interest, there has been a perception of that, and it announced recently prior to the questions raised here that it would be changing the way it sets up its panels to assess funding applications, and I think that is a move that is applauded by everyone.

Dave Hereora: What reports has he seen on the response to recent criticism of the Marsden Fund by National’s science spokesperson, Dr Paul Hutchison?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In the last fortnight there has been nothing less than a backlash from New Zealand’s science community to Dr Paul Hutchison’s attack on the fund and his singling out of an individual researcher. Complaints have come from across the research community, and I would include the following as the main ones: the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee, the Royal Society, the Council for the Humanities, the Association of Crown Research Institutes, the Marsden Fund itself, and from a range of leading individual scientists, like Professor Crispin Gardiner and Rob Ballagh, I think perhaps Dr Hutchison should acknowledge that his position now has put him so far offside with researchers and scientists, that the best thing he could do is apply for leadership of the National Party.

Dr Pita Sharples: Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. He aha ngā tohungatanga o te ao mātauranga Māori kei ngā kaiwhakariterite o te Rōpū Toha Pūtea o Marsden kia taea te kī, i whiriwhiria tikatia ngā tono a ngā kairangahau Māori?

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

[What expertise do the Marsden Fund decision-making panels have in Māori knowledge to ensure that all the applications from Māori researchers were handled with competence?]

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If I understand the member’s question correctly, in terms of Mātauranga Māori, in the sense that I understand the member’s own research background as one where he has sought to articulate a world view based upon Māori knowledge, I point out that the Marsden Fund is based largely, almost exclusively in fact, on a Western tradition of knowledge. Although there are Māori who are involved with the fund, who sit on panels, and who apply for money, they do it within a Western science model of funding, not within one that comes from a Māori world view.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Does he agree with Bob Brockie from the Dominion Post who says that at the very least the Marsden Fund should have the word “science” in its mission statement, and that some previous grants for studies, such as on women, poetry, and politics in England, 1603-1688, the literacy and cultural significance of the piano, and the editing of Jane Austen’s Persuasion would be better funded by Creative New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member will recall, when the Rt Hon Simon Upton set up this fund under the National Government of the 1990s, it was applied to all forms of research, which includes humanities, social sciences, and the sciences that the member appears to want to favour. I would point out that Mr Brockie’s research, which was largely based upon animal roadkill, or road deaths, might also be seen by people as somewhat marginal to other forms of research that could be done on road deaths, but the member has to remember that this fund funds all forms of research. It is driven by the researchers themselves. I think the most insulting thing the member has said is the implication that he wants to be the one who will decide what the country’s top scientists will do.

Dr Pita Sharples: Kia ora Madam Speaker. He aha hoki he kōrero nā, ahakoa kua rahi ake ngā Māori kua riro i a rātou te Tohu Tākuta mai i ngā wānanga me ngā whare wānanga, kāre anō tātou kia kite kua whiwhi i ngā kairangahau Māori, he pūtea ka tohaina e te Rōpū Toha Pūtea o Marsden.?

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

[What could be a possible explanation for the fact that although the universities and wānanga are seeing increased numbers of Māori PhD graduates, we are not seeing Māori represented as researchers receiving funding from the Marsden allocation?]

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I just go back to how this fund is run. It is run by researchers who are our very senior researchers, making their own applications—this is not a strategic fund, as most of our research funds are—to a range of panels that assess the research that is put before them. That goes to the council, which then makes an overall assessment of what research will be funded. If I have a criticism of the fund myself, I would simply say that for far too long it was not provided with additional funding, so that at the present time we have a situation where about 20 percent of the applications that make it through to the final round get funded. That means many applications that are of outstanding merit do not make it into that final group. One of the things I guess I am doing here, looking across at my colleague Mr Cullen, is saying that one of the things I see in this fund is the outstanding research of this country being funded, and perhaps one of the things we should be arguing about is how to fund it better.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Does he think that ordinary New Zealanders reacted in the same questioning way as he and the Prime Minister did when they learnt that nine members of the selection panel appeared to have $6 million out of a total of $38 million to fund their own project, and when will the reports that both he and the Prime Minister called for be released?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I will start with the end of that question. I made it clear I had not called for a report. I regard the Marsden Fund as a well-run body. The Prime Minister is able to access, and is accessing, directly from the Marsden Fund its reports on how it is run. She understands that it is well run. I cannot remember the first part of the member’s question, because it was probably as silly as the rest of it.

Madam SPEAKER: No, that comment was not acceptable. I remind members that if they include in supplementary questions more than one thought or statement, then the Minister has to address only one of them.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Does the Minister agree with me that in a democracy such as New Zealand, it is absolutely appropriate to have open debate about our most prestigious science fund—particularly over the issues of quality, good process, and adequate funding—and does he commit himself to championing science at a time when the total science investment in New Zealand is less than half of the OECD average?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, it is appropriate to have open debate; and yes, I intend to champion research in this country. But I would say to the member opposite, who is the research, science, and technology spokesperson for National, that the chief researcher of the research that he chose to criticise was not the associate professor whom he singled out—because of her lesbianism, no doubt—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please refrain from such comments.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The researcher is Professor Barry Reay DPhil, University of Oxford, BA (1^st Class Hons), University of Adelaide. He is someone the member may like to pick up the phone and ring. That person is an expert in the cultural history of sex. He is a gynaecologist; perhaps he and the member could have a good conversation.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Herald dated 9 September, in which Professor Christine Winterbourn says the Marsden Fund is woefully small.

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

General Debate

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. It is always good to rise before the National Party members, who, in the spirit of spring, with their sap rising, are so loud and noisy. Of course, their emotions are running high. The whiff of change of leadership is in the air in the National Party, once again. I say “once again” because the National Party has had an unbelievable amount of practice at changing not just its leader but its deputy leader and its front bench, in a kind of dizzying whirlwind that takes place every few months. But the stunning thing is that this time the speculation is about Dr Don Brash. There would not be one National member who does not look at Dr Brash as the man who restored the National Party vote. Despite that, they all know—as every single member of this House and every observer knows—that Dr Don Brash will be replaced as the leader by the end of the summer period. As Dr Hutchison would say, why will this happen? Why will the change take place? In the short time I have to speak I will come up with four reasons.

The first reason is that the National Party can go no further with Don Brash. The whole strategy has been about gobbling up every right-wing vote in the country, and there is no more right-wing vote left. Every member of the National Party knows that Dr Brash has reached his limit, and that National cannot be the Government if he is the leader, because he cannot get any more votes. In addition, he cannot work with any other party. He cannot work with New Zealand First members—he has alienated them. He cannot talk to the Māori Party members—he cannot even have dinner with them. Rodney Hide has literally shrunk away from his relationship with the National Party. There is no one left for the National Party to talk to. So no, National cannot be the Government.

The second reason is the ongoing bumbling performance of Dr Brash, which is so embarrassing. I will give the House just two quotes. A commentator on Dr Brash said he has “a political death-wish”. Another said that Dr Brash “has now performed the type of pratfall that has punctuated his political career, displaying skills more akin to those of a blind man stumbling around a swamp than a sure-footed sportsman.” John Armstrong said: “Don Brash was so underwhelming in his handling of the latest crisis to buffet him and his party that it might seem he has a political death-wish.” I cannot see anybody continuing to put up with one pratfall after another.

The third reason is division. Dr Brash has marked his period as leader by dividing the country against itself. To take one example, his position on race has consistently divided people in ways that have been totally and utterly destructive, even to the point where he recently said that no Māori exist, because no Māori has full blood. Mrs te Heuheu said in response to this: “It’s not about (blood) quantum at all … it’s about the practices you follow, the customs you keep and maintain, the languages you speak and the place in the world where those are unique and indigenous to.” Mr Henare rightly said: “(Dr Brash) has his view, I’ve got mine. I know that part of my genealogy is indigenous to this nation and nowhere else, so I’m quite comfortable.”

So even the two Māori in the National Party found his position on race to be totally and utterly divisive and unacceptable. That is what he has made his hallmark for the last little while. He is understood now to be a person who can never bring New Zealanders together—he can only push them apart. National Party members know that. They know that as younger National Party members come through and look at the old colonial tea planter, there is no way they will sit and be led by that last-century icon. They want change.

The fourth reason is that he cannot remember anything. Actually, what I have found with Dr Brash, if we take the Brethren as the example, is that he can always remember what he did not say at a meeting but can never remember what he did say. If he is asked about a meeting, he will say: “I can’t remember the meeting—oh, yes, I can. I can remember what I did not say, but I can’t remember what I did say.” If he cannot remember even that, he is finished as the National Party leader.

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): I feel flattered that the first Government speaker could talk about nothing but the leader of the National Party. I clearly get under your skin.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that the member is relatively new, but he cannot say that he is getting under “your” skin.

Dr DON BRASH: On 16 February this year I called on Helen Clark and the Labour Party to repay the $446,000 of taxpayers’ money that had been misappropriated—or stolen, to use everyday language—by the Labour Party to fund its pledge card in the campaign last year. Eight months later I am still waiting. We are still calling on Helen Clark to pay it back. She should pay back the money she misappropriated—pay back the money she stole.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this the same point of order?

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it is actually a separate one. The member then indicated to the House that the Prime Minister had misappropriated money. That is unparliamentary.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. The member must be careful around those sorts of imputations.

Dr DON BRASH: As the last week of last year’s campaign began, most polls had the National Party leading the Labour Party. Then the Labour Party unleashed a barrage of advertising—$416,000 of advertising, to be precise. The National Party was astonished—how could the Labour Party have that much money left within its legal limit, and still remain legal? Of course, we now know that the Labour Party did not have that amount of money left; it simply ignored the law. Labour members went right on spending, and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars above what they were legally entitled to do. They broke the law. They engaged in what the Electoral Act called “a corrupt practice”.

Not only that, we now know that they not only spent hundreds of thousands of dollars above what they were legally entitled to do, but also they used taxpayers’ money, the money that rightly belongs to the New Zealand public, to do so. When they were caught out, Helen Clark used every kind of excuse, every kind of diversionary tactic, to avoid having to pay it back. “Everybody’s doing it.”, she said. “If we have to pay it back, hundreds of millions of dollars spent by all parties since the late 80s should be paid back.”, she said. “This is just a beltway issue; it’s time to move on.”, she said. “If we are found to have broken the law, we’ll pass retrospective legislation to fix it.”, she said. “The rules are unclear.”, she said. “I am not responsible for what my chief of staff did.”, she said. “The Auditor-General changed the rules.”, she said.

Well, I tell the Prime Minister that that will not wash. Even Matt Robson has admitted that the rules were perfectly clear. The Progressive party understood them, the Māori Party understood them, my own office understood them. The rules were clear; there was no excuse for ignoring them.

The Auditor-General warned political parties months before the election to be very careful. Helen Clark simply ignored the rules. She even tried to pretend in the House yesterday that somehow she had no responsibility for the issue—that even though she said: “My signature is on it, I am accountable for it, and Labour in Government will be held to it by me.”, somehow she now pretends that somebody else is to blame for the predicament she finds herself in. Well, I tell the Prime Minister that this is an outrage. The Prime Minister is responsible for the misappropriation of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member may not imply that the Prime Minister has misappropriated, or is responsible for that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During points of order and during rulings it has been the tradition in this House for the speaker to resume his or her seat. Don Brash did not do that on either of those occasions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is for me to deal with. I do not need that pointed out to me.

Dr DON BRASH: I say to the Prime Minister that this is an outrage. It is alleged by the Auditor-General that the Prime Minister has misappropriated hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars—a misappropriation that ensured she personally gained financially to the extent of at least $130,000 per year, and $400,000 over this parliamentary term. If the Labour Party cannot pay it back, Helen Clark and her colleagues should do so.

So what do we say to Helen Clark? We say: “Pay it back, and pay it back quickly.” Of course, even if she does pay it back, reluctantly, and in response to overwhelming public opinion, her Government will still be guilty of a corrupt practice. The Auditor-General has confirmed what every other independent agency has found—that the pledge card was an election expense. Pete Hodgson agrees. It is absolutely clear that in that situation the Labour Party broke the law and spent nearly 20 percent more than it was allowed to do. No other party did that. Helen Clark is not fit to be the Prime Minister of this country. She has crossed a threshold and has lost her moral authority to govern.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development): Well, that was a half-hearted clap. And we noticed who was not clapping. Bill English was not clapping, and John Key was not clapping.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table the parliamentary telephone directory.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course to followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister referred to the fact that Bill English and John Key were not in the House. He is not allowed to do that. Excuse me—an apology, Mr Deputy Speaker. He referred to the fact that they were not clapping. He has no idea at all whether they were clapping, because in fact he cannot see them.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That point of order was nearly as good as the one we heard yesterday from the woman at the back, whose name I have forgotten.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a pile of papers I have here in front of me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to identify them, at all, Mr Brownlee?

Gerry Brownlee: Oh, yes. There are a couple I have done some scribblings on, there is a Chamber phone list here, there is a series of names I have for New Zealand First: Lassie, Spot, Rover, Fido, Pluto, and Goofy. I seek leave to table those.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is sufficient.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will just deal with this point of order. Does the member want to speak to the point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will speak to the point of order. First of all, he does not have any correspondence from New Zealand First, at all. Therefore, “Fatty” is lying, is he not?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He is—table it!

Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no. I am on my feet, Mr Deputy Speaker—one at a time. I am speaking to the point of order. Tell him to sit down; that is the rule.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: But it is not relevant, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker. He says that he wants to table a document. I do not believe he has it, and I say he is misleading the House. He has no correspondence from New Zealand First, at all. In short, he is lying.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. You should not use that word in this Chamber, Mr Peters. In any case, one would hope that Mr Brownlee has the papers. It is not really relevant whether he has or does not have them, and it is not covered by the Standing Orders.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you trying to be helpful, Mr Mallard?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think, to help my ministerial colleague, I should just point out that Mr Brownlee said he was going to table a list of names he was going to call New Zealand First, or something similar, rather than correspondence from it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This requires no further debate. I thought members were seeking elucidation of the nature of the papers. It is simply a case of seeking leave, and members can object to it if they wish. Leave has been sought for those papers to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was trying to finish my point of order, and the second part of my point of order was that the leader of the National Party got up, objected to something that did not happen in respect of a reference to members being in the House—or not being present. Then he made it clear that members on his own side were not in the House—the very thing he had protested about—and, in doing so, he offended against the Standing Order. I ask you to bring him to order and tell him to apologise for that, because making reference to people who are not in the House is not allowed. I know Dr Brash has been here for a short time, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the fact is that he should have learnt by now at least one Standing Order in the time he has been the leader—temporarily—of the National Party. He offended against a Standing Order, and you heard him do it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a purpose for the Standing Order, and the way in which Dr Brash referred to it did not contravene that purpose, at all. We will move on.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the first and second points of order taken by Winston Peters, he called me a liar. I am not. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that Mr Henare was thrown out of the House this afternoon for calling someone a liar, so I think that Mr Peters should at least withdraw and apologise, or remove himself from the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I dealt with that matter before. I explained to him that he may not use that language in the House, and I left it at that. I think we have moved past that point—

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Brownlee has taken specific exception to that. It is always the case in this House that when someone has been offended against—particularly in that particular way—and has taken offence to it, then the person who has made the statement is required to withdraw and apologise. That has always been the practice, and I expect it to be upheld now.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am prepared to withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What you have just seen is the National Party being able to dish it out but not to take it. Mr Brownlee read out a list of canine names that he made up, and he thinks that is OK, but when somebody reacts to that, the National members simply cannot take it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He should be asked to apologise for that, but we did not do that. We are not like the National Party—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for withdrawing and apologising. You are not raising a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I said I apologised, and I expect them, in the future, to not behave in that way. That is what I was asking for.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take the point that Mr Peters is making, but I want to make it very clear to the House that despite his generous offer to withdraw, I did not take offence at him referring to me as “Fatty”. That is something I am entirely responsible for.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will continue, and we have not docked the time for the points of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Thank you. When I was a new back-bencher I had a 5-minute speech that lasted 37 minutes; I thought I was going to beat that record. I say to Dr Brash that he can run, but unless he jumps in his coffin he cannot hide. I say to that member that everyone knows he is going, although he is absolutely correct that we could not see Bill English and John Key—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: 49 percent!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There goes Nick Smith, saying “49 percent!” But we know that he is the member who cannot count. He is the one whom Bill English relied on to make sure that Don Brash would not win.

But the point that we all know is that the National members are debating and plotting. How do we know that, and how do we know that they have not reached a consensus? Bill English sent an email to Molesworth & Featherston, saying that there is certainly no consensus. National members had said, the week before, that there was a consensus and it was around John Key and Gerry Brownlee. Bill English was really offended by that, and he sent an email to Molesworth & Featherston that did not say there would be no leadership change—it did not say that, at all—but said that there was no consensus on the replacement leader.

I also want to know when Bill English will front up and own up to something else. When will he own up to being the person who said that John Key does not have the bottle for a leadership change?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is not true? He does not have the bottle, says Nick Smith. Nick Smith agrees with Bill English that John Key does not have the bottle. I think that is an interesting situation. I am not sure whether or not John Key has the bottle. I am sure that among his supporters for a leadership change in the National Party—and I see Mr McCully swaggering into the House—there are a few people with a bit of bottle. I think Gerry Brownlee has the bottle; he has the bottle to give John Key a hand. But Bill English says that John Key does not have the bottle. I think that is probably true. John Key has led quite a protected life. Over recent years it has been relatively sweet. He has not been engaged in politics in the same way that some others have, and he has not been hurled into the job in the way that Don Brash was. It would have happened already if that were to be the case.

There is clearly no good organisation around John Key. I ask members opposite to please put John Key into the leadership. He is the one we want to be there, and we want him there soon. We want John Key to be the leader of the National Party, and we want him to be the leader soon, because the sooner he becomes the leader of the National Party the better it will be. If he gets through the summer and through the lovely photos of the candidate from West Hollywood, or wherever it is—

Darren Hughes: Central Casting.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD:—Central Casting—then people will start to listen to him. What will they hear? They will hear someone who is empty.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about Gerry?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, Gerry will be the deputy leader until they toss him out and put—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Gerry Brownlee will be the deputy leader until Judith Collins takes over. That is the deal that John Key is trying to arrange. He is trying to double-deal. He has said to Judith Collins that by the election, the National Party has to have a woman deputy leader, but he is saying to Gerry Brownlee—

Gerry Brownlee: What’s this about?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, it is about balancing it up; it is about getting all the eggs into one basket. Gerry Brownlee’s votes are needed to get rid of Brash, but then Gerry Brownlee will go. That is the deal, because Judith Collins is on a promise from Don Brash.

I want to know when Bill English will deny sending that email to Molesworth & Featherston.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): The public should know that the member resuming his seat, the Hon Trevor Mallard, aspires to be the Minister of Finance. That ought to horrify New Zealanders.

A few weeks ago I received a letter from a New Zealander who had sought help from Taito Phillip Field on an immigration matter. His wife was an overstayer who had been forced to leave New Zealand. Since writing that letter, the person has signed a statutory declaration, and I will read it to the House so that the House can hear the solemn declaration of this Kiwi in his own words.

“On 31 July 1993 I left New Zealand for Samoa. I returned from Samoa on 5 October 1993. I can recall meeting Mr Phillip Field in his then office in Mangere sometime in 1994.

When I met Mr Field in his Mangere office I spoke to him about an immigration matter. He told me that it would have to be done in the Samoan way and I recall he mentioned the term ‘fa’alavelave’. But he then told me the more money I could find the better the outcome would be in the long run. I was unable to give him any money because I had nothing.

The immigration matter I have referred to related to my wife and her two New Zealand born children who had to leave New Zealand because she was considered an overstayer. That is why we left New Zealand for Samoa in 1993. I paid for the trip to Samoa. When I returned to New Zealand in October 1993 it was without my wife and our children. That is why I went to Mangere where I saw Mr Field and sought his help.

For the reasons given in paragraph three (above), my very clear understanding was that if any money was to be paid, it had to be paid to Mr Field for his help on this immigration matter. On the basis of what Mr Field said to me, I believe he intended to keep some of the cash for himself. As I said above (paragraph three), that was the Samoan way or fa’alavelave. I knew exactly what fa’alavelave is.

A few years later I took part in the Hikoi of Hope which started in the North of the North Island and ended up at Parliament grounds. I was at the Wellington end and marched right to the steps of Parliament. I stood right at the front of the Hikoi and I can recall seeing Mr Field. I waved to him. He saw me and he hung his head.”

That solemn declaration was signed in front of an independent solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand on the ninth day of October, 2006. I do not intend to table it, because I do not want a media scrum around this individual, who has already suffered enough. He lost his wife and children. Because he had no money, Taito Phillip Field would not help him. I think that is a disgrace. I intend to pass this statutory declaration on to the New Zealand Police, who are investigating these matters. I think the declaration shows that the inquiry established by the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, into the immigration matters involving Taito Phillip Field was totally inadequate. This is not the only case I am aware of where money was required to be paid. The difference, in this case, is that this individual has nothing more to lose, because he lost his wife and children.

Others got help because they paid cash. They do not want to sign such declarations, because they are fearful of the consequences should they do so. I think it is a sad day for this Parliament and a sad day for New Zealand when a Minister in a Labour Government has that kind of behaviour associated with his role as a member of Parliament. I expect the Labour Party will take some steps to do something about it. It is an indictment on all members of this Parliament that I hope never ever happens again.

RON MARK (NZ First): This is a sad story of David and Goliath, but, unlike the biblical story, David loses and a smug, corpulent Goliath goes unpunished. George Calvert, a returned serviceman who fought in Malaya, and a self-made man who started by cleaning windows, invested his honestly earned income in an investment scheme called Spacetable, which was sold and promoted up and down the country by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Inland Revenue investigated the scheme and found it to be a sham. At the time it promoted the Spacetable scheme, PricewaterhouseCoopers gave undertakings to investors that if the Inland Revenue Department challenged the scheme it would defend it all the way to the High Court—a promise it later reneged on. When put to the test, and having pocketed its promoter fees, PricewaterhouseCoopers walked away from its obligations to defend the scheme and simply advised the investors to settle with the Inland Revenue Department and pay their tax penalties. Such settlements were in the best interests of PricewaterhouseCoopers, but not those of the investors.

Mr Calvert was unhappy with this outcome, particularly as PricewaterhouseCoopers had been his tax and financial advisers for many years. He always trusted its professional judgment without question. In fact, the main reason he invested in the Spacetable scheme in the first place was that Peter Croft and Graham Archer—partners in PricewaterhouseCoopers—were already investors personally, along with his own PricewaterhouseCoopers tax adviser, Frank Burgess. Indeed, Peter Croft was, at the time, PricewaterhouseCoopers’ national managing partner for tax.

The second reason for investing was the PricewaterhouseCoopers undertaking to support a tax case to the High Court. When it later reneged on this undertaking it did not refund any of the fees. Mr Calvert felt further betrayed when he subsequently learnt that Peter Croft was the only Spacetable investor not to claim personal tax deductions in respect of the scheme, thus completely escaping any personal tax penalties.

To make matters even worse, Mr Calvert then learned that Messrs Croft and Archer had personally profited from his investment when they purloined some of the Spacetable promoter fees by reducing the PricewaterhouseCoopers invoices issued in respect of Spacetable and applying the difference to personal expenditure. This personal expenditure consisted of a first-class, no expenses spared junket, together with their wives, to attend the Bledisloe Cup game in Sydney.

This scandalous behaviour is not only tax evasion—an imprisonable offence—but constitutes a secret commission subject to the Secret Commissions Act of 1910, which prohibits such behaviour. Furthermore, it is a fraud on the PricewaterhouseCoopers partnership. Even though this criminal behaviour has been brought to the attention of the PricewaterhouseCoopers chairman, John Shewan, it is curious that the matter has still not been referred to the police and that Graham Archer remains a senior partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers today. What is more, I understand that when an Inland Revenue senior inspector was apprised of the situation, he was instructed to drop the matter because of the influence of John Shewan.

The questions remain. Who within PricewaterhouseCoopers or the Inland Revenue Department instructed a senior inspector to stop investigating this blatant case of tax evasion committed jointly by Messrs Croft and Archer and the PricewaterhouseCoopers partnership itself? It is scandalous that such an elite treatment be extended to individuals who have an earning capacity in the millions and have evaded tax out of sheer greed rather than necessity, and the little guy—the former soldier from 1^st Battalion, who started from the bottom, who saw active service on behalf of his country in Malaya—is shafted while the fat cat corporates walk away unscathed.

Members should rest assured that New Zealand First will be back in the House asking questions on this matter. I seek the leave of the House to table a carton of documents. They are documents from the Wellington High Court, documents from Corporate Risks, and documents relating to Capital Fund (Management) Ltd—all relating to the speech I have just given.

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

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): My Labour Party colleague Steve Maharey has already talked in the House today about a whiff of change in the air. Spring is in the National caucus. Why has this early spring, just 1 year after the election, come about? It is because nature abhors a vacuum. A vacuum has been created in the National Party and the message to the people of New Zealand is that it has been created because the current National leader, Don Brash, has burnt everybody off.

Mr Maharey has already talked about the fact that immigrants, people whom Mr Brash described as non-mainstream, were burnt off fairly early after the election. Mr Brash burnt iwi off when he said that they were not really iwi because somehow their genetics were mixed up—as if the rest of us do not have mixed up genetics, as well. After all, if one thinks of the British Isles alone and how many waves of invaders have been through there, are the people there Romans, Celts, or Saxons? No, they are British, and they identify as such, just as iwi do, as well. So Dr Brash has burnt off iwi and many migrants, from Croats to Koreans, because they were not mainstream.

In addition to that, of course, we have the flirtation with the Brethren, which has shocked and outraged so many people in New Zealand. It has shown how corrupt the body politic of New Zealand could be perceived to be when people see a cult intervening in politics with large amounts of cash. It is very American. So, yes, a vacuum has been created and, as I said earlier, nature abhors a vacuum and a number of individuals have wedged themselves into that space.

My colleague Mr Mallard has already spoken about some of the pretenders to the throne. One of them, Mr Key, is somebody we would be desperate to see win it, and I will tell the House why. Mr Key represents a west Auckland constituency, although he does not live in it as I do. I, of course, live in my constituency. One hears things in one’s local area about the local members. Mr Key did some very interesting things during the election campaign. He was at a public meeting of ratepayers in Hobsonville and he was asked what his opinion on abortion was. His response was: “I have never been asked that question before.”, then there was silence.

At a meeting just a month or so ago about a Housing New Zealand development in Hobsonville, also in the area Mr Key represents but does not live in, he allowed people in the audience to say that State house tenants were scum—this from an individual who grew up in a State house, but he made no mention of that. He nodded his head in agreement as the anti - State-house-tenant comments were made. Mr Key is also an individual who said he had nothing to do with the Brethren. But, oddly enough, when the Brethren were shown on television meeting with the National Party it appeared to be in Mr Key’s house in Parnell. It is very interesting.

John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member for Te Atatu is making some very unfortunate and incorrect statements. He is deliberately misleading the House with those comments. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. I take offence at those comments. They are not correct. I ask that the member withdraw and apologise.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Take a personal explanation.

John Key: Listen, sunshine, when someone lies to the House I am going to ask that that person withdraws and apologises.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I say to Mr Cosgrove that it is a point of order, but I realise he was trying to be helpful and give advice. What the member raises is not a point of order, but if he has been offended by things that have been said then it is in order that they be withdrawn.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Mr Speaker, perhaps you could help me. Is it that I said Mr Key does not live in his electorate? Is it because I said he did not answer a question on abortion? Is it because I said that he agreed and did not intervene when State house tenants were called scum?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You did not say that Mr Key said that State house tenants were scum. That is something that could be objected to if it was not true. You were quite entitled to say, although I cannot see the relevance of it, that he allowed a member in the audience to say that. I cannot see how one can prevent that. But if Mr Key has been offended by things that you said, and I do not want you to enumerate them again, then you should withdraw them.

John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member said that I nodded in agreement. That is not correct. That is completely misleading the House. The Minister knows that, because when I sat down before he gave me a little wink. I do not mind if members want to make things up, but if they could be even slightly factually correct it would be useful. I will not sit back while that very junior and incompetent Minister tries to slag me off.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was never a point of order, except for the point where the member raised objection. What people may feel offended by cannot be judged in advance. But that member has been offended. Please, Mr Carter, just withdraw the remarks and then continue.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I withdraw the comments. It could have been an involuntary neck movement, I accept.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you quite rightly pointed out I am attempting to assist in this situation. I would just like your advice, and you may wish to pass it on to Mr Key. It is a longstanding Standing Order—Standing Order 350—that if a member of Parliament feels aggrieved, and feels he or she has been wronged, that member can stand up and make a personal explanation regarding matters of a personal nature that he or she feels offended by. It also points out, for the edification of Mr Key, that a personal explanation may not be debated. It is a longstanding procedure, too, that if Mr Key feels that anything Mr Carter said is incorrect or inaccurate he can do so. But you may wish to invite him to take advantage of that, of course. The record of the House will record exactly what Mr Key says.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is an explanation of procedure, which you have correctly raised. But I have, of course, chosen to deal with it another way.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is pretty simple. Standing Order 161 makes it abundantly clear that if a member takes offence at a statement made by another member then that statement should be withdrawn and apologised for. In the context of the story that the Minister was trying to tell, the remark was extremely offensive, and there should be no smart alec behaviour. Lesser offences today and the abuse of your position by an attempted withdrawal and then explanation have seen people leave the House. Perhaps Mr Carter should be either asked to withdraw and apologise, or leave.

Hon Mark Burton: The member has just compounded the problem. You have already ruled on the matter—the matter has been dealt with—and by raising the matter in the way that he has Mr Brownlee has effectively challenged the Chair, and that is quite improper.

Hon Murray McCully: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is correct to say that you had made a ruling, and it was clear. It has always been the practice here that a withdrawal and an apology must be unqualified. The Minister sought to qualify his withdrawal and apology. I think the matter is a simple one. You simply need to require an unqualified withdrawal and apology as you directed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think the member qualified his withdrawal at the point he made it.

John Key: He did. He said it may have been an involuntary movement of his neck.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I am mistaken—the Minister was good enough to withdraw his remark—and the Minister qualified his remark, would he please withdraw it, unqualified, and then continue.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I withdraw the remark, unqualified. Having regard to the sorts of issues that we have dealt with for the last 15 minutes, we would be delighted if Mr Key became the next leader of the National Party. In fact, our prayers and libations would be answered. That would be fantastic.

Of course, there are a number of other contenders for the job. One of them is Bill English who would seek to be the new John Howard of New Zealand. Alas, of course, unlike John Howard, who does seem to have a remarkable ability to connect with the people of Australia, Bill English demonstrated conclusively in 2002 that he has no ability whatsoever to connect with the people of New Zealand, and should he beat off John Key to the job we would be almost as pleased as we would if John Key got it. It is interesting.

We have had lots of denials that there is a whiff of change in the air and a leadership race is on. One has just to look at the Opposition as we do, from the Government side, because a picture can tell 1,000 words. We watch Mr Key and Mr English as they sit next to each other but face opposite directions. I do not think I have ever seen them exchange a word together in the House, and I sit exactly opposite them. The body language is delicious; it just oozes hostility and rivalry.

The other fascinating thing is that we watch their faces when Mr Brash is speaking. Neither of them ever looks at him. They both look in opposite directions to each other, at each end of the Chamber, and never, never at Mr Brash. The body language is very revealing.

Of course, the other thing is that to become leader one has to assemble the votes. I assume one would have to come up with 25 votes in the National caucus to win. It has been very interesting to watch how the two leading contenders deal with the rest of their caucus. It is fascinating.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): It is interesting to note that at a time when the Government has been able to tell the nation it has a record surplus, when we have had Ministers in the Chamber trying to say that this is a great Government doing wonderful things in the health field, a Government whose Minister of Health today told us that he is able to get 10,000 new operations for just $50 million, a Government whose Minister of Education came into the House today and said that the investment it is making in education is the best thing it could possibly do for the future of New Zealand, and a Prime Minister who wants to say that the leadership she and her Government offer New Zealand is as good as it could ever be, it chooses to talk about the National Party rather than about its own record. The Government does not want any scrutiny of its own very poor behaviour in Government.

What Labour has chosen to do is to put itself above the law. It decided that the only way it could win the 2005 election was to overspend the electoral cap, and it did so by a huge margin. When the Government knew that it did not have the money to spend from its usual backers, it dived into the taxpayer purse and flogged it. Tomorrow the Auditor-General will tell this House exactly that; that Labour chose illegally to take taxpayer funding and apply it for election purposes. That is why the Government has to pay back the $446,000 for a start. We can expect that there will be a much bigger sum attached to that.

We know how Labour hates to be put in a position where it looks bad. We could see that today by the way its members have been speaking. So they have cooked up this neat little deal where the Auditor-General’s report will not see the light of the parliamentary day until after 2 o’clock tomorrow. What is the significance of that? The significance is that this House itself cannot discuss that report until the following Tuesday at the very earliest, giving the Labour Party and its 9^th floor spin doctors 5 days to condition the public to whatever response it might make. That is the behaviour one would expect from a Government led by a dictator. It is the sort of behaviour that confirms the deep corruption that runs through the veins of this Government. It is the sort of behaviour that New Zealanders are overwhelmingly rejecting.

Labour members can stand up and talk all they like about the National Party. What they really need to do is look at what New Zealanders are saying about them, because they are not listening to the sharp rhetoric about health; they are not interested in Mr Maharey’s grand pronouncements about education; they do not believe Dr Cullen’s pronouncements about the economy; and, above all, they do not believe the Prime Minister when she says Labour has not broken the rules. The only way to fix it is to first pay the money back, then recognise the fact that this theft of taxpayer money—this inappropriate misuse of taxpayer money—led to an election overspend and a breach of section 214B of the Electoral Act in a way that was knowing and is described by that Act as a corrupt practice.

New Zealanders do not like that sort of thing. That is why they are speaking so loudly and giving Labour a clear direction. So we are disappointed that the opportunities for the Opposition to publicly state tomorrow an opinion on not only the Auditor-General’s report but also the Speaker’s response to it inside this House is being denied by a Government that has, for far too long, believed itself to be above the law. I want to send a message to the small parties that prop up Labour and keep it in Government. There was a great saying that mud sticks. Well, it does. People who support that crowd will go down with them.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues): For the edification of listeners, that last speaker was a version of the National Party blunderbuss, Gerry Brownlee. Amongst his famed historical actions in politics he will be remembered for tossing people downstairs, and a few other things. I think there was a breach of a law or two there, but we would not want—I was going to say the “pot” calling the kettle black—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sensitive to those sorts of remarks, but I want to make it clear that I stood up in a court and took the medicine, because that was the right thing to do, and I want to know why the Labour Party finds that so objectionable. Why cannot the Labour Party stand up and take its medicine? And why, whenever the Labour Party is in a tight spot, do its members pick up mud and fling it?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fair enough.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He admitted he broke the law and I suppose that is good. I wonder how the person who got thrown down the stairs feels.

I like to read the odd book; I am told Mr Brownlee likes to read the odd recipe book. I am reminded of the great man Abraham Lincoln. He said—and I think it applies directly to Mr Brownlee—“He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas better than any man I ever met.” I think that speaks volumes for Mr Brownlee, the National Party blunderbuss. He talks about what New Zealanders like and dislike in respect of leadership. Well, I ask him if he shares the view of New Zealanders in respect of Dr Brash, who has forgetfulness about certain meetings. Does he share the view of New Zealanders who do not like leaders who say one thing and do another? They do not like leaders who say, for instance, that they never knew about Exclusive Brethren pamphlets. I know that Mr Brownlee, deep, deep down—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a point of order that goes right to the heart of the matter. All I want to ask Mr Cosgrove is whether the Prime Minister did not understand or know she was going 180 kilometres an hour across the Canterbury Plains. Did the Prime Minister forget that she signed a painting? Did the Prime Minister forget the arrangement with Mr Yelash?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There has been a little bit of tit for tat. Mr Brownlee has had his 5 minutes, and has gone close to 7 now, so we will just leave that.

Hon Brian Donnelly: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I really have to make some remarks about the tactics that Gerry Brownlee is using in this House at the moment. He stands up, take points of order, looks away from you, and then ignores you. He is simply trifling with the Chair. I believe if he tries it again he should be ejected from this House.

Hon Mark Burton: I could not do better than to agree with the member who has just resumed his seat. Mr Speaker, you made an observation that Mr Brownlee had now extended his speech to 7 minutes at the expense of my colleague. Can I seek your reassurance that my colleague will get his 5 minutes and not lose them to Mr Brownlee’s rather unfortunate abuse of the Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank members for raising those issues. I think Mr Brownlee will be well satisfied that he, in fact, has had an extended time with the issues he raised. That is OK. Mr Cosgrove, the clock was stopped while those points of order went on. Thank you, Mr Donnelly, for your input to that. I will take it on board.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am grateful for Mr Donnelly’s intervention, but I have never in my life needed any protection from Mr Brownlee. No one does—apart from somebody who ended up at the bottom of a staircase, and maybe one or two attendants at the local McDonald’s or Burger King. I do not know.

But I ask what Mr Brownlee really thinks of Dr Brash, deep down in places he will not talk about. I wonder what he really thought when Dr Brash went out and said “I didn’t meet them”—and we know whom we are talking about—and then came back and said he did. There is a word for that. I am reminded again of a wonderful quote by Harry S Truman. I am in quote mode today. Harry S Truman said—and I choose my words carefully; they are not about anyone in this House, of course—about the then American President, Richard Nixon: “He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he’d lie just to keep his hand in.” That is what Harry S said about “Tricky Dickie”, but the question is: what does Gerry Brownlee, the leader in waiting—so he thinks—really think about Dr Brash’s tactics? What does he really think about Dr Brash, who said before the election there would be tax cuts across the board, “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”. Somebody else said that, but it is close enough. How does he feel now that Dr Brash comes out and says: “Well, what I said before the election …” It is after the election and there is a flip-flop all over the place. There is a word that could replace “flip-flop”, but we will not go into that.

What does Gerry Brownlee really feel about that? Hang on, the blunderbuss has deflated. He called me a “stuffed shirt” when I got up and interjected on him. At least my shirt is not stuffed with my lunch, as his is. How does Gerry Brownlee feel about Dr Brash’s continuing—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those remarks are becoming personal.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is absolutely nothing on Mr Cosgrove that is as big as anything on me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It took a good 4 minutes to think about it. It is interesting to read what the Independent said about Gerry Brownlee way back. It stated that Brownlee—that is, Mr Brownlee—is an English supporter in the Brash - English leadership contest and voted for the latter, for Mr English, because he wanted to see “Brash eradicated as the future National Party leadership contender for all time.” The problem with Mr Brownlee is that he hitched his enormous saddlebags to the wagon train of Dr Brash, and now if Dr Brash goes he is gone.

Nobody would accuse Mr Brownlee of being a lightweight. He has had praise from that loyal member of the National Party, Maurice Williamson. Maurice apparently said of him: “Gerry? I think Gerry is a good MP, really effective in the House. He’s got style, he’s got mana about him, he’s a warm person.” I would have thought that getting praise from Maurice Williamson was a bit like getting praise from Attila the Hun—a death wish. But Gerry Brownlee sits there.

There is a little bit of decency, I think, in Mr Brownlee. At least he does have a sense of humour. But I know, and he knows, deep down in places he will not talk about, that he is very, very uncomfortable with the direction in which Dr Brash is taking the National Party. He knows it; he as good as said so in respect of Dr Brash doing a Ronald Reagan. Dr Brash said: “I cannot recall who I met with after the election”—$1.2 million later. Then, on Agenda a couple of weeks ago, Dr Brash said: “I might have met with somebody from the Brethren, but I am not sure.” Then he said: “I am not going to tell you.”, and then he said: “I am not sure whether I took the diary entry in or out.” Gerry Brownlee is uncomfortable, he knows it, and he knows exactly where he is going.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): People who are listening in to this afternoon’s debate on the radio, and listening in particular to the contributions from the Government side of the House, will no doubt have formed the conclusion that the Government speakers are new back-benchers, unencumbered by any form of public office or responsibility, and without any ministerial warrants to concern themselves with—individuals with nothing better to do than to sit down and invent insults about members on the opposite side of the House. Well, I have very bad news indeed for the New Zealanders who have listened to those contributions and the torrents of personal abuse and invective coming from the other side of House. I say to those ladies and gentlemen that that was their Government.

Time after time we have listened to Ministers from this Government—people who hold warrants, and with portfolios and responsibilities to discharge—who had the opportunity to come to this House today to tell us about the good work they were doing for New Zealand and New Zealanders. One after the other they have done nothing more than stand up and hurl abuse at members of the Opposition. I want to say how pleased I am that New Zealanders can see through all of that. As poll after poll shows us at the moment, New Zealanders can see that the members opposite are worthless, and have no vision and no policies. They have no intention of doing good for their country. All they come to do in Parliament is to throw mud and insults. The New Zealand public are on to them, and I am very pleased to see that.

Tomorrow we are to see from the Controller and Auditor-General, an independent Officer of Parliament, the report that Helen Clark never wanted to see. It is the report that Helen Clark has worked tirelessly for months to intimidate the Auditor-General into having changed. That report tells us two very important things. First, it tells us that the $460,000 Labour Party pledge card involved the unlawful use of taxpayers’ money. That will be the key finding of the report. But the report will leave hanging an even bigger conclusion that we will invite New Zealanders to consider in the days subsequent to its release. It will tell us that if the pledge card expenditure was not a lawful use of parliamentary funds, it could be only one other thing, and that is the expenditure of funds on an election expense within the meaning of the Electoral Act.

Tomorrow’s report from the Auditor-General will mean not just that the $460,000 pledge card expenditure was unlawful but also, as a consequence of that ruling, that the money spent by the Labour Party in the last 2 weeks of the campaign involved a breach of section 214B of the Electoral Act, which describes the nature of a corrupt practice. That is the news Helen Clark has tried for months to ensure that we would not hear in this House. That is the news that the Labour Party fears hearing.

And what have we seen from our Prime Minister over the last few weeks? We have seen a naked attempt to intimidate an Officer of Parliament—the Controller and Auditor-General—into changing his point of view. I will quote the Prime Minister. She said that the Auditor-General should “go back to the drawing board”. She said that “he has a serious credibility problem”. This is not a case of the Prime Minister talking about a member on the Opposition side of the House; this is our Prime Minister telling the Controller and Auditor-General, an independent Officer of Parliament, that he has “a serious credibility problem” and he should “go back to the drawing board”. I cannot imagine a more obvious and naked attempt to intimidate an independent Officer of Parliament. The Prime Minister went further, and said to him that he should report to Parliament as Auditor-General only and not use his powers as Controller. She said: “We are saying to him that this is an inappropriate use of the Controller’s power.”—a clear edict from the Prime Minister to the Auditor-General.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): For the listening audience, this is a new back-bencher speaking.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member must speak to the Chamber through the Speaker, not to the audience.

DARIEN FENTON: I have been a member of this House as a Labour MP for nearly a year. It is a privilege to be an MP, and it does not hurt to remind all the members in this House of that fact from time to time. But the greatest privilege for me is being part of a Labour-led Government that is delivering for ordinary working families—despite the invective we have heard for weeks and weeks, which has so appalled the nation. The things that I particularly celebrate are those things that make the biggest difference to the people whom I have worked for for the last 15 years.

They include the Employment Relations Amendment Act, whereby vulnerable workers no longer have to worry about going to work only to lose their jobs the next day, and Working for Families, which is one of the greatest, most significant poverty-reduction measures taken in decades, with tax relief going where it should be going—to working families who are working to raise the next generation. There is KiwiSaver, which is a very exciting venture, whereby superannuation will be on the agenda in many workplaces for people who in the past could only dream of it. Savings will become a topic for discussion in every workplace now, where before only those with real bargaining power were able to have a meaningful dialogue about superannuation contributions.

We all know about the jobs. We all know about the unemployment rate. We know that our kids have a hope of finding decent work now, and that they will not languish in the unemployment queue like they used to. We also know about the 10,000 Modern Apprenticeships and the record numbers in industry training, where workers now have a real chance to have their skills recognised. The removal of interest on student loans has made a huge difference to ordinary working families, particularly those on modest incomes. It puts tertiary study within the reach of those people. And just this week there was the announcement of a 4 percent increase in the average weekly incomes of New Zealanders, which goes along with the significant increases in the minimum wage during the time of the Labour-led Government. It is those things that people talk to me about when I am out and about, and those are the things that count for people—not the incessant witch-hunt being conducted by National and its weird friends.

It must be quite depressing to be in a party that is in total disarray. National has no unity around its leader. The plotting goes on and, meanwhile, that “man alone”, Dr Don Brash, continues to divide. The latest attempt to write off Māori and reinvent Ōrewa I is insulting and offensive. It is a disgrace!

It must be particularly depressing for those members on the opposite side with naked and frustrated leadership ambitions, like Simon Power—the man who was promoted by a demotion. Where does he line up? Well, we know where he lines up on foreign affairs. It is called follow the US and Britain, and follow them blindly wherever they go. From the Government side of the House it is very hard to know what that member stands for, other than standing for Simon Power. And who would be a good running mate for Simon Power? How about Dr Lockwood Smith? They have a lot in common. They have both been demoted by Dr Brash, and both—as the late, great David Lange would have said—have uranium on their breath. That member wanted a US thinktank to help manipulate Kiwi opinion on our nuclear-free status. What a pair they would make!

I am really glad to be part of a Government that is united around our leader and focused, because in the end it is deeds, not words, that people judge us by. In my first year of work as a Labour MP, I see the difference that the policies of the Labour-led Government are making, and I see the difference with a Government that values all communities and all peoples. This is a country of good people. It is a country going forward under this Government, because Labour is getting on with the things that matter. The people know it, communities show it, and society is going for it.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party is delighted that climate change is finally, at long last, on the political agenda. We are delighted, too, that the two main parties, instead of just trading insults and sleaze with one another, are starting to tackle the most serious issue of our time. We are delighted that the National Party, after years of denying climate change, campaigning against the Kyoto Protocol, and campaigning against the so-called “fart tax” and the carbon charge, is finally claiming to take climate change seriously. We are delighted, too, that Labour, having abandoned its only real climate change policy—a carbon tax, which is the most efficient and simple way of putting a price signal into our economy to reduce our greenhouse emissions—is finally starting to work seriously on a climate change policy.

Far from feeling threatened, or being in competition about this new-found interest in climate change, as some commentators have suggested, the Green Party would like nothing more than to see Labour and National competing with us and with each other for environmental credibility. We would like nothing more than to see Labour and National competing on introducing far-reaching policies to reduce carbon in our economy, and to help make a transition to a carbon-free economy. Better still, we would like nothing better than to see a cross-party agreement on climate change in this House.

But the jury is still out on just how serious and how committed the Government and the National Party really are in addressing climate change. Are they prepared to do more than nibble around the margins and engage in “greenwashing”? Are they prepared to tackle the really hard issues like capping and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and transport—air and road transport—which are the major sources of emissions? Do they have the political courage to tackle these issues, rather than just nibble around the edges and compromise on this issue, which, above all, requires political will to address it? Transport emissions make up 21 percent of greenhouse emissions. Those emissions have increased by a staggering 63 percent since 1990, so why is the transport sector completely out of bounds for both Labour and National?

Why will the Government not tackle greenhouse gas emissions? Why is the Government putting $1.5 billion into new roads, in the certain knowledge that these new roads will contribute to increasing our carbon emissions, which it will then, perhaps, pay for in carbon credits to Russia? Why is there such a disconnection between what the Government says its policy is on climate change and what the Government is actually doing in areas like roading and by allowing the rail network to be further undermined? The linchpin of National’s policy is a tradable emissions permit scheme in the electricity sector. We acknowledge that this is a very good start. We are not making petty comments about it, as some other parties have done. It is a good start, but how serious is the proposal? What will the level of the cap be, and how will the permits be allocated? Will they be handed out for free to current polluters, and will the cap be so high that it allows our already far too high carbon emissions and greenhouse emissions to continue?

The fact is that New Zealand is one of the worst per capita greenhouse polluters in the world. I believe that the New Zealand public are far ahead of the major political parties in this House on the issue, and it is good to see that those parties are starting to catch up with it. I hope all MPs in this House have seen An Inconvenient Truth, and are aware of the inconvenient truth that we will have to transform our entire economy, and perhaps reduce 70 to 90 percent of carbon emissions in our economy, if we are to get serious about tackling climate change. We need political will and we need political courage if we are going to tackle this issue. I believe that the public of New Zealand want leadership and political will; they do not want compromise and capitulation on this issue. So the Green Party sincerely hopes we will go beyond “greenwashing” in this House, we will get serious, and climate change will be one of the most significant issues on the political agenda in this coming term. Thank you.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I have been listening to the debate this afternoon—all of it—and people would have been wondering what was happening in this House. Today we saw a competition between Mr Steve Maharey and Mr Mallard for the biggest amount of sleaze and dirt that they could throw at the National Party and its leader. Well, so much for good behaviour in the House! What we saw was a disgrace.

I have a thought for members today, and it is this: “My signature is on it, I am accountable for it, and Labour in Government will be held to it by me.” Who said that?

Hon Member: Helen Clark.

JUDITH COLLINS: This little red pledge card—“My commitment to you.”—with a picture of some woman on it who I understand is supposed to be Helen Clark, is what all of that behaviour today was about. It is because this Labour Government needs to pay back some money—that is what it is all about.

This afternoon we heard from Mr Peter Dunne, who put out a press release apologising to the Auditor-General for the very personal remarks he made. I say good on Mr Peter Dunne for doing that and for admitting he had made a mistake, because people do make mistakes. Now we have a situation where this Labour Government is facing oblivion. The National Party has paid back the money it should not have spent. The Greens have said that they will pay it back—they are going to tithe or something, but, whatever it is, they will pay it back. United Future has now said it will pay the money back. The Māori Party has paid its money back. The Progressives did not misuse any money at all, so good for them. And who is not paying it back?

John Hayes: Labour.

JUDITH COLLINS: The Labour Party will not pay it back. It has engaged in weeks and weeks of muckraking, of filth, of getting all the information it thought it had got out of people’s rubbish bins during the election campaign—the sort of behaviour we saw brought up again today in the House. Labour does not seem to understand that it is digging itself further and further into a hole, because the people of New Zealand actually do not like that behaviour. They do not want it; they want a fair deal. They know that if they misuse someone else’s money, not only do they have to pay it back but they get charged with it. In this situation the police were called in by the Chief Electoral Officer. But, suddenly, somehow, the police did not want to prosecute it.

David Bennett: It’s called communism.

JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I say to Mr Bennett that I do not know what it is called, but it is certainly not something most people in New Zealand would find applied to them.

But if we want more detail, we can just look at this little card, because it tells us, with taxpayer money, that for more information we can go to www.labour.org.nz, or write freepost, Helen Clark, Parliament Buildings, Wellington. That is what it tells us on the little red card that was paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand. I suggest that the taxpayers of New Zealand do exactly that, and write freepost, Helen Clark, Parliament Buildings, Wellington with one message: “Pay it back now!”.

Every single one of us knows there is fraud in the benefit numbers, there is fraud amongst beneficiaries, there are liable parents who are not paying their bills—we know all of that. And what do we expect from those people? We expect them to pay the money back. Those people do not have the sorts of resources that highly paid people in Cabinet have; they also do not have the many advisers to tell them not to nick the money. Yet what did Labour do? It took the money. Labour was warned that it was over budget, and it was warned not to use the money, but it still went ahead and did so—that is its behaviour.

In 2004—2 years ago—I wrote to the Auditor-General about another of Helen Clark’s schemes. That one concerned a calendar paid for with taxpayers’ money that was sent to health professionals, that talked about the many wonderful things of past Labour Governments, from the day they were first invented. I wrote to the Auditor-General saying that was a misuse of parliamentary money. The Auditor-General said that yes, I was right. After that, I wrote to the Speaker of the House pointing out the misuse of taxpayers’ money, and suggesting the party should pay it back. But the Speaker replied that it was up to the member involved. That person was Helen Clark.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Business of the House

LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the debate on the question that the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill be read a second and third time to be taken together as a single debate of twelve 10-minute speeches, and that, notwithstanding Standing Order 292, the second and third readings be set down as private and local order of the day No. 2 today.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill

Second Reading

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): I move, That the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill be now read a second time. Mr Assistant Speaker, you will know, as indeed I do, that street prostitution has been a problem for a long while in the communities of Papatoetoe and Manurewa, and that the council has been frustrated by this. The public are frustrated; so are shop owners who find used condoms in their doorways in the morning. It is a problem that has upset both communities, and Sir Barry Curtis has worked closely with you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and me over many years.

The Local Government and Environment Committee received 121 submissions and heard 45 of them. I have read the commentary on the bill, and the conclusion section is very interesting. It states: “We are concerned about the increasing amount of antisocial behaviour apparently occurring in New Zealand’s urban areas, to which this bill appears in part to be a reaction, and we have sympathy with the local concerns expressed by Manukau City Council. We acknowledge that the problems described in Manukau may have national implications, especially given the possible connections between street prostitution and crimes such as domestic violence, child abuse, and gang-related crimes. However, the majority of the committee does not believe that having a local law different from the national law in respect of prostitution is workable.”

That statement, of course, is not what Manukau City wanted to hear. Sir Barry Curtis wrote to me, and to others, on 11 September, after receiving the report. He stated: “Manukau City Council is disappointed to note that the Local Government and Environment Select Committee has recommended that the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill not be passed at its second reading. The committee rightly acknowledges the council and community have real concerns that need addressing about the activity of sex workers on the street, but it does not believe the bill is the answer. The council disputes this. The committee suggests that local legislation is inappropriate, because citizens would be subject to conflicting laws, depending on their current geographical location. But, in fact, that is already the case with differing bylaws that apply from district to district.”

Sir Barry Curtis’ letter went further: “The committee suggests that the bill amends the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 within the boundaries for Manukau City, and that this is undesirable from a public policy point of view. In fact, the bill is in keeping with the spirit and principles of the Act and seeks only to limit one form of prostitution that is seen to be creating particular difficulties within the district. This is a local district issue within Manukau involving local communities. It is not likely to create a precedent of any kind.”

He further states: “The suggestion that the potential fine of $10,000 will, in fact, be an incentive to continue working on the streets is inaccurate. If these people are fined $10,000, one’s got to ask where are they going to find the $10,000.”

I think that that does show there is a real problem there. However, after the council put that forward, I think it realised that the measure was perhaps extreme.

The suggestion that safe-house brothels and tolerance zones are successful initiatives is disputed by the council. Research indicates that tolerance zones in the Netherlands are implemented in conjunction with strict enforcement of laws to prohibit street prostitution outside of these areas.

Manukau as a council obviously spent some time researching this matter. It was not just a quick response to a problem. This problem has been going on for years. I think the council really was asking its local members of Parliament to bring the bill to Parliament so that it could be discussed. The reality is that street prostitution is frustrating for those people. It happens usually late at night, unseen by the majority of people in the community. It attracts undesirables. Not only does it attract clients who kerbcrawl but also it attracts another element of people who vandalise the shops where it takes place. It is a most unpleasant activity, and, of course, the council has the job of trying to make sure the town areas where this happens are cleaned up before the shops open. Schools have had to get their caretaker go around and check that used condoms are not in the school-grounds, before the start of school.

However, the House moved a great deal in 2003 when it passed new laws about prostitution. Most councils are finding this very workable. But Christchurch, Auckland City, and Manukau have had problems. Indeed, Christchurch and Auckland have been taken to the High Court over the restrictive way the provisions have been presented.

The conclusion in the commentary further states: “Irrespective of the outcome of this proposed legislation, we urge Manukau City Council to continue to work with support from central government on local solutions that develop from consultation with all parties affected by street prostitution. The majority believe that initiatives supported by the local community, sex workers and their advocates, outreach workers, social agencies, and the police are a more effective and appropriate use of resources than the proposed legislated solution.” The commentary includes a minority report from the National Party. I dare say we will hear from National a little later on.

Whatever happens with this bill this evening, I think the problem will not just go away. If we pass this second reading, and then eventually pass the bill, a $10,000 fine will not work. We have heard a lot of emotive argument about schoolgirls on the streets. Well, we have people in their twenties wearing school uniforms on the street, as a marketing ploy. Some people have tried to exaggerate the problem, but let no one make the mistake that for the communities of Papatoetoe and Manurewa it is a real problem. The council has been unable to solve it, itself.

I ask people to think carefully before they vote tonight. They should think about the law that was passed in 2003. We do not want to see that undermined. But they should also think of the problem that the Manukau City Council and the residents of Manukau have. I urge people to think carefully before casting their vote.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I would like to thank the previous speaker, the Hon George Hawkins, for bringing forward this bill and for having the courage in his caucus to do so. This bill is not perfect, but I say to the House that I commend the bill because it is a cry for help. The people of Papatoetoe, Manurewa, and Ōtara—and I will say specifically the three main areas of Hunters Corner, Papatoetoe, Ōtara Town Centre, Ōtara, and Great South Road, Manurewa—are generally poor. They are people who do not get a lot of choices in life. They do not get a lot of choices about where they live, what they can pay, and they do not earn a lot of money. If they earned a lot of money they would not live there. They do not have choices. When their neighbourhood is defiled in the way that it is, they do not have the choice as to whether they leave, because they are poor people. They do not have that choice.

It is all very well for us here, working in our jobs in Wellington or living in our homes, which by the way are not in Hunters Corner, Ōtara Town Centre, or Great South Road, Manurewa, to be able to say: “Oh well, they are exaggerating. Oh well, it’s not really that bad.” Well, it is that bad. Unlike many of the people on the Local Government and Environment Committee I have been to see what has been going on there. I have been there at night, with the police, to see what has been going on, and I do know this: the people who are walking their trade, parading their trade, around those corners are not people who feel they have much by way of choice in life. They are people who need help. They are certainly not people whom we should be encouraging to keep on with that activity. Those people need help.

I am appalled to see that the police have said they do not want this law to come in. The reason they have said it is that they do not have enough police to do what they are doing now in Counties-Manukau. We know that. I brought a petition to this House, asking for more police for Counties-Manukau because Counties-Manukau, which of course includes Hunters Corner, Papatoetoe, Ōtara, and Manurewa, has the worst policing to population ratios anywhere in the country. We have the worst situations to deal with, and we get no help from central government—nothing more than the bare minimum. For the select committee to tell the Manukau City Council, and its brave Mayor Sir Barry Curtis, that it is supposed to work with central government, somehow, to find local solutions is a load of claptrap. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. This is the attempt by the council to work with central government to find local solutions. It has given us its local solution. It may not be perfect, but the select committee should have changed it. The council could have come along to the select committee, and, at that stage, the bill could have been made perfect. But this is its attempt.

When the prostitution law reform was passed in 2003 it was dumped on local councils, with no funding available to help them, no way for them to be able to stop what is happening, and no attempt at all made to give the councils the power they are supposed to be exercising. The council is beside itself. I should declare an interest, as a ratepayer of Manukau City—as are many other people in this House. Frankly, we are sick of paying for the nonsense that comes out of Wellington. It is all very well to have these laws in Wellington, to say: “Oh, it works here in Wellington City.” But we in Counties-Manukau are not central Wellington; we are not Wellington City. A lot of our people do not get choice. They are not the people who decide whether there is too much graffiti here, or there are too many used condoms being thrown over the wall of their house. Nobody gets that choice. These people have been crying out for something to happen.

I wonder what will happen with Labour members tonight. Will they block vote, as they normally do on these matters, against this bill, yet leave those people in South Auckland who voted for them just to wallow in it, and say: “Too bad! You don’t get a choice.”? Well, they have a choice, because they can start looking at who votes for this bill and who does not, and they can start putting their tick in the right box. Frankly, this bill is a cry for help and it is our duty in Parliament to listen to it. This is not just a Counties-Manukau cause, as has been rightly said by the previous speaker. It is central Christchurch and it is central Auckland. But can I say that Counties-Manukau has the worst statistics in just about everything. We might have some of the better MPs, certainly on this side of the House, but we certainly do not have the good statistics on anything else. What we have is a Government that has washed its hands of this, and that for some reason is saying: “Oh well, we don’t want to know about this because it might be difficult. We might criminalise people.” This is not about criminalising people. This is about trying to get some people some help.

I have seen kids wandering around, prostituting themselves at those places. No wonder there are so many murders in South Auckland, around these areas. No wonder there is so much crime. These are kids of 13, 14, and 15 years of age who are prostituting themselves because they owe P debts to the local gangs, and they are sent out to work by the gangs. I heard this nonsense from the Prostitutes Collective, saying that there is no evidence of gang activity in prostitution. Oh for goodness’ sake! Where do they hang out, these people? They certainly do not hang out in Auckland or Counties-Manukau. What they should do is have a look at the Triad activity that has been happening on the North Shore and elsewhere in Auckland. Look at what has been going on. Yes, it has happened. There are gangs running strings of young girls and boys around the Counties-Manukau area.

If we do not help Manukau City to deal with this situation, it will simply say: “Look, enough is enough.” Ratepayers will end up having to pay for private security firms. Even then, what can they do? It is a public place and it is legal. What will we say to the businesses that operate from there? Imagine how hard it is for businesses to set up in a place like Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe. They know that when they come in on a Monday morning they will find used condoms, faeces, and all sorts of things thrown on their walls and in their car-parks. Imagine what it is like for them. What is the choice they make—when they do have a choice about where to set up a business? They say that they will go somewhere else. They will go to a better part of town. So that whole area very quickly goes further and further down. Who misses out? It is the poor, poor people who have no choice. They do not have the opportunity to say: “Oh well, I think this area is going a bit downhill. I think I will go somewhere else.” They do not get that choice. They are not the people of Herne Bay. They are not the people of central Wellington. They are not even the people of Mount Albert. They are the people of Counties-Manukau, and it is about time we gave them a bit of the power that we keep telling everyone we are going to give them.

We have given the councils the power of general competence. Let us just give them the power to do something about this. [Interruption] Yes, they did. Let us just give them some reason to have some faith in central government to back them, instead of constantly attacking them and making it harder and harder for them to represent the ratepayers of Counties-Manukau.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I am pleased to take a turn on the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill because I chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee. I will not be speaking rhetoric such as that from the member opposite, Judith Collins, who, I note, withdrew her party from the ministerial task force on family violence. A lot of rhetoric is coming from the Opposition. The Local Government and Environment Committee that I chaired worked very well on this bill. We take local bills very seriously. Every party on the select committee voted unanimously against this well-intended but very flawed bill. The member opposite is carping on. She is a lawyer; I will point out why this is legislatively a flawed piece of legislation.

We took this bill seriously because we know about the limitations of local bills and the impact when a local authority comes to the House to ask for support for a local issue of some concern. None of us on the select committee—not one member—condoned prostitution, but some of us pragmatically accepted that this trade exists now and needs to be both managed and supported, from both a community safety and a public health perspective.

We heard a lot of anecdotal evidence, particularly about the numbers of young people entering prostitution. We heard widely ranging figures, from those saying that there has been a four-hundredfold increase in prostitution in Manukau, to others saying that this simply is not true. The police themselves have received reports that there are about 150 street workers in Manukau. We want to be very careful about some of the emotion and anecdote we heard at the select committee. We were really worried about that.

We were also concerned about some of the evidence we heard about young people. None of us—and we also heard this during the debate on the Prostitution Reform Act—wanted young people to enter into prostitution as a profession. We accepted that there is very negative behaviour associated with street work—such as littering, noise, nuisance, and some public safety elements—but the fundamental mechanism proposed in this bill to try to fix this is a very, very flawed process that will not produce the desired effects.

Members in the House from Manurewa and Manukau can stand up and vote in support of this bill—and I am sure that they will, just to show that they are supporting the local council—but that will not solve the problems for Papatoetoe, Manurewa, the Auckland City Council, Wellington, or anywhere else. This bill will solve the issues only for Manukau. That is not the way to go forward on national solutions, and other options need to be explored. The Prostitution Reform Act—let us remind ourselves—decriminalised soliciting in 2003. Allowing a local Act, which this would be, to amend public statute sets a very significant and undesirable precedent. That is what the member opposite, as a lawyer, knows, but she likes the rhetoric that shows a fundamental approach to moral issues, and it is quite a horrible sight.

Prohibition of under-18-year-old prostitutes exists now in the Prostitution Reform Act. Yes, we may be seeing some younger people entering into the profession. None of us on the select committee liked to see that; neither does the Prostitutes Collective. It would rather work with those young people to get them out of the profession—that is the best way to go about it.

I want to mention the offence provisions in this bill. I think some of the offence provisions proposed actually breach the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which New Zealand is an international signatory to. There is a $10,000 fine for soliciting on the streets or loitering. This is a terribly perverse incentive—it actually drives young people to prostitute themselves for money to pay the $10,000 fine—and is fundamentally flawed. Another flaw is the $5,000 fine for refusing to give information to the police. This actually breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is very, very difficult for police to link causality to the information they receive. So, again, the bill is fundamentally flawed.

We propose that other legislative options could be enacted, such as the Summary Offences Act, the Litter Act, or the district plans of local authorities. The district plan of the Manukau local authority excluded home-based brothels. In other words, it drove prostitutes into soliciting on the street and street prostitution. If the local authority just looked at the tools it has now, it could manage the growth in the prostitution industry. Strategies such as those of the council in Wellington—and I am sure Mark Blumsky, a very reasonable member on this select committee, will mention them—show that when we have eyes and ears out on the street, we actually manage issues like loitering, soliciting, and the issues mentioned in this bill. The use of halfway houses such as those in California is another option that needs to be looked at nationally. In Onehunga, there is Awhina Taina, which supports young girls—those of about 17 years old—who enter into prostitution.

The select committee members looked at all of these options and put them, reasonably, back in our report. We knew that the council members would say: “This is dreadful—oh, woe is me. The Government is not listening!”. Well, we are listening. This Government set up the Prostitution Law Review Committee. There are 11 people on this committee looking at the impact of the Prostitution Reform Act and they will be reporting back to Parliament. That is the mechanism that needs to be utilised to address the issues of every local authority around the country—not to fix it for Manukau and to heck with the rest of the country.

This bill is a clumsy and parochial approach to cleaning up prostitution, even if it was well intended. It stigmatises prostitution. It tips its hat, again, at the buyers of prostitution—the Women’s Health Collective and the Māori Wardens Association told us that. There are other approaches that we, as a Labour Government, feel are far stronger: acknowledge the reality of street-based prostitution; include sex workers in finding solutions; maintain care and protection of street workers; work collaboratively—do not withdraw from a collaborative approach—with the police, local authorities, the Māori Wardens Association, and the Prostitutes Collective; and also consider safe housing. These people do not want to be having sex on the street or in alleyways; they would actually prefer their trade to be done in a safe location. A local bill mechanism will not moderate behaviour—the Law Society told us that. It told us that this is a fundamentally flawed bill that should be voted down.

I end by saying that a new puritan age is darkening our doors, to quote John Mortimer QC. This Labour Government’s door is open to look at approaches that will ameliorate the negative and unintended impacts of the Prostitution Reform Act. That is the way to go, and that is why we will vote down this bill.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I speak in support of this legislation, and there are a number of reasons why. But I want first of all to correct one statement that the previous speaker, Steve Chadwick, made, because it is important to correct it. She made a comment that we on the Local Government and Environment Committee work well together, and that is true. We are actually not a bad team. Generally—it depends on the circumstances—we leave our politics outside the door and we get on and do the work that one would expect of a select committee. Occasionally, of course, when issues become political, we become politicians. The member Steve Chadwick suggested that we had voted, as a committee, unanimously for the bill. That is absolutely incorrect. We did not vote for the bill; we voted unanimously for the report.

I voted for the report for this reason. In the report back on the bill, on page 7, is a minority report, “Minority view of New Zealand National”. I know that another party, which might speak on it, wanted to be coupled with it, but was not able to at the time. There was a unanimous vote on the report because the report enabled us to give different views. I want to draw the House’s attention to the minority view on page 7, because it sets out a number of things that are important for this House to consider. So I want to clear up first that there was not unanimous support for the bill, or opposition against the bill. A number of members on the committee actually think the bill should be passed, and I for one will be voting for the legislation.

Steve Chadwick, the chairperson of the committee, talked about the fact that a prostitution law review is happening. Well, that may be so, but I want to make this observation: is it not a great pity that the Government is not accelerating the local government rates review with the same speed it is accelerating the prostitution law review? Why has the Government not got on and done something about that local government rates review, because that review is far more important, and the Government needs to be held to account for the fact that it has dilly-dallied? The select committee—and the member knows this—very nearly passed, some 6 or 8 weeks ago, a review on local government, and the only reason we did not was that the Government said it was going to have one. Well, I ask the House where it is. Has anyone in this House seen it? Have there been any statements from the Minister? The only time he commented on the local government review was when he was asked a question by the National Party, and he had to comment. So I just make the observation that that is an important review that needs to happen, as well.

Reviews in themselves mean diddly-squat at the end of the day. It is this Parliament that can do things. The reason I am disappointed that we have this bill before us is that we were told by the proposer of the Prostitution Reform Bill, Mr Tim Barnett, that one of the things that would happen as a consequence of decriminalising prostitution was that we would see those people off the street. I well remember that debate. I well remember being told that we could vote for the bill because the prostitutes would all disappear and be in nice, well-organised, looked-after brothels. They would be well and clean. Everything would be tidy—

Gordon Copeland: And safe.

JOHN CARTER:—and safe, and the workers would all be over 18, 20, 98—or whatever age they would be. We would not see any young people or illicit people out there, doing the things they do on the streets. Well, you have got to be kidding. Has that happened? Not on your nelly! Members should go and have a look in Manurewa or Papatoetoe, and see the people hanging out there, soliciting on the streets, and touting their wares or whatever it is they tout. I say they are there, all right, and I tell Mr Barnett that that is not what he promised this House would happen. That is what disappoints me. It seriously disappoints me. The fact is that there are young people there. I have seen a mother of 31, her daughter of 15, her niece of 16, her nephew of 14, and her son of 7. They were out on the street in Papatoetoe or Manurewa—somewhere around there—and they were soliciting. The mother, the niece, and the daughter were all turning tricks, yet Mr Barnett told us that we would not see any more of that—that the girls would all be over the age of 18. Well, he was wrong.

But the thing that seriously worries me with this bill, and with the fact that some of the Labour Party members are saying we should not support it—and it is an absolute disgrace that they are using this as a reason not to support this bill—is that they are saying the problem is that we cannot police it. They are admitting they do not have enough law enforcement officers in this country. They are saying that if we pass this bill, the police will have to do something about it—but we ain’t got enough of them. Well, they must wake up. We have been telling the Labour Government that for years, have we not? Have not a number of us in this House been saying to this Government that it needs more police on the street? Police need to be out there making sure that the laws we pass are properly looked after and policed. Now we are finding speeches that are saying: “No, we had better not pass this, because if we do we mightn’t have enough police to police it.” Well, why did we pass the decriminalisation legislation in the first place if we did not have enough enforcement officers to enforce that? Why do we pass a lot of these bills if we cannot back them up in the way they should be backed up?

I say to this Government that here it is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally on pledge cards and other promises at election time, so why in the world does it not spend the money where it should be spent? That is the point: why does the Government not spend the money where it is needed—on the police—rather than making promises in its pledge cards and other documents, which we all know are illegal? That money should not have been spent. I am told it was in excess of $800,000. How many police would that buy, for goodness’ sake? How many police would we be able to put on the streets? How many police would we be able to have out there, making sure those young people are not out there? Nobody is supervising them at present. I wonder why this Parliament is not asking those sorts of questions. I know the public are.

The public are worried about those matters. The member for Manurewa knows that; that is why George Hawkins is supporting this bill. He knows that this is good law. He knows that the local authority is representing the community, and that is what this Government said the local authority should be doing. But now, in the same breath, the Labour Government is saying to the local authority: “Well, we have given you the power of general competence, but when you come before this House to do something you think is right on behalf of your community—nah! We don’t want a bar of it. It’s too tough for us.” It is too hard for this Labour Government, the Helen Clark - led Labour Government, to administer. It says: “It makes a mockery of us; we would actually have to put a few more resources in. We might have to do something, so, no, we don’t want a bar of it, thanks very much, Manukau City.”

Well, I say to the Labour Government that I think that is an absolute shame, a real shame. Labour members should be ashamed of themselves if they are not supporting this bill. The local community are asking for it. The local council, on their behalf, has put this bill forward, and we should be prepared to support them—and I will.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First, and I say from the outset that we will be supporting the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill. I also want to declare a vested interest, by virtue of the fact that I am a ratepaying resident of Manukau City. Because of that, my party made application to the Business Committee to allow me to sit as a non-voting member on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I wanted to join with those who submitted a minority view. Although, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was not able to append our party’s name to the minority view, I want to have it put on the record that New Zealand First certainly supports the intent of it.

This bill would make it an offence to solicit, or to loiter for the purpose of prostitution, in a public place in the Manukau district, and, because it is a local council bill, the intent is limited to just Manukau City. Sadly, the committee has used that as one of the reasons why this bill should not go any further. However, that does not remove the issue of street prostitution being a major problem in parts of Manukau City. Previous speakers have alluded to those areas of Manukau City. In spite of that, the committee has seen fit to recommend that the bill not be passed in its current form.

We in New Zealand First are, of course, disappointed in the recommendation, as we feel it contravenes the principles of the Local Government Act 2002, which focuses on local decision-making and community involvement in deciding on, and dealing with, community issues. This bill is an attempt by a local body to deal with the issues that confront it. We feel that the people of Manukau City should have that right, as the bill does not seek to change the Prostitution Reform Act and recriminalise prostitution. It seeks to limit prostitution to legally established brothels. The bill also recognises the failure of the Act to eliminate street prostitution, and addresses that failure. It should be noted that the Act was passed in 2003. Three years down the track, already we are starting to see some of the shortcomings that we were promised that reform legislation would address. Obviously, it has not done so.

We support this bill because the powers given to local authorities to make by-laws in respect of prostitution under the Act do not extend to soliciting. They are limited to the location of brothels and applicable signage. We also support the bill because we believe it recognises that street prostitution is not conducive to any of the aims of the Act, which was sold and debated in this House on the basis that it would safeguard the health and safety of sex workers and limit the age of sex workers to those over 18. Already we have heard from speakers in this House this afternoon who have given us examples of situations where that has not occurred. The bill recognises the impact of street prostitution on local residents and business owners, and the negative effect it has on the community. We have heard from some speakers that some of the submitters were rather exaggerated, in terms of how they presented their views on the situation. Notwithstanding that, the fact is that there were instances that could be justified and that were not conducive to a healthy, thriving community.

Although this was promised by supporters of the reform legislation of 2003, street prostitution has not decreased since the passage of that law. On the contrary, it is estimated that the number of sex workers in Manukau has quadrupled since 2003. I must concede that we have received some reports that contradict that allegation, but notwithstanding that, the problem is sufficiently serious for Manukau City to take the step of getting this bill into the House. The council has tried to control the problem through other means, including the installation of extra street lighting, closed-circuit television cameras, rescheduling street cleaning, locking public toilets, and meeting with police and other stakeholders to find workable solutions.

I take this opportunity to mention one group that has already been mentioned in this House: the Māori Wardens Association. That particular group, which is well intended, does not receive the financial support that groups that involve themselves in their communities, as the Māori Wardens Association does, should get. I give notice that New Zealand First will certainly be taking steps to try to address that issue.

The Act has clearly failed to control street prostitution, and provides no legal mechanism to do so. Manukau City should be applauded for taking the initiative to control behaviour that has an adverse impact on its citizens. Given the fact that this bill is now unlikely to be passed, New Zealand First would like to record its disappointment in that, and to also remind New Zealanders that we voted against the original reform legislation. We believe that prostitution carries with it enormous physical, emotional, and social harm, none of which has been reduced since the passage of the Act. On the contrary, we would argue that the harm has increased. The Act provides protection for the people who sell that type of activity—including brothel owners—and has made it easier for vulnerable women and children to become trapped in an exploitative trade. We have heard examples from the previous speaker of that particular issue.

Since the passage of the legislation, we have seen an increase in the number of under-age sex workers, and increasing assaults on, and—dare I say it—murders of, prostitutes. That runs in the face of what we were told the Act would deliver, which was health and safety. We remind the Government of its promise to review the Act. I understand that a review is currently under way, and it seems to me that some members of the select committee are putting a lot of reliance on the review process to address the issues that Manukau City has asked to be addressed in this bill.

I reiterate the position that New Zealand First will take. In consistency with our stance on the original reform legislation, we will vote for this bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party welcomes the recommendation of the Local Government and Environment Committee that the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill not be passed, and we will vote accordingly. This is not because we want to belittle or deny the genuine concerns of the council, and of some residents and business people, about the impact of street prostitution on Hunters Corner and Manurewa; rather, we do not see that the bill is a legally sound or workably useful way of finding solutions to the real problems that have been identified.

First of all, there are real issues around the way the bill transcends the normal boundaries of local bills, by trying to change the criminal law itself rather than confining itself simply to a matter relevant to its geographical borders only. If passed, this bill would create new criminal offences that would apply only in Manukau City and not in the rest of New Zealand. I would hate to see this Parliament set a precedent that could, in the future, see local bodies making and enforcing their own criminal laws on a local territorial authority by local territorial authority basis. When we passed the Prostitution Reform Act in 2003, we decriminalised soliciting in this country. The Green Party stands by its decision to support that decriminalisation now, as we did then, and we have no desire whatsoever to see that progressive reform overturned, even on a very localised basis.

Secondly, street-based sex workers are among the most marginalised and vulnerable people in this country. They are often transgender people, and often from out of town and without family locally, and whether or not they are local or transgender, they are people who need support and help from society, not persecution and criminalisation. If this bill were passed, it would result in street workers in Manukau facing the risk of being prosecuted and fined large sums of money they could never afford, for a so-called offence that would not be an offence anywhere else in Aotearoa. All this bill would do would be to penalise some of the poorest and most marginalised people for a victimless so-called crime. These are people who already find it hard to get regular work, who are likely to face discrimination in most, if not all, aspects of their lives, and who also find it hard to achieve employment even in other, safer parts of the sex industry. Many brothels and escort agencies simply will not employ them, leaving them with very few options beyond the street. If this bill were to go through, it would put the lives and security of these workers back into the same kind of danger they were in prior to the passage of the Prostitution Reform Act. Once again, the focus would be on avoiding police attention rather than on trying to survive in as safe and healthy a way as possible in what is inherently an extremely unsafe situation.

Thirdly, it is necessary, when considering this bill, to actually look at the realities of what is going on in Manukau. Submitters gave evidence at a very intense day of hearings at the Manukau City Council and gave very conflicting evidence on the extent of the problem, with the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective—which probably knows best—estimating there are actually around 37 street workers on the streets of South Auckland at present, with five of them being under the age of 18. That is a far cry from some of the horror stories and exaggerated figures we were given that day.

Many submitters who support this bill actually put far more focus on things like littering and noise than on soliciting and prostitution. I know these submitters are concerned and well-meaning people, but it appeared that a number of them were primarily motivated by moral and religious beliefs about prostitution, and were seeking this change to the law as a means to undermine the intent and operation of the Prostitution Reform Act overall, rather than to deal with the actual issues that may be problematic at Hunters Corner and Manurewa.

I cannot help but add, as an aside, that there are far more serious problems on the streets and in the homes of Manukau than those raised by this bill. The recent homicide rate, and the extraordinarily high prevalence of domestic violence and violence against children, are only a few examples of that.

However, I do not want to totally minimise the real concerns of local residents and the council about some of the by-products of street prostitution. These include using streets, lawns, and gutters as toilets; leaving rubbish—including some quite dangerous rubbish—scattered about; making a lot of noise late at night; and drinking in public. I can understand why local residents and business people do not like those things and find them a problem. However, I do not think this bill is the answer. For example, if public toilets were provided, if streets in the affected area were cleaned more often, and if police took a more proactive interest, perhaps some of these concerns could be alleviated. We have heard, for example, that in Wellington an intensive cleaning programme in the central city has been adopted, which operates 24/7, and which helps keep the affected area safe and clean. What a good idea! I am sure Manukau could follow that example.

In terms of what more could be done to assist in relation to the street workers themselves, the obvious problem arising, above all, occurs when those working are under 18. However, once again I would say that this bill is not needed in this regard, as the Prostitution Reform Act actually increased penalties for people who use under-age workers. A new law is not needed; perhaps more proactive policing is. Rather than a punitive solution, the Green Party would much rather see a supportive approach being taken to the health and welfare of street workers. We would like to see more funding going to groups who provide support in a non-judgmental way to street prostitutes. We would like to see the establishment of safe-house brothels, where prostitutes can rent a room to do their work, as has been developed by the council in south Sydney in conjunction with private businesses.

On another front, the Green Party also totally opposes the bill because of its inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Clause 12 of this local bill is totally out of hand in the way it grants to the police powers that they do not have elsewhere in criminal law, and that infringe on people’s rights to refrain from making statements to police.

This bill is a gross over-reaction on the part of Manukau City Council to street prostitution in its city. Just because street workers are by their nature more visible does not meant they should be re-criminalised. The Green Party does not want to return, even in one small part of Aotearoa, to the Victorian ethos that permeated our laws on prostitution prior to 2003. The original Prostitution Reform Act provided for a review process to take place. This bill is an attempt to totally circumvent and pre-empt that process. I understand that, in any case, work is already happening on this particular area of street soliciting in Manukau, and that is good, but this bill is not required to help make that happen.

In opposing this bill, I encourage the Manukau City Council to keep working for solutions to the identified problems in ways that do not harass, punish, or further marginalise the sex workers themselves. The council should be, and I hope is, working alongside the Prostitutes Collective in Auckland, and other local church and community organisations, to resolve the issues involved. That is a much more sustainable and less harmful approach than the one taken by the bill, and the Green Party hopes that a majority in this House tonight will see that this bill is consigned to the archaic dustbin of history, where it belongs.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora, tēnā koe. The location of my electorate office is Hunters Corner, the site where the street workers who are targeted in the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill gather. I have seen sex workers, whakawahine, and trans-gender people going about their business. I have not, however, succumbed to the practice other MPs in this House have—that is, of counting the actual numbers of street girls. The Counties-Manukau police reported a maximum of 21 sex workers on the night of 4 December 2005, but said the average number sighted is under six per night. These statistics are consistent with data held by the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective. The numbers are, however, much fewer than in some of the sensational mythology built around this bill.

I think the dubious numbers game deserves another look. All manner of statistics have been bandied around with wild claims that numbers of sex workers have shot up since the passing of the Prostitution Reform Act in 2003—for example, an increase of a whopping 400 percent. One explanation could be—as was told to me—that one of the people set up to count numbers of sex workers on the streets was told to return every 15 minutes and do a fresh head count. Well, it would seem fairly improbable that the turn-round was so rapid a new team would be out there every quarter of an hour. The Local Government and Environment Committee report highlighted the difficulty of obtaining accurate information.

The issue of data is particularly relevant in the counting of young people on the street. Such are the numbers of our young population on the street that it would be virtually impossible to distinguish between those who are sex workers, those who are full-on street kids, and those who are just young people hanging out with their mates, as many young people are apt to do today. Older workers, particularly the queens, have said to me that, being Māori, when they see Māori kids in the game they are more inclined to kick them off home, or at least off the streets, rather than see them enter a lifestyle that is less than safe. That is called whanaungatanga—caring for one another. What this bill sets out to do is far from caring; it sets out to control the street life, and to institute an unduly harsh and punitive regime for street-based sex workers, and for anyone the authorities might deem to be associated with them.

It is not as if we have not been there before. A study by Sorrenson, The Maori People and the City of Auckland, described the situation in 1863, some 150 years ago, when Ngāti Whatua had: “to abide by a curfew and wear coloured armbands if entering into the streets during the day.” Sorrenson goes further to note that the King movement was spurred on by the treatment Māori received in Auckland. Speakers at King movement meetings frequently referred to the evils of liquor, the prostitution of their women, and their ill-treatment in Auckland. One has to wonder whether the next step, if this drastic legislation were to get through, would be the introduction of coloured armbands and curfews to keep the natives at bay, to get them off the streets.

We in South Auckland know what we are dealing with. We know of the violence, the criminality, the socio-economic deprivation, and the hardship endured within that community. But the answer is not adding another layer of crime and punishment to the mix. This bill would have the effect of bringing criminal charges against young kids, and making the lives of vulnerable teenagers even worse. A source of authority in this field is the End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography, Child Sex Tourism and Trafficking in Children for Sexual Purposes (ECPAT New Zealand) group, which has spoken out against the exploitation of children. In a study the group undertook of 47 sex workers who had commenced sexual activity under the age of 18 years, 40 percent were Māori. That study reported a high consumption of alcohol and frequent drug taking. Fifty-six percent reported childhood sexual abuse, and 79 percent reported that workers were living away from their parents when they first became involved in commercial sexual activity.

So there are huge opportunities for intervention in many other areas that could benefit from focused policy other than punitive measures based around locking sex workers up for life. Why is the Manukau City Council not looking at comprehensive well-being programmes that deal with the traumatic after-effects of sexual abuse, or investing energy into restoring whanaungatanga as a key value in the community, so that children want to stay home and want to be with their families?

We want compassion, not conviction; and protection, not prosecution. The Prostitution Reform Act gave that. It paved the way for sex workers to perceive the police as those helping them to protect their rights, not punishing them for being on the streets. But this bill just adds a new menu of offences to criminalise street workers. The bill sets up a scenario by which prostitutes or their clients could be fined up to $10,000 for loitering for the purposes of prostitution. It also sets up powers for the police to such an extent that the police would be able to demand information from people if there were reasonable grounds to believe they had committed an offence. Anyone refusing to give information could be fined $5,000.

In many ways these are the people most on the fringe of our society. And what does this bill do? It targets young people in Manukau as ripe to be prosecuted; it is like the laws prohibiting graffiti. In Manukau, the implications of the bill are that these young people will become identified as human litter—as the rubbish the council wants to sweep off the streets just as it seeks to wipe the walls clean of graffiti art.

In Counties-Manukau I am privileged to be working every week—every week—with the police and about 40 community groups that are creating opportunities for intervention in broken homes, in drinking homes, in abusive homes, and in drug homes, and on prostitution issues. My role is simply coordinating and assisting community groups and fostering cooperation amongst them, in order to be an effective force in helping change dysfunctional behaviour. These groups need support, not a new law discriminating against South Auckland. These are the groups that voluntarily and unselfishly assist in teaching motherhood to many young mothers who have just blundered into motherhood. These are the groups that offer counselling, give food, and give social advice and skills. These are the groups that are experienced in child abuse and in dealing with it. These are the groups that provide courses for men who have abused their partners. I say: “Open your eyes, people. South Aucklanders know what is needed.” They know that major change in their suburbs can happen only by their own involvement. Never mind the persecution of youth who will get caught in this legislation by simply being just “up town”—we need to invest in caring and in healing.

This Manukau bill seems to be motivated more by declining property values and nuisance factors than civil liberties. The Human Rights Commission has advised the House that the bill is fundamentally flawed and should be withdrawn, citing a host of international human rights instruments that would be at risk of being breached by the actions of this bill.

I remain hopeful that together we in the Manukau community can make a difference to its social and economic environment. I applaud the initiative of the groups working out there on the streets, whose members do not count workers as data for the press or categorise clients as fodder for glorified gossip. This House must vote this bill down.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): This bill, the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill, has come back to Parliament because Manukau City has a very real problem with street prostitution. One of the areas is Hunters Corner, and we have just heard from an expert eyewitness in Pita Sharples in relation to Hunters Corner. But Pita Sharples did not mention the other, bigger area, which is Northcrest in Manurewa. I, on 25 September, just a few weeks ago, heard direct evidence from Sir Barry Curtis, the Mayor of Manukau, and from city councillor Colleen Brown, that girls as young as 14 and 15 are working as prostitutes at Northcrest to get money to buy paint and to sniff glue. It is older and more professional prostitutes, on the other hand, who work at Hunters Corner. I make the distinction between those two areas.

Together with the Hon Marian Hobbs and my former colleague Larry Baldock I visited both of those situations on a Monday night to observe the activity. We were told two things about Monday nights. First, it is the quiet night of the week, and, secondly, activity is more limited during the winter than it is during the summer months. It is quite clear, therefore, that what we saw on that Monday night, which I will mention in a moment, is a much smaller level of activity than we would typically see on a Thursday night, a Friday night, a Saturday night, or even on a Sunday night. Those are the big days of the week when it comes to street soliciting in those two areas.

Sir Barry and Colleen told us that, contrary to the Christchurch school of medicine reports, numbers are not dropping, and have not dropped, since the Prostitution Reform Act came into being. Indeed, all the evidence that we heard on 25 September pointed exactly in the other direction. The Māori wardens were the source of the information about a 400 percent increase, which has been mentioned by the New Zealand Herald. I would like to advise the House, and in particular Sue Bradford, who mentioned this, that the Prostitutes Collective told us, in answer to our question, that it does not count the young women in Northcrest who are dressed in hoodies—one can see them, and we did on that night—as prostitutes, because they are not, in the collective’s terminology, professional prostitutes. Therefore those numbers are significantly under-counted. The number that we were given for a typical Thursday night—the big night of the week—in Northcrest alone, is 55 active prostitutes over 18, and 18 active prostitutes under 18. That is a typical Thursday night at Northcrest. Those members who do not believe that can simply go, as we did, and have a look for themselves. They will find that the evidence that was presented to the select committee is essentially completely accurate.

Let us look for a moment at what the Act did in relation to street soliciting. All it did was repeal the Summary Offences Act to remove the offence of soliciting. In other words all it did specifically about street soliciting was simply say to the nation: “This activity is no longer illegal. You are free now to go ahead and solicit on the streets of New Zealand with no constraints at all.”

It is very interesting to think of it in the context of that legislation, for two reasons. Firstly, as others have mentioned, we were told by the promoter of the bill—and, by the way, all the United Future MPs voted against it—that with legal, up-market brothels we would see people disappear off the streets. As Mr Assistant Speaker, H V Ross Robertson, well knows, because he is familiar with this area, that has not happened. Secondly, I want to make it clear to the House that it is illegal in Manukau City, and in every other city in New Zealand, to sell bananas on the streets. One cannot sell commercial products on the streets of New Zealand cities without getting a permit from the council. However, prostitution is perfectly legal. This is the whole point of why the Manukau City Council, in desperation, has come to this House—because it has no way of controlling this. We, as Parliament, have said it is OK for people to sell and buy sex on the streets. We have not given local authorities any tools to regulate that, whatsoever. That is the reality of the prostitution reform legislation that was passed by this House in 2003.

Let me make a further couple of comments. That same reform legislation, as we know, did impose new penalties for people who purchase sex from sex workers under 18—severe penalties: imprisonment of up to 7 years in that legislation. So how come on a typical Thursday night any observer can go to Northcrest and count up to 18 under-age girls working—I was going to say “their tails off”, which is the way one of the women put it to me? I will come back to that in a moment, because no one is getting arrested.

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

GORDON COPELAND: The other thing about the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 is that it introduced a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years for people who could be described as pimps—those who induce or compel other people to provide sexual services against their will. We were told at those hearings in Auckland on 25 September that there are pimps active in Northcrest in Manuwera. Notwithstanding the fact that we have prison sentences of up to 7 years for people buying sex from under-age workers, and up to 14 years for pimps, there is no police involvement or any attempt to enforce those laws in the Manukau City area. That is what the Local Government and Environment Committee was told and that is what Colleen Brown advised the Hon Marian Hobbs and me, as members of the group established under our confidence and supply agreement to review the Act.

There are no police on the beat in Northcrest or Papatoetoe. Colleen told us, however, that she occasionally goes out with a patrol car just to have a look at what is going on in those areas. She said to us that, of course, they do not get out of the car. I asked her what she meant when she said the police do not get out of the car. She looked at me as if I had come down in the last shower and said it was because it was too dangerous. We are talking here about Manukau City—not the Bronx or the south side of Los Angeles—and it is a national disgrace that there is no police presence where these activities are going on. It is not just prostitution; it is drugs, it is gangs, it is the whole lot that we have heard about from other speakers.

Sir Barry Curtis simply put this proposition to the select committee and to our committee. He said: “If you in Parliament can give us the tools, we can bring this activity to an end.” He needs to re-involve the police. We need to look at criminalising the client. The select committee heard from all the women’s groups that came along—a whole array of them—and they basically said that if the demand for prostitution on the streets of Manukau was stopped, prostitution on the streets of Manukau would be stopped. I think that is logical, but I have not heard any other speakers specifically say they brought that proposition along. We can and we should do that.

The choice that Parliament faces tonight is pretty simple. We either walk by on the other side, turn our backs on the citizens and the community of Manukau, or we actually do something constructive about this terrible situation that has arisen in that particular city. Which is it? I suggest that our choice needs to be based—and should be based—on the degree to which we genuinely care about the young lives being ruined and the communities being degraded by prostitutes in the streets in those areas. This legislation is not about punishing people under 18—there is no proposal to criminalise those at all; that is just a red herring. Political and practical steps can be taken to re-involve the police and to see this activity come to an end. It is quite clear that we can do that. We have the power to do that. That is what we are elected to Parliament to do and we should get on with it.

We can, as I mentioned, introduce a system that would fine the clients—not the under-18 prostitutes—and we could, at the same time, continue with the community involvement to give practical help to get those under-age girls out of the industry. We have a false dichotomy of either criminalising or giving help. No, we can do both and we should do both. United Future supports this bill. I simply say to the House that where there is a will, there is a way. Thank you.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central): I am very proud to speak in the second reading of the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill. My credentials for doing that are that I was the sponsor of the Prostitution Reform Bill, and that I represent Christchurch Central, which has—probably outside Auckland Central—the largest, though modest in size, presence of street prostitution in the country just one block from my office and a couple of blocks from where I live.

Other speakers so far have explained their difficulties with the bill, or their support for it, in fairly practical terms. I would like to take the House into a wider context around this issue. Back in 1949 the United Nations passed a resolution—a convention paper—calling for the decriminalisation of prostitution. Nothing much happened around the world until, in the 1980s with the advent of HIV, countries around the world started to develop laws to address HIV. Every country was advised—internationally, worldwide—to do three things. One was to decriminalise gay sex. The second was to provide a clean needle service to prevent the spread of HIV through dirty needles. The third was to decriminalise prostitution. New Zealand has a proud record in that, thanks to the fact there was a Labour Government at the time. We did the first two things in 1986 and 1989. Rather than move to decriminalise prostitution, we provided funding to the Prostitutes Collective. Through that the debate began, and, thanks to Maurice Williamson and others in this House today, the issue stayed alive.

Back in 1996, the planning for prostitution law reform came into Parliament, and Katherine O’Regan was the key driver there. In the year 2000 the bill had transferred into my name. It was put into the members’ ballot and drawn, and it passed into law in 2003. Between 2000 and now—and I am sure right through to at least 2008, when the review of that law will finally report to Parliament—New Zealand has experienced a very concentrated debate on prostitution. This is quite rightly so, because we were the first country in the world to take that step. We based the legislation largely on the law in New South Wales where prostitution has now been decriminalised for 10 years. We deliberately decided to decriminalise rather than legalise—legalisation being the approach taken in the state of Victoria—because legalisation maintains the myth that there should be a legal sector and an illegal sector in prostitution.

By debating and enacting decriminalisation, New Zealand identified what is genuinely harmful about prostitution and what is a legal nonsense. Our law is, in my view, the best law in the world. It is regarded worldwide as being among the best laws—if not the best—in this area. Some members say they voted for the law 3 years ago, or they watched the debate 3 years ago, and have not seen much change. With great respect to fellow members, not many people in this House actually spend a lot of time in brothels or wandering the streets to identify what is really happening in the lives of sex workers. Behind the scenes, an awful lot has happened. The debate has moved from being a debate around the entire sex industry to a debate around street prostitution. This is an advance.

The law now focuses on the people most likely to be hurt by prostitution, and they are the sex workers. It is a law focused on reducing harm to sex workers and also on reducing harm to clients and to communities. With great respect to Gordon Copeland, who wears his powerful spiritual beliefs on his sleeve, I listened to him speaking for 10 minutes in this House and not once did he speak about the welfare of the weakest, the most vulnerable people in this situation, who are the sex workers. Gordon Copeland may well be an eloquent spokesperson, but only for some of the people who live in South Auckland. I heard nothing from him about how legislation and agencies should address the suffering, the vulnerability, and the future of sex workers in our society.

What the law passed in 2003 actually did was to make a whole lot of things tougher. The penalties around coercion are now twice as high as they were before. The penalties around practising safer sex were introduced; there was nothing previously. There was no obligation on the client, or on the sex worker, or on the operator to promote or practise safer sex. That is now in place. The penalty for the clients of sex workers aged under 18 is now 7 years’ imprisonment—doubled from the old law. There are now employment obligations—both the right of a sex worker to be under an employment contract, and also effective bans on bonding, fining, and some of those hideous ways in which people were previously trapped in the sex industry.

Of course, street work actually escapes some of that. Street work will always be operating at the very edge of the law. It is an individual activity. It is not based in a building, it is not based on an employment contract or an employment relationship, the clients are more private, and it also accounts for about only 5 percent of the entire sex industry. Therefore, the law will always struggle to have such a direct and immediate impact. However, we did, in 2003, remove the old legal ban on street workers who had a prostitution or a drug conviction from being able to work in brothels. That ban was removed so that some could move off the streets.

Some previous speakers have recognised that we allowed the development of safe houses, which under the old law would have been banned. Now they are not banned. We also, as I mentioned earlier, made it tougher for the clients of sex workers aged under 18 to operate. We also removed the convictions associated with soliciting. On 2 nights when this House was discussing prostitution law reform, sex workers were being removed in large numbers from the streets of Auckland. That was what was happening only 3 years ago in this country. Those workers were being removed, and now, as a result of the convictions they have, they are prevented from being able to move on from prostitution into the wider world. So there are ways in which this law reform will impact on street work. It will not be immediate, but it will happen over time. The other obvious point to make is that nothing in prostitution law reform has either increased the demand for prostitution or increased the supply of people undertaking street work. It was the America’s Cup in Auckland that led to an increase in the demand for prostitution services; it was not the prostitution law reform going through.

In terms of Manukau—and I have visited the streets of Manukau, as others here have done—there are myths and there are realities. I heard from Gordon Copeland that he had been told that in Northcrest there were, I think, about 73 sex workers on the streets. Well, between his speaking and now, I actually rang the worker in the Prostitutes Collective who goes into that community once a week and who knows all the sex workers in South Auckland by name. She said to me that between three and five sex workers are operating in Northcrest, and she was able to give me their names, although I did not want their names. Therefore, the reality is that the number is small.

The reason why there are people on the streets who seem to be engaged in sex work, but are not, is that the pattern of sex work in South Auckland is about bunches of people on the streets, some of whom are younger people, some of whom are engaged in sex work, and some of whom are not. So any number counting that does not understand the culture of the activity on the streets will assume that they are all involved in sex work, whereas, in fact, they are not. So the issue of numbers is a complex one, but going by the counting done by the Prostitutes Collective—and its members are the people on the ground in South Auckland—week by week, not by Gordon Copeland on a one-off visit, the numbers are not increasing and they have not increased since the law reform. In fact, I have had a report that somebody who was employed by Manukau City to do the counting counted for 3 or 4 nights running and added up the figures, only to find that that total figure was presented as a one-off by the city council.

The other point to mention about South Auckland is that the people who will be most affected by this legislation are a very particular group in our society. The figure for South Auckland is maybe 50 or 60 people involved in sex work; one of those is of European descent, about 10 are Pacific Islanders, and about 50 are Māori. I cannot think of another piece of legislation that is designed and targeted to impact more on one vulnerable group in our society than this insidious little piece of legislation is. I can imagine that there are many reasons for people wanting to support this legislation—maybe local democracy is one of them—but, at the same time, if we have one law in South Auckland and Manukau City relating to street prostitution and a different law in the rest of the country, what does that say about our ability to have consistent criminal law around the country?

Those people who dislike prostitution, and who were frustrated by the law reform going through Parliament 3 years ago, should wait for the most comprehensive review of prostitution law reform that has ever been undertaken by any country, which will report in 2 years’ time. I say to those who have concerns about other social issues in Manukau that need addressing that those issues can be dealt with. This legislation would do nothing to achieve that, and I urge this House to vote the bill down. Thank you.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill. First, I acknowledge George Hawkins for having the courage to bring in this local bill and for supporting his local council, Sir Barry Curtis, and the various local community boards, particularly that of Papatoetoe. I also acknowledge the Prostitutes Collective for its efforts to improve the health and well-being of prostitutes in a situation where I believe they are not well supported by this Labour Government.

I feel compelled to speak out in support of this bill not because it is technically perfect—it certainly is not—but because I am deeply concerned that children, including girls and boys who are claimed to be as young as 12, are now soliciting on the streets of Manukau and in many other areas around South Auckland.

I was deeply worried when the Labour Government introduced the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, that it made no, or scant, provision or detailed planning for the protection of children. We have just heard Tim Barnett with his grand plan. It is typical of a Labour Government that it brings in a liberalising law, but fails to have the supporting structures that will help people like those children who are soliciting in South Auckland as we speak. It was obvious when the reform bill came in that there would be a number of prostitutes who simply could not get employment in registered brothels, and that they would turn underground or else they would go on to the streets. That is exactly what has happened, and that is exactly what this Labour Government has failed to support.

When I look at this report of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I believe that I see a Labour-led majority report that is utterly patronising and just demonstrates how little this Government has done to support the very things that it stated were important. For instance, the report states: “We consider the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill contradictory to the intent of the Prostitution Reform Act. As well as decriminalising prostitution and soliciting, the Act recognised prostitution as a legitimate profession and sought to establish appropriate employment, health, and safety provisions to safeguard the rights of sex workers and protect them from exploitation.”

Well, we see on the streets of Manukau exactly the opposite situation. We do know that the hapless Minister of Health, Pete Hodgson, who has considerable difficulty with the waiting lists, has not done a thing to control the increasing rates of STDs, syphilis, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, and human papilloma virus that are in epidemic proportions down in the streets of Manukau City. Little has been done by this Labour Government to strengthen the importance of the reproductive health strategy that was initiated by Jenny Shipley back in the 1990s. Those are the sorts of supports that Labour should have put in place when it liberalised the law, but it failed to do so.

Secondly, the report states that a “key aim of the Prostitution Reform Act was to prohibit the involvement of persons under the age of 18 in the sex industry.” So what are those children doing there, 3 years after the bill became an Act? [Interruption] I ask Mrs Chadwick what they are doing soliciting there now. Last night I phoned the local chairman of the Papatoetoe Community Board, who said he would take me out this Friday. He absolutely guaranteed to show me literally dozens of children on the streets after midnight in Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, Manukau, and Papatoetoe. This claim can be backed up by my colleague Chester Borrows, who has been out there recently and who described these young children to me. All the Labour Government had done was to help a busload of transvestites come in at about midnight and distribute condoms to those workers.

I want to look at the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I agree there are problems in this bill that require modification, but I say that the protection of the young children is much more important, and Labour has failed to do anything significant to protect them. Let us look at what is talked about in this report. It talks about existing statutory provisions and other measures, and states: “It is our belief, and this view is endorsed by various submitters, that the behaviour of sex workers on the streets is generally regulated more effectively by their peers and outreach groups working with them than by legislation.” Well, why are those groups not doing so now? The report goes on to state that the groups are not being properly funded. Why are they not being funded? Labour has basically let them down.

In respect of council-led initiatives, the report states: “Manukau City Council has developed this bill following what it perceives to be the failure of various initiatives including closing parks at night, cleaning, installing surveillance cameras, roading changes, traffic and pedestrian flow management, and an increase in police presence in the area.” Well, is that not a hang of a lot that the council has done already?

Steve Chadwick: Not enough.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: “Not enough.”, she says. The report goes on to state that the problem has been sorted out in Cuba Mall, Wellington City. I say to Mrs Chadwick that the population of South Auckland is slightly different from that of Wellington City. There are far more people, there are far more poor people, and the Labour Government has done very little to help them out.

The report then talks about halfway houses and support services: “One project concentrates on helping children aged 11 to 17 who have been sexually abused and are involved in street prostitution.” That is great, but the report goes on to state that one house “can accommodate only six residents.” That is about the sole thing that this Labour Government has done. Let us look at the subject of safe-house brothels, which the report says are quite a good idea. But the report goes on to state that none exist in New Zealand at present. We have to ask the Labour Government why none exist after 3 years of this great reform that Tim Barnett and his friends have brought in.

Let us look at the Prostitution Law Review Committee and the review that Tim Barnett talks with such largesse about. The report states: “The review will examine how the Act has operated since its commencement,”—that is great; it is very good that there is a review in place—“the effect of the Act on the number of sex workers in New Zealand, and the nature and adequacy of measures to help people avoid or leave the commercial sex industry.” Then it states: “Although the review does not specifically focus on street soliciting, it will include estimates of the numbers of street sex workers,”. I ask Labour why the original bill did not put the focus on ensuring that there was support for street workers. That is what it has failed to do, time and time again. The Labour Government is all too good at bringing in liberalising legislation, but it fails to bring in practical support to underpin it.

Finally, the report’s conclusion states: “We are concerned about the increasing amount of antisocial behaviour apparently occurring in New Zealand’s urban areas,”—the gall of this patronising Labour Government! It was Labour that brought in the power of general competence for local government. Why is the Labour Government not listening to local government now?

MARK BLUMSKY (National): I am one of the few speakers tonight who was also a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am basing my speech on what I saw and heard in the select committee, what I read in the submissions, and what I have personally discovered first-hand in discussions I have had outside the select committee process that addressed questions I had to answer in my own mind. I am not tainted by any previous discussion in the House; I do not have any background in that debate, at all. My position, and the way I will vote on this bill, is formed purely from the process I have just underlined.

I actually enjoyed the select committee process. Even though at the end of the day we had a minority report, I thought the whole committee took very seriously the problem that Manukau is bringing to the table. It made every attempt to listen, to understand, and to have great compassion for the problems that people were bringing to the table. So I congratulate the select committee on that process, and I also acknowledge the fine work that the officials did for us.

This is a hard situation, because I have followed all my National Party colleagues in the debate, and I have reached a different conclusion. I say to my esteemed colleague Dr Hutchison that I will not try to take apart his argument. This has been a passionate debate. There is a lot of emotion in this issue, and one cannot take it lightly. The biggest problem also for me is that I am a huge fan of local government, and of the fact that local government should be looking for local solutions. The problem is that I do not think this bill is a very good solution. One has to support where local government is coming from emotionally, but the debate and the discussions we have been hearing focus on kids aged 12. That is not the issue here; the issue is street prostitution in Manukau, not 12-year-olds in prostitution. That is a different issue that sure as hell needs to be addressed by this House and the review, with great urgency.

At the end of the day this is not a good bill and I cannot support it, just about for that reason alone. I will allude to some of the reasons why this is so. One of the major concerns I had in the select committee was that I felt many of the submissions came from people who just wanted to ban prostitution, full stop. Most of those submitters just did not like prostitution, and they have that right—that is not an issue—but that was not the purpose for the select committee inquiry. At the end of the day, prostitution is legal, and I am sure this House will have the chance to re-debate that, if that process is part of the August 2007 review. I sure as heck hope—and I am sure it will happen—that all of those who made submissions on the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill will make submissions on the review process.

I first of all decided on the following reality check: will the bill, if it is passed, make a difference? Will any difference be made to the problems that Manukau is talking about? One has to ask the industry. According to the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, since the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 was passed, “we have seen many positive gains and examples of the impact of the legislation. These gains include health and safety, employment rights, greater access to health services, and reporting of incidents to the police. The Manukau City Council bill endangers this.”

It is not just the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective that says this. Recently, I wandered the streets, as I do most nights with Winston. As members know, I live in Cuba Mall, and it is very easy for me to wander through the red-light area of our city. Winston and I have had the chance, over many nights, to converse with people in the street prostitution industry. I assure the House they are very clear in the message they gave me that this bill will not make a bean’s worth of difference to stopping street prostitution—in Wellington, Manukau, or wherever. The problem was that they ended up patting Winston half the jolly time. I quote again: “The purpose of the Manukau City Council bill is to prohibit soliciting, and the NZPC does not believe it will achieve this goal by recriminalising people.”

But I have to suggest that through this process the community has spoken of some real concerns and issues. In the select committee we heard some terrible stories. For example, too many people are now buying P, and, in an effort to get money to subsidise their P habit, many of them, unfortunately, are selling their bodies. But, even worse, we heard stories of families where the older members forced their younger family members on to the street to earn the money to support someone else’s habit. That is where the message came out, loud and clear, that some of them were kids aged 12. Those older family members are a real problem, because of what they are forcing their younger family members into doing, so that they can feed their own habit. The tragedy is that the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 supposedly prohibits prostitution by people under 18. So that has turned to custard, and needs to be very seriously addressed. The police need to be provided with the tools—namely, more police—so that they can deal with the problem. They have made it very clear that under-age prostitution is not a priority for them. They weigh other issues much higher in priority, given their resources.

After reading the submissions and hearing the submitters, I suggest that a lot of the issues associated with prostitution in Manukau are not actually about prostitution itself. I have a tendency to believe that the bill is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The situation in Manukau is not very different from that in many other places. It seems there is an issue with litter, there is an issue with noise, there is an issue with graffiti, and there is an issue with public nuisance. Many of the submitters who came before the committee wanted to talk about litter, noise, and public nuisance. There is a hell of a lot of law out there now that can be used to address those problems. The president of Hunters Corner Town Centre, Papatoetoe, said that he was very specific about noise, offensive litter left in doorways, and the perceived association with crime and graffiti.

As I indicated earlier, many of the submitters wanted to talk about litter and graffiti, and things not being clean. The police have very much come under the spotlight, and rightly so, and I say to the Government that it has to send a message to the police in South Auckland that they must reprioritise on this issue, the minute the Government gives them the numbers. How big is the problem? Many of my colleagues in the House today alluded to the fact that the numbers of people involved are not as dramatically large as we have been told. The issue has been talked up. There is an average of six to 10, not the hundreds that we are hearing. I have had that first-hand, as well.

The bill imposes fines of up to $10,000, and the people who came through the process made it quite clear that they would just work harder to raise the $10,000. I can assure the House that if they are fined $10,000, they will be out on the streets a lot more to earn the money to pay the fine. If members honestly believe that a $10,000 fine will get those people off the streets, they are absolutely wrong. In the worst case, if they fear a fine they go underground. If they go underground, we have incredible issues to do with safety. We have talked about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and there are issues there. As I said, issues were raised about cleanliness.

I fully sympathise with the intent of the bill, but it does not deliver the solution that Manukau is after. There is a review due in under a year’s time. That review, I hope, will bring something back to the House that can provide solutions to some of the problems. I hope we look at those solutions in a nationwide picture, not a specific locality picture. Because the problems of those 12-year-olds, and so on, are not Manukau’s problems; they are New Zealand’s problems. I say to the Government: “You have to be part of that solution.”

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who has just resumed his seat said that he was in the red-light district on several occasions with a chap called Winston. The perception is—and this is a serious point of order—that if he was in the red-light district with a person called Winston, the public would take that to be Winston Peters. I think the member should clarify that, because we really know he was with Johnny Walker or Jim Beam, the people who pushed him off the stairs.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has had his say. That was not a point of order, at all.

MARK BLUMSKY (National): I just wanted to explain, and I thought the House understood because I have talked about Winston on many occasions—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You were patting him.

MARK BLUMSKY:—that I have a little dog called Winston that I walk regularly through town. If the member kept up with the play, he would know that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you; that clears that up.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I rise to take a call on the Manukau City Council (Control of Prostitution) Bill. I have to say I agree with the previous speaker that we all understand that the sentiments behind this bill are laudable. We have a community that feels frustrated with a problem, but, like the previous speaker, I do not feel that this bill will address that problem, and more so, I actually feel that this bill could compound further problems in what is already a very delicate and vulnerable area, particularly concerning the safety and health of prostitutes or sex workers.

We have heard a lot of people talking in this House tonight about how concerned they are for sex workers and how they feel that the Prostitution Reform Act dealt them a blow. I say to those members that maybe they want to spend some of their spare time working with the many groups who do work with sex workers if they are as concerned as that about their health and safety. They should spend some of their time working with those groups and working with the many groups that help to get sex workers out of the industry.

I was not in the House when the Prostitution Reform Act went through, but one of the arguments that came through in the media that really convinced me the most was the fact that for those workers who do want to leave the industry, the hardest thing—the thing that locks them in—is the criminal record they get when they are prosecuted with a sex crime. It limits them from working in many other areas and tars them for life. I thought that was a very, very powerful argument.

We have heard from many people tonight who have gone in and looked at the area we are talking about. We have had various numbers on how many sex workers are operating in those areas—from three, four, or five up into the 60s and 70s. I would have liked to know from the people who have gone in there and have given us the very high numbers, how often they went into those areas before the Prostitution Reform Act was passed, and saw how things were going in those areas then. Like many of the issues that come to this House that end up being very emotional and very heated, a lot of it comes from a position of, quite frankly, ignorance of an issue that has never really come to the fore previously. We have not gone out and seen what the reality is, because it has never come up in the political arena. We are all very busy; we are all looking at many things.

Then, all of a sudden, an issue like prostitution—or youth drinking or many other issues—comes in. A spotlight is put on it. Suddenly we see the reality that many vulnerable New Zealanders live with every day. We do not like it, and we should not like it. But the fact is that it is very hard to say that New Zealand has gone to the dogs now, when people did not go out there to see what the situation was beforehand. Because it was illegal, we were not able to collect statistics whereby we would have been able to survey what was happening. Most of it was underground, because to admit that it happened was to admit that a criminal offence was being committed. So it is very difficult to say that things are so, so much worse now.

I suspect that for a long time in New Zealand we have had a very big problem with under-age prostitution. The law now has far more teeth. Of course, since the Prostitution Reform Act was passed we have seen prosecutions, which is something we never saw in this country before.

I say to all members of this House that at any point when we are discussing prostitution, it is important to remember that I doubt there are many industries in this country that are as reliant on market forces as prostitution. The fact is that if people stopped buying those services, there simply would not be a problem. It is all too easy to stand up here and vilify prostitutes, vilify what they do, and ignore the fact that many of us, even though we do not realise it, probably know people who partake in those services on a regular basis. They are probably people who do not live up to the stereotype that too often we hear about when we are all engaging in a very political debate about prostitution and what we believe its reality is.

Across the country, since the Prostitution Reform Act was passed, we have seen a variety of changes. I know that in my home town of Gisborne, for example, the local brothel has closed since the passing of the Prostitution Reform Act. I do not know whether that had anything to do with the Act. I suspect again it was more likely to be market forces and other things, and the fact that now everyone knew where it was it made it far more difficult for clients to go there without being recognised. But that is an issue that we have had for a long time.

I agree that where there is under-age prostitution, we need to be absolutely adamant that we will not settle for that. The fact is that we now have a law that allows us to put some teeth behind it. We have removed many of the difficulties that stopped prostitutes from working indoors, in areas where they were far safer. As Mr Blumsky said, there is a myriad of laws that already deal with public nuisance. If people are being hassled on the street, if people are finding things offensive, there is already a myriad of laws that can deal with that. It is amusing that many people will stand up in this House and argue that they do not like laws that are prescriptive, they do not like laws that do things that other laws already do, but they are now saying that that is exactly what they would want to do here.

In summary, I think that we all understand why this bill is here. I congratulate George Hawkins on bringing it to this House. I know that he is a very powerful local advocate and that he always speaks up for his community, but this certainly is not the bill that will deal to the problem. If this issue is a problem in South Auckland it is probably also a problem in other places. If there is a genuine issue that needs to be dealt with, it should be dealt with on a consistent basis across the whole country, not just in one part of it. I suspect that many of the votes tonight will be along purely political lines and not necessarily about the fact that this bill will affect only one part of the country.

The bill will not achieve what it wants to achieve, but it is an important debate to have when we are 1 year and a bit out from a review of the Prostitution Reform Act. I ask members to remember, when they are going out, prior to that review, and prior to this becoming an issue again, to talk about what it was like beforehand to the people who know. I get the sense that sometimes people say they do not want to talk to the sex workers themselves or to the Prostitutes Collective necessarily, because they will not be given the kind of opinion that will go against the kinds of changes they want to see in the law. But they are the people who know, because they deal with this every single day. They do not come in one day a year, have a look on one night, and decide what happens. They deal with this every day, and they have the best interests of those workers at hand.

Sex workers are some of the most vulnerable workers in this country. They work in an industry that personally I do not understand. I suspect that a lot of them get into it from necessity rather than from anything else, but that does not mean we should use them and use the law to vilify what they do and to make their position even more vulnerable because we do not like the act that is carried out. At the end of the day if people were not buying these services, then we would not have the problems we have. I sometimes think that people who stand up in this House and talk about prostitution forget that most important fact.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Manukau City Council (Control of Street Prostitution) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 46

Anderton (P)	Dean	King C (P)	Tremain (P)
Auchinvole (P)	Donnelly (P)	Mapp	Turner (P)
Bennett D	Dunne (P)	Mark (P)	Wagner
Blue	English	Paraone (P)	Wilkinson
Borrows	Field (P)	Peachey (P)	Williamson (P)
Brown (P)	Foss (P)	Peters (P)	Woolerton (P)
Brownlee (P)	Goudie (P)	Robertson
Carter D (P)	Groser (P)	Ryall (P)
Carter J (P)	Guy (P)	Smith N (P)
Clarkson (P)	Hawkins	Stewart
Coleman	Heatley (P)	Swain (P)
Collins (P)	Hutchison	Tisch	Teller:
Copeland	Key (P)	Tolley (P)	E Roy

Noes 73

Barker (P)	Duynhoven (P)	Horomia (P)	Ririnui (P)
Barnett (P)	Dyson (P)	Jones	Roy H (P)
Bennett P	Fairbrother (P)	Kedgley (P)	Samuels
Benson-Pope (P)	Fenton (P)	King A (P)	Sharples
Beyer (P)	Finlayson	Laban (P)	Simich
Blumsky	Fitzsimons (P)	Locke	Smith L (P)
Bradford (P)	Flavell	Mackey	Tanczos (P)
Brash	Gallagher (P)	Maharey (P)	te Heuheu
Burton (P)	Goff (P)	Mahuta (P)	Tizard (P)
Carter C (P)	Goodhew	Mallard (P)	Turei
Chadwick	Gosche (P)	McCully (P)	Turia (P)
Chauvel (P)	Harawira	Moroney	Wilson (P)
Choudhary	Hartley (P)	O'Connor (P)	Wong (P)
Clark (P)	Hayes	Okeroa (P)	Worth (P)
Connell (P)	Henare	Parker (P)	Yates (P)
Cosgrove (P)	Hereora	Pettis (P)
Cullen	Hide (P)	Pillay (P)
Cunliffe (P)	Hobbs (P)	Power	Teller:
Dalziel (P)	Hodgson (P)	Rich (P)	Hughes

Motion not agreed to.

Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill

Second Reading

Third Reading

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I move, That the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill be now read a second and a third time. This is a bit of a change of mood from the previous bill that Parliament has dealt with on this members’ day. It is my great pleasure to bring before the House for the second and third reading the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill. My first desire is to thank members for the way that they have expedited this process. I have to pass on the gratitude of a number of people in that regard—including the gratitude of the agricultural and pastoral association itself, and of the individual who will develop the Invercargill showground. I will talk a little more about that later; he has paid a deposit and has been waiting for over a year for this bill to be progressed. So those people send their thanks to this House.

If this bill were to have gone through the normal process, it would have taken months. I introduced this bill in the last sitting period of Parliament. It went to the Primary Production Committee, which met in the adjournment. Members of the select committee went through the full process—they advertised, and they sought to get submissions and feedback. It was not a shonky job. I assured them that everything was in order and that there were no issues, but the select committee wanted to do its own thing. I congratulate the members of the committee on that. But having decided to put the bill through the process, they expedited it in the best way possible—they advertised, sought a response, got a departmental report, and then deliberated on the bill in the adjournment. My thanks also go to the House for accepting leave to complete all stages tonight, and I am absolutely genuine in those thanks.

One or two people have asked me what this bill is about. For the benefit of those members who are in their first term in Parliament, I say that empowering bills are not something to be taken lightly. I can recall, in my first term in the House, having to speak for 10 minutes, without notice, on a Palmerston North playground empowering bill, which was something of a challenge. If a land title is covered by an endowment, we do not take that lightly. Our forebears set up around the country a whole range of endowment processes—some of them on rental land that generated revenue for harbour boards, agricultural and pastoral associations, and school-grounds. There were a whole range of mechanisms. Our forebears did that because they wanted the protection provided by an endowment, and we should not ignore that. In this particular case, we have gone through the process properly. To advance a private bill, there is a prescribed process. Anybody who looks at Appendix C of the Standing Orders will see that there is a very diligent and prescribed process to make sure we get things right—and in this case that has been done.

What is this bill about? I gave a commentary on the bill in the first reading, and I will repeat it for the benefit of those people who were not there for that—and I apologise to those for whom this is repetition, but it is quite important to do so. Agricultural and pastoral associations are part of the fabric of rural New Zealand. Their shows have been the expos of the rural community for, in many instances, well over 100 years. We are well past the centenary celebrations of the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association. A and P shows have been the expos where livestock are judged, have provided social occasions for meeting people, and have been the venue where new machinery, new cultivars, and new genetics are shown—you name it, it happens, commercially and agriculturally. It is a “town meets country” kind of arrangement.

In Invercargill, the agricultural and pastoral association showground is almost in the centre of the city. It is a valuable property, but essentially it has been used for only one major show once a year, and also for one or two stud fairs. So there is a heavy over-investment in a property that could be used in a much better way. The Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association has sought to go into partnership with the Ascot Park Raceway, where there are grandstands, grounds, and better parking. The raceway is in a part of the town that suits people much better than the showground. The agricultural and pastoral association has a contract with a developer who will turn the showground into an industrial estate. Not only will that occur but a bypass will be created from the north of the city, through the city, to connect to the south of the city. It will take heavy traffic that is going to the port, the freezing works, or wherever else it may be in the south—there are fertiliser works, chip mills, the port, and a range of heavy industry there. The transport to and from those entities has had to go pretty much through the centre of town, so this development will create a bypass that will take that heavy traffic out of the centre of the town.

Suffice to say that this bill has a great deal of support, not just from the agricultural and pastoral association and not just from the developer, who has an opportunity to do something in a very prosperous and growing provincial town in New Zealand: Invercargill, a place where dreams are possible. Burt Munro comes from there. We have a great mayor, Tim Shadbolt, and all those things. Now we are going to have the very best agricultural and pastoral showground in the country, in association with the Ascot Park Raceway.

There are plans to do some significant things at the raceway. Sheep pens and a selling pavilion will have to be developed, but there is also going to be an equestrian centre. I am not sure exactly how much will be achieved out of the sale of the showground property, but it is in the order of $4 to $5 million, and that money will be ploughed back into developing and extending the Ascot Park Raceway with an equestrian centre that will not have a parallel anywhere in New Zealand. Invercargill can do this. Members will know that we have one of the only three covered velodromes in the southern hemisphere. With a population of 50,000, we have a whole lot of things going for us. This centre will be a valuable extension of the indoor arenas that are available in the south, and it will happen when this bill is passed. Of course, having an equestrian centre on a raceway park, where horses are involved in a range of things, will add opportunities not just for racing, show-jumping, dressage, pony clubs, and riding for the disabled—all of those things—but it will be another large expo venue. The opportunities are endless, once this bill is actually passed. So I say to the House that there is a wide degree of support to see it progressed.

Another reason the community is keen to see this bill advanced quite quickly is that there will have to be some applications to local funding agencies—the licensing trust, the community trust, and various other agencies—for funding to do this development. As time has gone by we have just about passed the deadlines for those applications; in fact, we have passed one of them. The agricultural and pastoral association wants to progress those applications for funding as well, so that the development can take place.

I conclude by giving my sincere thanks to the House for its assistance in expediting the process of getting this bill through. It is an important thing that we recognise endowment land, and we are not taking that cheaply. But in this case, the requirements of drafting and presenting the bill to the House saw no mischief. The select committee went out and readvertised, but there was not one submission. There was unanimity and support. So I can only say to the House that this is its finest hour. This bill has no mischief; everybody wants it. The House has risen to the occasion and has expedited it through in a very earnest way. I thank the House.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): I take a very brief call in support of the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill. Mr Roy has very ably explained this bill, which is very important. Given the fact that the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association is an asset-rich organisation but does not have the resources to actually maintain its grounds, I think it is important that the House should support this bill. I also want to say, as deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee, that as part of the process of calling for submissions and deliberating on the bill, we did not receive any submissions on it. Further, I say that Wayne Harpur, the local candidate for the Labour Party at the last election, is also very supportive of this bill. I am delighted to support the bill and it has been supported by the select committee, as well.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Tātou e noho nei i te Whare. The progress of the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill has, for some, been seen as a simple formality. It is as if it is no big deal. So I thought it would be a good idea to do some research so that all of us here, and indeed those listening at home, understand that there is a history to this bill.

Not far from here is the Alexander Turnbull Library, where people can spend hours to their hearts’ content studying Aotearoa—our history, our experiences, and our people. The historical atlas maps held in that library show that as a result of pre-1865 land purchases, the total percentage of Southland land in Māori ownership was a whole 1 percent out of a possible 34 million acres. It was land literally available at a steal. In August 1853 the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Walter Mantell, obtained over 7 million acres of land, as part of the Murihiku deal, for a mere £2,600. Comparatively speaking, it was a better deal than ever before.

Some 5 years earlier, in June 1848, Kemp had transacted a purchase with Ngāi Tahu of 20 million acres, the largest block of land ever bought by the Crown, for a bargain. It was snapped up at a piffling £2,000. One hundred and fifty years later, the Waitangi Tribunal was to conclude that the purchases of Mantell, Kemp, and their ilk, were, by any standards, totally inadequate. The tribunal’s 1991 Ngāi Tahu report concluded: “It is not stating the position too strongly to say that the effect of the Crown’s niggardly allocation was to ‘ghetto-ise’ Ngāi Tahu on small uneconomic units on which they could do little more than struggle to survive”.

Forty years after Kemp’s transactions, Mackay’s 1886 investigation into the extent of landlessness amongst Māori in Southland gave “a depressing account of poverty, listlessness and despair amongst Ngai Tahu at the time”. This is the past, the present, and the future in which the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill sits—an iwi ghettoised, economic arrangements from which the people could do little more than struggle to survive, and a people confronted with poverty, listlessness, and despair. Yet a century and a half later, those same people are at risk of being re-ghettoised from the passage of the legislation we are discussing today.

The Hansard states that Kāi Tahu o Murihiku had been neither consulted nor informed as part of the negotiations. Te Ao Marama, which encompasses expertise with iwi liaison within the rohe, had not been approached. The relevant papatipu rūnaka, the tribal councils of Kāi Tahu, were not part of the feedback loop. We raised those issues at the first reading of the bill, and urged the House to recognise the importance of consultation with iwi on resource management issues. Indeed, given that Ngāi Tahu are mana whenua, it would be appropriate to ask them what they want to be consulted on, and how, when, by whom, and why.

The Māori Party wants, however, to put on record our appreciation of the way in which the sponsor of the bill, Eric Roy, responded to the issues we raised at the first reading. I commend the way in which the member for Invercargill received our advice and, indeed, made a point of standing to give an explanation to the whole House. Such generosity and genuine commitment to acknowledging the concerns of the constituency can only be positive, as we now move quickly to advance the bill.

When I last addressed the House on this bill I spoke of the proud history the people of Murihiku have as entrepreneurs—their active roles in the flax trade and the whaling industry, and in supplying food to the ships. A contemporary example of their innovation is the Hīkoi Fatigue Kete project, which was developed by Ōraka-Aparima Health and Social Services in order to raise awareness amongst Southland Māori about the dangers of driver fatigue. The kete is packed full of goodies for avoiding fatigue, including chocolate treats, barley sugars, a first aid kit, a map of New Zealand to help plan breaks, a water bottle, and ample safety information. I do wonder whether we could commission that organisation to provide a House fatigue kete to help avoid fatigue during our extended sessions, but I have been persuaded otherwise—the robust debate and stimulating interplay we experience on a daily basis would make such a kete redundant.

The point I am making is that Southland Māori are often required to make long trips on a regular basis. The fatigue kete is a novel concept that meets the needs of the constituency in a practical way. Therefore, I suggest that in the long trip ahead for the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association, as it moves to sell the property and relocate to Ascot Park Raceway, it might just consider that mana whenua could be an enthusiastic and committed project partner.

Despite the context of colonisation and land alienation, despite the hardship experienced by the predominantly landless people, and despite the final insult of not being consulted at an early stage in the progress of this bill, mana whenua have been munificent in overlooking those offences, and have worked productively for the future of Invercargill and its people. The Māori Party is now satisfied that not only have mana whenua been actively involved in the existence of the legislation but also the promoter of the bill himself, Mr Eric Roy, listened to our concerns and has taken the need for consultation into account.

We are happy to support the bill at its second and third readings. Finally, we recommend that the ideal outcome of the parliamentary debate might be that the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association, for the sake of its further empowerment, also considers the opportunity for mana whenua to be involved. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a second time and a third time.

Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. The building and construction industry is one of New Zealand’s largest, involving $13 billion a year of work. It is a sector that employs over 100,000 people. This industry stops and starts on the issuing of 81,000 building consents each year. The problem this bill addresses is the delays in getting these consents. The law is quite clear. Councils have 20 working days to say aye or nay to a building consent. The problem is that the law is being blatantly ignored. There is no penalty, nor any incentive to comply. The Department of Building and Housing does not even require councils to report on the number of consents for which they break those time limits.

The anecdotal stories of delays come from the far north to the deep south—families living in tents for months, builders being laid off, and land sitting vacant. Time is money. The cost to New Zealand of delays in getting building consents amounts to tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars per year. The part that makes me angry is that this Government does not seem to give a toss about all of this. We get all this bumf from the spin doctors in this Government about economic transformation, improving productivity, and reducing compliance costs, yet we live in a nation in which it takes months to get a building consent for something as simple as a garage.

Although the Government cannot be bothered collecting any statistics on this problem, we can get some idea of the scale of the problem. The Tasman District Council admitted earlier this year that 61 percent of its consents went over time. Nelson City admitted to a figure of 37 percent. A survey last month by the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development found that 49 percent of consents, or roughly half nationwide, went over time. There are over 80,000 consents each year under the Building Act, so this amounts to about 40,000 late consents each year.

Let me give members a flavour of the frustration for each of those 40,000 people. Dean and Rebecca Olney, in my area of Nelson, applied for a building consent for their standard five-bedroom home in Mahana on 19 June. It took 60 days for them to finally get assent. Their poor builder sat around doing absolutely nothing for 3 weeks while they waited for their consent. How can members opposite talk about improving productivity with that sort of waste going on? Colin Hill, the immediate past-president of Architectural Designers New Zealand, said that the huge backlog of consents is causing an industry slow-down. He says that one can speak to any architectural designer, builder, or housing company and they will tell of numerous cases of building projects that have been postponed or put off indefinitely because of delays in getting consents. In fact, frustrations have become so high that a Christchurch company earlier this year took the amazing step of having a judicial review in the High Court against Selwyn District Council. That company, Williams and Co. Trustees Ltd, applied for a building consent for a home in Terrace Downs on 7 December last year. By 21 March this year, the consent had not been processed. The court gave the council 3 days to comply, which it did, but this is an extreme situation.

Citizens should not have to go to the High Court to get a council to issue a building consent in a timely way. Well, tonight it is time to change that. This bill is about people’s rights. It is about saying that public bodies should obey the law, just as citizens have to obey the law. I know this concept of public officials having to obey the law is pretty alien to this Government. We see the Government’s attitude towards the Prime Minister forging paintings, the 180 kilometre an hour motorcades, the corrupt work for immigration favours, and, most recently, towards stealing public money for electioneering. This Government thinks it is OK for public officials and the Government, but lo and behold if anybody else should not comply with it.

Hon David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That language was completely unparliamentary. The member must withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can the member explain what word was unparliamentary?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. The member does not call across the House like that. I will rule on the point of order. It is not in order to accuse a member of the Government of what the member accused it, and the member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can the Assistant Speaker in the chair be very explicit about which words I used that were inappropriate?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I think the member is very clear about what words he used, and he will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply ask, Madam Assistant Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not know what I am withdrawing or apologising for.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a longstanding convention in this House that you make the rules, not that member. You have ruled. He cannot contest your ruling. If he contests your ruling, he should go out, have a lie-down, and put a wet towel over his head. He should adhere to your ruling and not contest it. He is in breach of the Standing Orders, and he knows it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. This bill is about changing a sick culture, whereby this Government and its officials believe it is OK to break the law. It is based on a very simple notion: if the consent is not processed by the due date, the council loses the legal right to charge for it.

Hon David Benson-Pope: What did the judge say about that member? He can’t be trusted.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: “Shock! Horror!”, some like David Benson-Pope would say. “Fancy the poor council losing its fee for not complying with the law!”. But I put it to members that if a citizen does not pay his or her rates on time, the council, under the law, is able to charge a penalty; if a citizen fails to lodge his or her objection against a resource consent within 20 working days, it simply does not count; if a citizen fails to pay his or her tax on time, he or she pays a penalty; if a citizen fails to pay his or her car registration on time, he or she pays a penalty. So I put it to this House that if it is good enough for the goose, it is good enough for the gander.

I must put on the record that I do have some sympathy for the position of councils’ building officials. This Government has made a complete hash of the building regulations, and the Department of Building and Housing is making the job for councils a nightmare. The extra regulatory burdens placed on councils by the Department of Building and Housing are over-the-top. We have building officials who should be clearing the backlog of consents filling out all number of forms and meeting the compliance demands of the department. We also have the bizarre situation rightly exposed by the Certified Builders Association, which is infuriated by the fact that the Department of Building and Housing and Standards New Zealand—two different Government bodies—tell it different things about what complies with regard to a building.

So one might ask how this bill penalises the Government, as well as the council, for its role in adding to the delays faced by builders and homeowners. Well, the department is funded by the building levy, and this bill exempts the homeowner or builder from paying fees to both the council and the Government if the 20-day time frame is not met. This puts the incentive both on the council and on the Government to ensure consents are processed within the 20 working days.

Let me respond to some of the criticisms of the bill. Sceptics might ask what will happen if the consent application is incomplete. The law already clearly covers this. Section 48(2) of the Building Act states that the council may require further reasonable information, and the time period is suspended until it receives that information. A further criticism is that it is just not possible to do so in a timely way. I draw this House’s attention to the example in Hamilton, where the council has adopted exactly this policy, and has done so such that it has 100 percent compliance. In fact, in Hamilton the average time for processing a building consent is just 6 days.

I suggest that this bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is a small, pragmatic bill that deals with a real problem for real people. It is about fairness. It is about saying that building officials and public bodies should face penalties just as citizens do when they break the law. It is about reducing compliance costs and reducing the red tape that kills off enterprise, kills off innovation, and kills off people’s get-up-and-go. And it is about improving productivity. If this bill improves the efficiency of our building industry by just 1 percent, that amounts to $100 million a year. The challenge we face as a nation is about making the boat go faster, so we might catch up with faster growing economies. There is no magic bullet to this problem; it will require a whole lot of small efficiency gains for an economy—of which this bill is one.

Tonight we should give the people a win. It is time Parliament told the bureaucrats we mean what we say and we say what we mean. Parliament says a building consent must be processed within 20 working days, and we mean just that. I make no bones about the fact that there are other Acts to which this principle should apply—like the Resource Management Act. But, for now, I urge Parliament to make this change in respect of the Building Act. It is time that Parliament recognised a problem faced by citizens—that time matters, and time costs.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues): Let me say from the outset that the Labour Party will oppose this Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill for a series of logical reasons. The first thing I would point out about this mammoth, weighty tome, of about one A4 page, is that this is the typical Nick Smith bill—it is light. It is very, very interesting that Nick Smith finished his speech by talking about giving the people a win and reducing compliance costs. Well, here is a really interesting point: the National Party joined the call to reduce compliance costs and reduce general rates increases. National says, of course, that those are an impost on the general ratepayer. Let me point out to Mr Smith that, thanks to his light research, this bill would do exactly the opposite of what National’s policy is.

At the moment, if I apply for a building consent—myself, the user—I pay. Nobody else pays, and the general rates do not go up. I pay, because I am the person who wants to construct the house or the building. Under Mr Smith’s bill, if the council misses the 20-day mark, that person—that is, myself, the user who wants the consent—will get it for free. Well, that is a nonsense for a start. There is no such thing as a free consent. So, of course, the council, which still has overhead costs to meet but which cannot charge the user, will impose that charge generally on every other ratepayer in the local authority. So I say to all ratepayers sitting at home listening to this who are not in the position of wanting to construct a building that if this bill goes through, their rates will go up. I also say to Dr Smith that the primary objective for the local authority, under this bill—as Dr Smith himself admits—would be to get the consent through in 20 days, whatever the cost.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right. Good job!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He says: ‘That’s right. Good job!”. Well, I say to him that quality inspection would be sacrificed. That is what would be sacrificed, because what would the objective of the local authority be? It would be to meet the 20-day rule or get pinged. What the local authority would then do—even those small local authorities like the three in the far north that are very smart and clustering their services in attempting to get their act together—is to throw quality out the window. Councils would also make damn sure that they meet the big commercial consents, because that is where the big dollars and the big penalties would be.

So what does the bill do for mum and dad Kiwis whom Dr Smith purports to say he supports? Well, mum and dad Kiwis would go to the bottom of the queue, because if a 20-day consent on an average home is missed, it is a heck of a lot smaller penalty than if one of the big ones is missed. This is a pathetic bill—an absolutely pathetic bill.

Dr Smith talked about history. He talked about what had occurred in the construction sector. Well, let me say, and remind him—and he purports to be an engineer of some note in his own mind; I just wish I was as good as he thinks he is—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I have a PhD.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Let me say this to Dr Smith—oh, he has a PhD. Well, blow me down, I do not. If he has a PhD, God help the person who marked his paper—if he were to read this flimsy piece of legislation that shows Dr Smith obviously did not learn much.

I say to Dr Smith that the history of the mire the building and construction industry is pulling itself out of now rests squarely with the legacy of that member when he was in Government in the 1990s. The legacy was—and this is the member of Parliament who promoted it, along with his colleagues—the total deregulation of the building industry. What does that mean? That means that he got rid of any minimum standard, any rules, and any minimum framework. Any cowboy, even Dr Smith, could pick up a tool belt, call himself a builder, and go to work. He did that, the National Government was in power, and he passed that.

The second thing he did was to abolish the Apprenticeship Act in the 1990s. He abolished it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Rubbish.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He says “rubbish”. He abolished the Apprenticeship Act, he drummed it out of Parliament, and what did that do to the industry? Well, if there are no minimum standards because there are no minimum rules and regulations, and if people are not being trained to be the tradespeople and the master craftspeople of the future, then there is a debacle. Firstly, there is a billion-dollar problem of leaky buildings that rests with his legacy. Secondly, there is a sacrifice of quality.

I say to Dr Smith that the Department of Building and Housing is going around auditing and accrediting territorial local authorities to get them up to speed, because the truth is that many territorial local authorities were good but some were appalling. I will come to an example in a moment. We are telling territorial local authorities that they have to get their inspection quality up, they have to get their processes up, and they have to get their resourcing up, because many of them did not resource their inspectors, their officials, or their processes.

The one thing Dr Smith did say that was on cue was that there has been a building boom. That, for Dr Smith’s small mind, indicates there is some pressure on local authorities. This is not the 1990s, when the construction industry languished and fluctuated regionally. No, there is a building boom because people have money in their pockets for construction.

I ask whether Dr Smith is on the side of the ordinary man. I point to a guy called the Rev. David Moore in Christchurch. This is a public case, so it is on the record. What happened to that bloke? He thought he had a leaky building problem, and he did. What happened? Well, he got stuck in and had a look and, yes, it was a leaky building. He peeled off the Gib and the cladding, and noticed that not one nail had hit the beam—the problem was nothing to do with leaky buildings. His door frames were sinking, the place was an absolute mess, and it almost destroyed his family’s life. I visited him. I do not posture like that member over there; I visited that home. That bloke has pulled himself out. Do members know what happened? The building inspector came around. There was a problem. The Gib was up; the cladding was up. No one could see the beams, the dwangs, or the braces, but the plans were OK. I was told that the building inspector said: “Well, mate, if she’s on the plans it’s OK.” It got a big tick, just to get it through in under 20 days.

That is the sacrifice we will have, a sacrifice of quality, and Dr Smith will perpetuate what he started: the degradation of the building and construction industry. So every person who is sitting out there tonight who wants a building consent should not rely on his or her territorial local authority to give a quality job if this legislation gets passed. The authorities cannot be blamed if this bill gets passed, because the pressure will be on them to hit the 20-day mark—to hell with quality, to hell with safety, and to hell with anything else, but just to hit the 20-day mark.

This is a silly bill from a silly member, a light bill from a light member, and a troppo bill from a troppo member. I say to him—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, the member cannot say that. Please withdraw and apologise.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw and apologise. I say to him that we are embarking on the biggest transformation and reconstruction of the building and construction industry in its history, supported with the licensing of building practitioners by builders, and with absolute protection for DIYers, despite the mistruth he printed in the New Zealand Herald that said I had passed a piece of legislation outlawing DIYers. Well, I have to tell that twit over there that to date I have not passed a piece of legislation. That is a lie from him.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, no. The member needs to apologise.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw and apologise. That is a mistruth, because I as a new Minister have the bill before Parliament and I have not passed any legislation yet. So the member should work that one out. I say that his credibility is in the outhouse.

This is a light piece of legislation. It does exactly the opposite of what the party Dr Smith belongs to wants to do. National is saying: “Lay off the ratepayer.”, but he has produced a stupid piece of paper that says the user will not pay. If someone does not hit the 20-day mark, everybody else will pay—to hell with quality, to hell with safety—and the pressure will go on.

Not only has Dr Smith come here with a plan but he has come here with a plan to exacerbate the pressure on already stretched local authorities. Under our legislation those authorities in the far north that are smart, clustering their services, reforming their processes, wanting to get up to speed, and wanting to be building consent authorities once they are audited and accredited, will be able to go out to consumers and say: “If you get a building inspection, it’s going to be a proper inspection and it is going to give you confidence that your builder will be licensed”—not like Dr Smith’s—“and will be a dinkum builder on a register, on the Internet, and able to be checked up on”. There is no policy from Dr Smith. Under our bill the inspection will be a decent building inspection. It will have to be A1, because people will be paying an A1 price.

What will Dr Smith’s bill do? It is light, it is stupid, and it demeans him as a front-bench member of the National Party. There is no thought in this political pamphlet—none; zip. It is a typical Nick Smith special: “Let’s throw a slogan in, let’s jump on the bandwagon of something, and let’s have a go.” I have to say that any ratepayer listening to his speech who is not building a house will think: “Hey, this is not a bad idea.” But until we drill into the bill, and until we look at it carefully, until that point we do not realise how light and how troppo it is, from a troppo member.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I assume you are going to ask him to withdraw and apologise for the last derogatory statement he made. I know that he does not have substance. He always resorts to personal abuse, but I think it is proper for the House to require him to withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for the last remark.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw and apologise

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I wish to seek leave to table a document. The member claimed, and I know that he is a junior Minister—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Well, the member needs to name the document.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I wish to table the speech of Mr George Hawkins, who claimed that the building reforms of 1991 were all from Labour’s good work from the late 1980s and that National could claim no credit for them. I think it is important.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave to table the report from the Hamilton City Council, which has adopted this very policy, has been able to provide for all its building consents within the statutory time frame without any cost to the ratepayer, and is providing a very high quality of building consent services.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building Issues): I seek leave to table the associated historic reports that will be on archive—and the Hansard, of course—which will prove that the National Party abolished the Apprenticeship Act, which Mr Smith is in historical denial over.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago): I intend, in speaking to this Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill to stick to the bill. But before I do that, I note how deeply disgusting I found the contribution by the previous speaker, Clayton Cosgrove, in which he was compelled to withdraw and apologise three times. This surely must be a record even in my short time in Parliament. I think the previous contribution did the member no credit at all, but it is probably of the quality we are getting used to.

Let us turn to the bill and wonder why it is such a threat to Mr Cosgrove. I think I can tell members why; it is because this bill calls for accountability in the local authority. It is as simple as that. The purpose of this bill is to provide for a late consent to be a free consent. If members cannot tell me that 20 working days—with a provision called section 42A set within the Building Act whereby if further information is required that clock can be stopped—is not enough for the bureaucrats within the building departments of local authorities to process a consent for a garage, then we are living in a very strange and inefficient local government sector.

I want to address the rather—shall we say—excitable contribution of the previous member, who said there was no free consent. I believe that, of course, there is no free consent. What this bill does is put accountability where it belongs. It puts accountability back on to the bureaucrats.

Now, I will not get excitable about this bill, even though I have to say that it is quite an exciting bill. When it is passed, this bill will provide some kind of certainty for the building industry. When builders who have one or two people working for them are planning their work programme, they will be able to have some kind of certainty that the work they are applying to do and the consents they are applying for will be actually granted in a timely manner. Let us not make this an issue about rocket science. This is an issue about granting consents under the Building Act for constructing garages and houses and other buildings; it is not very difficult. The 20 days provided for under section 42A of the Building Act—in my experience as a local authority member—is quite enough.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to my colleague. The Minister has been constantly interjecting all the way through this member’s very considered speech. In the last interjection he said the word “you” three times, which is, of course, a breach of the Standing Orders. Are you going to require—[Interruption] I understood that points of order are heard in silence. My simple point is to ask whether you require some standard of conduct from Ministers in the Government in respect of the conduct of this debate.

Darren Hughes: We contest Dr Smith’s assertion that Minister Cosgrove was barracking the entire way through that speech. He interjected a few times, but to be lectured by Nick Smith, of all members of Parliament, about interjecting on other people’s speeches and making inane comments is just too much. It is a robust debate, and I thought the member on her feet was handling it reasonably well. To have her speech broken up by her own colleague—one of the worst offenders—seems to me to be a bit strange. I think the point of order that he makes, therefore, is out of order.

Eric Roy: The premise that someone has some historical attitude, in the mind of the member who was speaking to the point of order, is irrelevant. Past issues are not dealt with again, as Madam Speaker knows. The issue is about the conduct of the House at the time this member is speaking.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member is quite right, but certainly I did not see anything for me to rule on. I think the interjections were quite within the Standing Orders.

JACQUI DEAN: It is interesting that the Government is so passionate about economic transformation. I am not even sure what it means by that, and I would be very interested to hear from somebody who would take a call and explain exactly what “economic transformation” means in the context of an argument that the Building Act does not need to be efficient, which is what the previous member who spoke, Mr Cosgrove, was asserting. His assertion was that it does not matter; the Building Act and the building industry do not need certainty. Well, in my view, that is absolutely rubbish. I would love the member to take a call, rise to his feet, actually address the bill, and tell us how that assertion fits in with the Government’s noble notion of economic transformation, because I am blowed if I know. It is interesting that there is $13 billion a year of work in the building industry, and there are over 100,000 people employed in the building industry who all rely on efficient local government processes.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to speak to the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will support the referral of this bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, with no guarantee that we will support it any further than that. We are very aware that very few things in life are free, and building consents certainly are not amongst them. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I am sorry. When there are interjections across the House and the speaker is standing down there, it is impossible to hear. I ask members to be quiet.

BARBARA STEWART: If the user does not pay for a building consent, then we can be absolutely certain that other ratepayers will. Once again, we have a bill before us in this House that promises far more than it can actually deliver. We have a bill that again deals with subjects about which there is considerable public feeling. Once again, we are faced with the dilemma of sending a flawed bill to a select committee, finding a better alternative for dealing with the issues, or not accepting that there are any public concerns.

New Zealand First acknowledges that there is public and industry discontent, and that there are perceptions that there are unnecessary delays in processing building consents. We note Hamilton City Council has a scheme similar to that proposed here, with—as the Hon Dr Nick Smith said—a 6-day turn-around process. However, there are very serious problems with the envisaged regime. We have a concern that some authorities may be encouraged to find innovative ways to restart the consents process clock, or that the quality of the decision making may suffer—and I know the Minister has alluded to that. We do not want there to be another round of leaky buildings. The bill overlooks some of the fundamental reasons for the current delays, one of which appears to be a serious shortage of trained staff. That problem is not easily rectified. We are very aware, too, that recent legislation such as the Building Act of 2004 may have exacerbated the problem, by adding to the confusion around that particular issue.

New Zealand First sees some very serious shortcomings in this bill and is unconvinced that such a narrow focus could contribute very much to improved outcomes. But we acknowledge the public’s concern, and we will therefore support the referral of this bill to the select committee so that the public can have some input on this particular issue. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I take just a very short call on the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill, to say the Green Party will be supporting it going through to the select committee, but we certainly make no promises from that point on. We are interested in exploring the issues. It is true that some councils are able to meet their deadlines on a more regular basis—Hamilton is one example, but it is an extreme and a single one—whereas other councils completely fail to meet the expectations in the legislation. So we do need to have a look at the issue, because it is very difficult for ordinary people wanting to undertake building in their own homes—domestic types of building as opposed to development—and it not fair that they then have to suffer the consequences.

So we are prepared to have a look at it. That is all we are prepared to offer at this stage, and we will see what happens in the select committee. It is worthwhile discussing the bill. It is worthwhile giving people an opportunity to have their say and to tell the committee and parliamentarians what they think about these issues. We will see what happens after that. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker; kia ora tātou te Whare. The Māori Party takes the view that what is good for Māori has to be good for the nation. When we look at the building and construction industry, we see that our view is the right one, because the construction industry in this country is massive, with $19 billion of expenditure and more than 150,000 people employed, and with heaps of Māori working as architects, designers, plumbers, plasterers, and roofers. We drive the “bullies”, we contract the subbies, and we do the welding, the concreting, and the building. In fact, in the construction industry, Māori really are doing the business. Apart from the armed forces, construction was the only industry to increase its share of Māori employment from 1999-2005—up by a massive 55 percent. The construction industry also contributes some 5 percent of our nation’s GDP and even more to our genuine progress index, which measures sustainability, well-being, and the quality of life. Clearly, the benefits from the building industry have a positive impact on employment, planning, economic growth, warmth, shelter, and family stability.

This bill, the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill, amends the Building Act in order to prevent councils from charging fees when, through their own fault, they are late in getting their paperwork done. In fact, the bill creates a no-fee provision over eight separate pieces of legislation. In simple terms, the bill stops councils from charging people when councils screw up. We want to know from those in the industry—those whom I have just mentioned earlier—whether that will actually reduce building delays, or whether those delays may be caused by other issues. We look forward to the select committee process and to hearing in the Local Government and Environment Committee about the solutions people in the industry may have.

The Māori Party is well aware that the building industry of today has a low uptake in vocational training, which is quite a shock really to those Māori communities that have always taken pride in the chippies, sparkies, and brickies that have come from their ranks. I can remember, back in the 1960s and 1970s, working alongside young men who were doing their trade training through the Department of Māori Affairs and staying at the Māori hostels in Gillies Avenue and Owens Road in Auckland. The department recruited, transported, housed, and supervised those trainees, and technical institutes provided their training. The scheme launched in 1959 as an experiment turned out to be a blazing and spectacular success. It reduced rural unemployment, it let young Māori step into employment in a supportive environment, it produced a pool of trained employees in the building industry, and it provided highly skilled tradespeople. I can remember Mainzeal Property and Construction, one of Auckland’s biggest construction businesses, having an open-door policy on all Department of Māori Affairs trainees, such was the quality of their apprenticeships and their work. With the advent of this latest bill before the House, I cannot help but think back to that scheme and wonder why we are not re-establishing such a scheme to cope with the delays in building management.

We look forward to hearing about what is causing those delays and whether they are actually being created from inefficiency, a lack of planning, a lack of staff, or maybe just plain bureaucratic incompetence. We want to know whether speeding up the process will impact on the quality of the decisions that are made, and we need to know that reducing the fees will not mean reducing quality in the building management process. The Māori Party will support this bill going to the select committee, because any move to reduce costs and reduce delays in such a strong and vibrant industry can only benefit the community at large, the Māori community in general, and the Māori workforce in particular. Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): First of all, I begin by congratulating the Hon Nick Smith on having his Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill drawn from the ballot. I note that the next item on the Order Paper is also in Nick Smith’s name, so he has had a bit of a run of luck in recent times. I am pleased to tell the member in advance that United Future will be supporting the first reading of both of these bills.

We support this Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill, at least on the first reading, because we believe that local authorities need to lift their game and become efficient in the processing of consents relating to building issues. I have told the House before that I recently had an experience here in Wellington City, where I was charged $583 for a consent fee for a fence 5.25 metres long. The city council told me that it would refund any of that consent fee that was not used up in the consent process. The council actually used only $503, so it owed me $80. After I told the House that story, the Hon David Parker came across to me and said that it was nothing to do with the Resource Management Act; it was just the sheer inefficiency of my council.

So when I found out that the council owed me $80, I wrote and said that it owed me $80. The council wrote back and said that it took 8 hours to process my consent fee for a 5.25 metre-long fence—a fence for which I had the written consent of my neighbour.

Steve Chadwick: What year was this?

GORDON COPELAND: It was this year. I can tell members that not one single ray of sunshine was shielded from anybody else’s property, and there were no adverse environmental effects, whatsoever. In fact, it was positive for the biodiversity on my property. Wellington City Council said to me that I could not have my $80 back as the council’s policy is not to refund anything less than $100 because it would cost the council more than that to draw the cheque to refund me.

When I have that kind of experience, I say that there is something very rotten in the State of Denmark. We really need to address the wrong kinds of incentives that are there at the moment for many bureaucratic councils. I think it is good to incentivise some behaviour, namely, getting the consents done on time and, as is normal in legislation passed by this House, to impose a penalty for the failure to adhere to statutory timetables. After all, if we as a Parliament put in place statutory timetables and no penalty is attached to breaching them, then we have not made good law but have only given good advice—and good advice, too often, is simply ignored by people who have no real interest in advancing developments in our cities and towns.

I will come back to the point just made by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that somehow or other this bill will impose extra costs on taxpayers. It need not.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Ratepayers.

GORDON COPELAND: Ratepayers, I beg the member’s pardon. It need not. In fact, I believe that the bill will reduce the cost on ratepayers, and I will tell members exactly how it will do that. The logic of extra costs on ratepayers is wrong for two reasons. First of all, we are talking about consent fees. We are providing a service to people who are seeking a consent—people who want to get on and do something useful for their community and for their own private homes. They are the people whom we are charging. If we were to impose penalties, the incentive would be for the council to get the job done quickly.

Furthermore, if that does not work, I will tell the House exactly how we will get the thing fixed, and it is simply this. We either deduct the extra cost to the councils from the chief executives’ salaries, or we drop the chief executives’ salaries and we simply give them a bonus to have the consent fees done on time. That will change everything, because there are chief executives of councils in relatively small cities, such as Wellington, who are paid a great deal more than the Prime Minister. I do not see them having any incentive at all to get on and do these consent fees properly, and that is the aim of this bill.

Let us face it, the aim of this bill is to let development proceed and to ensure that statutory timetables are adhered to, and I see nothing wrong with that, at all. If local authorities do that, then I will put money on it that the delays will disappear overnight if they incentivise their chief executives to have the consent fees done on time. [Interruption] It really has nothing to do—with all due respect to the interjections—with the new Building Act, because the new Act simplifies the consent process by giving certainty to it, and that was one of its aims. So I think that is really a complete red herring.

I signal, with pleasure, United Future’s support for this bill, at this stage for the first reading only. Let us put the matter to a select committee, let us hear the submissions, and let us move this whole process forward as an important way of allowing developments in this country to go ahead, consistent with good standards, but with the lowest possible compliance costs.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga): The Labour member Clayton Cosgrove was very robust in his speech. I actually saw sweat running down his face, but I noticed that it was running off one side of his face—he is obviously not level-headed.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That’s a funny one, Bob.

BOB CLARKSON: I thought it was pretty good.

The Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill is an important amendment to the Building Act 2004. I thank Nick Smith for putting this amendment bill forward for consideration. This member’s bill was drawn out in the first ballot—the Lord works in mysterious ways. It is very necessary that bureaucrats be pulled into line with the law. We cannot allow councils to get away with dragging their feet—there must be some accountability. If consents are late—

Hon David Benson-Pope: Send it to the local councils! Say it again!

BOB CLARKSON: The member should stop rattling.

If consents are in breach of the time frame, a penalty must be paid. I know of cases where consents were held up for many months. The delays cost builders thousands of dollars in lost time. I know of a case where the owner of a project about to be constructed has finally pulled the pin—he has given up waiting. In that case, Tauranga has lost a good business.

I get quite upset when builders wait weeks after the 20-day limit. There is no communication from the council in a lot of cases. The bureaucrat should have a checklist to see whether anything is missing—they use that as an excuse quite often—or whether anything has been done wrong, and they should notify the person who lodged the permit within days of the lodging if something is missing. When councils are busy, they write a letter to builders asking for further information. This stops the clock as far as the 20 days is concerned. The letter takes 3 days to get to builders, so they have already lost 3 days before they can react. If the builder gives the council the information it requires, the clock starts ticking again. Then the council sends another letter asking for more information, and the delay process starts again. This is a ridiculous situation. As I have said before, why does the council not have a checklist and notify builders of any problems once only?

I know of cases where an engineering report was requested about the design of a 12-metre door. Then, 1 week later, the council asked whether the offices had air conditioning. Both of those requests could have been made at about the same time, thus saving a total period of 2 weeks. The 12-metre door was being manufactured by a recognised door manufacturer, and it needed only a producer statement, not a design, when the job was finished. There was no air conditioning in the offices, and the plans showed that. Why did the council ask those questions? It was to slow down the process. In this case, the council stretched 20 days out to 34 days. There has still been no permit issued on the project I am talking about. This is costing the developer $12,000 a week in delays.

Lindsay Tisch: How much?

BOB CLARKSON: It is costing $12,000. The developer paid $6 million for the land. Members opposite may not be able to work it out, but it is $12,000 a week down the drain.

That type of situation must stop happening. There must be a penalty if it happens—that is, no fee will be paid. I think the bill is not tough enough. I would like to see a penalty for every day that the consent is late, or the builder should be allowed to start work if the consent is not issued. That might be too tough on the bureaucrats, but we need to let them know that we mean business.

There is another situation in Tauranga where the time limit of 20 days has been passed. The council decided 6 months ago to bring out new impact fees, and all that sort of stuff. It has had 500 applications for permits in the last couple of weeks. That caused chaos in the council, and it could not process the permits for the simple reason that it had not asked which application was urgent and which one did not matter—it was just trying to beat the impact fee deal. So that has caused major problems, and the Tauranga City Council is way behind.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): The member of the Opposition Bob Clarkson knows a little about building, but, with respect, I point out that he shows a clear lack of understanding about local authorities’ functions. The Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill is the most ridiculous bill I have seen on a members’ day. It simply shifts the costs of building consents that take more than 20 days from the applicant to whom? To the ratepayer. Members should wait until the ratepayer hears about this, because there are overheads related to the building consent process that have to be met by somebody. Obviously, the member opposite does not even understand that.

This is simply astonishing from a member who purports to understand building issues processes. That member and members opposite have whinged and carped about Government cost-shifting on to local authorities. It is one of National’s key lines of rhetoric. It is simplistic and naive. Its approach to the building consent process is an absolute flop, because it has completely the wrong incentives. It shows a lack of local government experience, a lack of knowledge about the current building consent process, and, above all, a lack of trust in local authorities.

I have heard amazing speeches that will be recorded in Hansard and will be useful when we go out to build relationships with local authorities. National members say local authorities are just a bunch of bureaucrats who deliberately hold back and delay on the building consent process. Why would they do that? There is absolutely no incentive for them to do so. This bill will add to ratepayer and business costs. We will enjoy going out there and telling local authorities about that. The bill also puts at risk, for building practitioners, development initiatives that are already under way.

A “free consent” is a nonsense notion. The cost has to be met somewhere. [Interruption] I tell Mr Clarkson that this is not about imposing a fine on the local authority. That is not part of this bill. This says that after 20 days, the consent is free. Who will pay for it? The cost will fall on the ratepayer. People will soon know about it. The decision chain—something members opposite purport to understand in their rhetoric about compliance costs—lies with local councils. Who will meet the cost? The ratepayer will. Let us make it right. The wrong incentives are in this bill. It also contains an interesting mechanism: it will stop the clock, as people seek clarification on consent, near the 20-day line. It will slow it down. I do not understand what the member is even trying to attempt.

The bill should not be referred to the select committee. Quality will give way to speed, thus risking safety. In fact, in the Social Services Committee we are currently looking at the weathertight homes legislation, needed because of “speedy” decisions that compromised quality and compromised safety. I cannot believe that the member opposite thinks his bill is a responsible bill. It puts more uncertainty into a currently booming construction industry. That is why there are delays—there is such a booming industry going on. Indeed, 81,500 total authorisations were given out by 30 June this year. That is what is putting the pressure on local authorities, not the process for local authorities.

The Government is doing something about that. It is improving quality and the time lines of the building consent process. It is doing that by auditing, monitoring, and accreditation. All the members opposite know that fact. The registration of building consent authorities will be completed by 30 November 2007. This bill is absolutely silent on building consent authorities. It has so many gaps, one could drive a bus through it. Penalties are not the levers this Government intends to use. We will not be supporting this bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): At the beginning of this parliamentary term, the Prime Minister said that the No. 1 goal for Parliament this year should be improving productivity. Yet we have our biggest industry—the building industry—where nearly 50 percent of building consents are not being processed on time and, when faced with a practical bill to address that, the Government sticks its head in the sand. There was not even an acknowledgment from any Labour member that there is a substantive problem for builders, for average citizens, trying to get a practical consent for their particular building project.

I thank United Future, the Māori Party, and the Green Party—

Hon Member: New Zealand First?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —well, I understand that New Zealand First is being its normal poodle for the Government—for at least saying that this is an issue that will—

Barbara Stewart: We are supporting it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My sincere apologies. So the Labour Party is the only party with its head in the sand, pretending this is not a real problem.

I address the specific issue in respect of the costs of rates. There is a very simple solution: the councils should do consents on time. If councils process consents within the 20 working days, there is not a penny of cost for the ratepayer. The part that really disturbs me about Labour’s attitude on this bill is that it basically says it is OK for bureaucrats to break the law; it is OK for this Parliament to have a law that says that 20 days—

Darren Hughes: What did the High Court judge say about this?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask Labour members opposite what penalty they are proposing for a council when it breaks the 20 - working day requirement. The silence is deafening. Basically, they are saying there should be absolutely no requirement for bureaucrats to obey the law. We on this side of the House say there are penalties all through the law for any citizen, any builder, or anybody else who breaks the law, so there should be a penalty for councils if they break the law.

I again draw the attention of this House to the experience of the Hamilton City Council, because it has adopted this policy in its own area. It has been able to have 100 percent compliance. If we look at the survey done by the Sunday Star-Times, we find further that the cost for applying for building consents in Hamilton is perfectly reasonable. So doing this has not put up the cost. In fact, the interesting fact is that some of the most expensive councils are those with the worst record for delays.

Also, in respect of Hamilton, is there any evidence at all to back up the Minister’s claim that this measure would result in a drop in quality? I challenge him to produce the data from Hamilton that show there is any less quality in the building consent processing. What was extraordinary about the Minister’s contribution to this debate was his example of inspections. Well, that is nothing to do with this bill. This bill is about the “consenting” part, where a council has to make a decision as to whether the plans and the application are appropriate to grant a consent.

I say again to this House, this is a $13 billion-a-year industry. This industry employs 150,000 people. I have been inundated with a file one could not jump on, which is full of examples from New Zealanders and builders who are frustrated with the delays, and who strongly support this bill. For example, the master builders, the Certified Builders Association, the Business Council, and Business New Zealand are all indicating strong support for this initiative, because they see it as a practical way in which we can improve productivity and reduce compliance costs.

I welcome the fact that this bill is going to a select committee. Regardless of what Labour says, this is a real issue for ordinary New Zealanders. It is sensible that it goes to a select committee, so that we can then make sure that building consents are more efficiently processed. I am just simply surprised that, again, Labour is on the side of bureaucrats, it is on the side of lawbreakers, and it has absolutely no regard for compliance costs or for productivity. It is good that this bill will get through this House, so that we can address a real, practical issue for New Zealanders and for builders.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 69

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2.

Noes 51

New Zealand Labour 50; Progressive 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill is about putting some integrity back into the process of the Resource Management Act. New Zealanders were appalled in March when the Minister of Conservation overturned the decision of the Environment Court in respect of the Whangamata marina. It had never happened before. It was unjust, it was unfair, and as so many commentators noted—and even Dover Samuels—this decision brought the whole resource consent process into disrepute.

Let me get on the record some of the background to the Whangamata marina. This consent was lodged 14 years ago. What does it say about resource consents that it takes 14 years to be able to get a yes or no answer, and the society still does not have a final decision? The Thames-Coromandel District Council approved it, Environment Waikato approved it, and the Department of Conservation signed an agreement and approved it. The case was appealed to the Environment Court. For 28 days every aspect of the Whangamata marina was scrutinised in great detail. On 31 October last year the Environment Court delivered its decision, that it should proceed. That is when the mischief began.

The Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, then engaged in some of the worst political shenanigans we have ever seen in relation to the Resource Management Act, which saw the overturning of that Environment Court decision. We now know, from the paper trail, just what sorts of shenanigans were going on. Chris Carter told his mate Bob Harvey that he wanted to turn the consent down, and he said in his email: “Can you get some mates to send me emails so I can justify it.”? After he turned it down, sure enough the Minister got up in the House and said: “Look, I’ve had 127 emails in favour of my decision and 14 against, so I am justified.”. And somehow that is justice! Somehow it is fair that that sort of shenanigan overturns all those 12 years of legal process.

A week ago we saw the decision of the High Court of New Zealand in which Judge Fogarty found—no surprise—that another Government Minister had broken the law. Not once, not twice, but three times, Chris Carter broke the law in respect of the Whangamata marina. Breaking the law has become something of an art form in this disgraceful Government. We have seen it with the Prime Minister’s motorcade, with the Public Finance Act, and with the pledge card. The Government broke the law in respect of the Electoral Act during the election—it has made it an art form. And we have seen, even in Parliament today, a Minister of the Crown, Phillip Field, involved in appalling conduct in respect of immigration—again, breaking the law.

It has become almost habitual for Ministers in this Government to be breaking the law. This bill offers the opportunity to put that injustice right. This bill will see the Whangamata Marina Society—

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is the second bill that this member has introduced into the House today and, for the second time, this member—who has been here for 16 years now, I think—has not indicated to the House which select committee he might like to refer the bill to at the end of the first reading. He did that with the first bill, and we did not make a big fuss about it—he ended up indicating which select committee at the end of his speech. He has done this again with this bill. He is a member who, on a previous occasion, stopped the Hon Phil Goff from sending a bill to a select committee on this very point, so I am just trying to decide whether Labour will be as petty as this man has been in the past. It is the second time he has done this.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I point out that the requirement in the Standing Order is that in the course of the speech I refer to which select committee the bill is going to.

Darren Hughes: At the beginning.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No; it simply says that I must indicate that in the course of the speech. That point is, absolutely, in my speech notes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): All right. Please continue.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is just another typical Labour interruption. For the member’s record, so he does not get into the petty tactic of interrupting my speech again, I will be referring this bill—no surprise—to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which deals with Resource Management Act issues.

Darren Hughes: Get it right—start at the beginning.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Speaker has just ruled that it is perfectly proper to indicate that at any point during the speech.

Darren Hughes: At the beginning.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No; it simply says to indicate at any stage.

Now, of course, this bill does not deal with getting justice in respect of Whangamata alone. It proposes the repeal of the veto for all coastal resource consents. This is sound policy that stands well on its merits, even if we had a Minister of integrity. I came to the conclusion during my period as Minister of Conservation, when I dealt with nearly 150 such consents—

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am surprised that the member was not interrupted for accusing another Minister of not having integrity. That is well outside the Standing Orders. It is unparliamentary language. The member tonight, during the course of the debate, has interrupted other members on that point. He simply cannot say what he just said about the Minister of Conservation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member cannot accuse another member of not having integrity—he knows that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The term I used was that this bill makes sense regardless of whether the Minister has integrity.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): I think the implication is exactly the same thing. The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. But let us get it on the record that the High Court of New Zealand has said that the Minister broke the law three times—not once, not twice, but three times.

Darren Hughes: What did the High Court say about this man?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to that member that he should start to explain why Chris Carter broke the law. Is that acceptable—

Darren Hughes: Tell them what the High Court judge said about this man. The High Court judge didn’t believe him.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That useless member from up on the Kapiti coast will not explain to the House why it is acceptable for Chris Carter to break the law not once, not twice, but three times. Mr Hughes is getting a bit sensitive because he knows that this rotten Labour Government, which keeps breaking the law on every front, keeps getting caught out. I say to the House that it is perfectly appropriate that we remove from the law the ministerial veto. In the 150 consents that I dealt with during my time as Minister, not once did I interfere in the decisions of the Environment Court. I came to the conclusion that all it would do was to add many extra months of delay—all it would do was to add to the cost and uncertainty of the resource consent process. We should be looking for every opportunity to remove unnecessary delays in the resource consent process, and that is what this bill is all about.

The first reason for removing the veto is that as we now know from the High Court, the power is actually incredibly narrow. The Minister cannot reconsider the evidence. The Minister cannot re-conduct a hearing. The Minister’s powers are actually so constrained that it makes a nonsense of the existing law. The second reason that the veto needs to go is that the Minister already has ample powers to protect our coastal environment. Let me explain the powers the Minister already has. The Minister of Conservation writes and approves the national Coastal Policy Statement. He approves every regional coastal policy statement. He appoints a member to the hearings committee that hears the consents. He has the right to submit; he also has the right to appeal. Surely, with the Minister having five levers to pull in respect of any coastal consent, it should mean that he does not also need a veto.

Our opponents have said of this bill that National put the provision of the ministerial veto into the law in 1991. That ignores two facts. The first, of course, is that it actually was Labour’s original Resource Management Bill. But also in 1991 there was no national Coastal Policy Statement to constrain councils or the court. There were no regional coastal plans, so in 1991 it was reasonable, when there were no checks, to have a ministerial veto. But now that those checks are in place it is appropriate that this power goes, and that it is the conclusion that National came to in 1998 when it developed its Resource Management Act reform package.

I say this in conclusion. This is a sound bill that will give justice to the Whangamata Marina Society. What happened to its members is an outrage. The expenditure of $1.5 million and 14 years of waiting for a consent were undone by the dodgy dealings of a Minister—dealings that have now been found by a court of law, the High Court, to be unlawful. This is a bill that will restore integrity to the resource consent process. It is a bill that will reduce delays and costs in the Resource Management Act. It is a bill that will provide a cleaner, fairer process for all those who are involved in the resource consent process. This is a bill that goes to the core of the constitutional separation of powers. It is proper for Ministers to write plans; it is not proper for Ministers to veto decisions of the court, and it is outrageous when it is done in the dodgy way that Chris Carter embarrassed our entire nation with in his decision on the Whangamata marina.

I say to this Government that it should apologise for what Mr Carter did and support this bill, so that no other citizen or group is put through the nonsense that those poor members of the Whangamata Marina Society got from Chris Carter and this Government.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua): I rise to take a call on the Resource Management (Restricted Coastal Activities) Amendment Bill, or a “Waste of Time Bill”. The bill proposed by the member for Nelson is unnecessary, reactionary, and a waste of valuable parliamentary time. The bill proposed is just one more example of his continued opposition to the Resource Management Act and its mechanisms for environmental sustainability, community participation, and quality of life for all New Zealanders. The member for Nelson is constitutionally incapable of understanding or appreciating the human value of those things, not to mention the dollar value of sustainable environmental practices and of New Zealand’s clean, green image. Therefore, the idea of a balanced approach to development is an anathema to him.

The list of lies and misleading statements about the Resource Management Act made by Opposition members makes long and sorry reading. Just a couple of months ago, Maurice Williamson stated National’s real desire: to tear the guts out of the Resource Management Act. Dr Smith has bleated on about the need for changes to the Resource Management Act that have already been made by the Government, but that he pretends have not happened.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.